Survey of the qualitative properties of fractional difference operators: monotonicity, convexity, and asymptotic behavior of solutions
 Lynn Erbe^{1},
 Christopher S Goodrich^{2},
 Baoguo Jia^{3} and
 Allan Peterson^{1}Email author
https://doi.org/10.1186/s1366201607603
© Erbe et al. 2016
Received: 18 November 2015
Accepted: 18 January 2016
Published: 5 February 2016
Abstract
In this article we discuss some of the qualitative properties of fractional difference operators. We especially focus on the connections between the fractional difference operator and the monotonicity and convexity of functions. In the integerorder setting, these connections are elementary and well known. However, in the fractionalorder setting the connections are very complicated and muddled. We survey some of the known results and suggest avenues for future research. In addition, we discuss the asymptotic behavior of solutions to fractional difference equations and how the nonlocal structure of the fractional difference can be used to deduce these asymptotic properties.
Keywords
MSC
1 Introduction and preliminaries
1.1 The integerorder calculus
Although perhaps taken for granted, one very important consequence of this local nature of the preceding operators is that the operators possess a strong connection to the monotone behavior of f. In particular, as every first semester calculus student learns, given a differentiable function \(f : X\subset\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb {R}\), it is geometrically obvious that if \(f'(x)>0\) for all x in some open set \(U\Subset X\), then it follows that f is increasing on U̅. More precisely, the mean value theorem establishes this connection rigorously. The situation in the discrete case is even more transparent, for if \(\Delta f(t)\ge0\), say for \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a}\), then we immediately obtain \(f(t+1)\ge f(t)\), for each \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a}\), whence f is increasing on \(\mathbb{N}_{a}\). Hence, here we do not even need a deep result from analysis such as the mean value theorem.
1.2 The fractionalorder calculus: the delta difference case
Recently there has been much interest in a ‘fractionalized’ version of (1.1). In this setting we allow for the order of the difference to be a real number that is not necessarily an integer. While our interest in this survey will mostly be confined to the pure mathematical interest in this generalization, suffice it to say there are applicative reasons to consider a fractional difference operator  for example, the reader may consult the article by Atici and Şengül [1], which details some possible applications of discrete fractional differences to tumor modeling, wherein the authors use the order of the fractional difference to modulate their growth model so as to better align with collected data.
While there are many possible definitions of the discrete fractional difference in use, one of the more common ones is the socalled RiemannLiouville forward fractional difference. It is defined by first defining a fractional sum. To accomplish this, we give the following definition.
Definition 1.1
Example 1.2
Definition 1.3
Definition 1.4
A very important point regarding Definition 1.4 is that the domain of the map \(t\mapsto\Delta_{a}^{\nu}f(t)\) is different from the domain of the map \(t\mapsto f(t)\). This is (to those familiar with the discrete fractional calculus) the wellknown domain shifting peculiarity of the forward fractional difference. To emphasize this point going forward, let us make the following remark.
Remark 1.5
As Definition 1.4 demonstrates, by definition, the fractional forward difference shifts the domain of f from \(\mathbb {N}_{a}\) to \(\mathbb{N}_{a+N\nu}\). On the one hand, this is really just a minor irritation and causes little more than bookkeeping difficulties when analyzing fractional differences. On the other hand, as we shall see later the nabla (i.e., backward) fractional difference does not possess this peculiarity, and, as such, it is suggestive of some dissimilarities between the forward and backward fractional differences and their associated operational properties. We shall see this more fully later.
We cannot emphasize enough in what bold relief this stands against the classical (i.e., integerorder) difference defined in (1.1). Indeed, this implicit nonlocal structure is responsible not only for the mathematical interest of the discrete fractional difference but also its tremendous complexity. In particular, because we take rather for granted the implication that \(\Delta y(t)\ge0\) implies that y is increasing, it is all too easy to forget what a strong role the local nature of the integerorder operator plays in facilitating the proof of that result (or the analogous result regarding \(f'\), for that matter). By introducing the nonlocal structure, it turns out that things are no longer so simple and straightforward. Indeed, as we shall quickly see in Section 2, the connection, for example, between the sign of \(\Delta_{a}^{\nu}f(t)\), in the case \(1<\nu<2\), and the monotone behavior of f is quite muddled, complex, and even, at times, unexpected. All of this is due to the nonlocal nature of the fractional difference.
1.3 The fractionalorder calculus: the nabla difference case
Having provided some of the basics of the fractional delta difference in the preceding subsection, in this subsection we provide some basic details regarding the nabla or, if one prefers, backward fractional difference. While constructed in an evidently similar way with respect to the fractional delta difference, in the end we shall see some key, and, indeed, perhaps unexpected, dissimilarities between the two operators.
The fractionalorder nabla difference and sum are defined in a manner analogous with the delta fractional difference. In particular, we first introduce a suitable Taylor monomial, and then use this to construct the associated nabla difference and sum. In particular, let us make the following definition, which is analogous with Definition 1.1.
Definition 1.6
We then can define the nabla fractional Taylor monomial functions as follows.
Definition 1.7
Finally, using Definitions 1.61.7 we can define a fractional nabla difference and sum.
Definition 1.8
Definition 1.9
We would like to note, as this will be important later in Section 2.2, that Erbe et al. have noticed (see [2]) that the form of \(\nabla_{a}^{\nu}\) in Definition 1.9 can be written in a slightly different and sometimes more useful way. We state this result next as Lemma 1.10.
Lemma 1.10
There is a second important point worth making regarding Definitions 1.81.9 as compared to Definitions 1.31.4. Notice that the fractional nabla sum and difference do not induce a domain shift in the way that the fractional delta sum and difference induce. Practically this means that if f is defined on \(\mathbb{N}_{a}\), then so, too, is the map \(t\mapsto\nabla_{a}^{\mu}f(t)\). Thus, at least in this one sense, nabla fractional operators are somewhat easier to work with than their delta counterparts. As we go through the remainder of this survey we shall see some additional dissimilarities between these two operators, particularly as concerns their relationship to monotonicity and convexity.
1.4 Overview of the article

the relationship between the sign of the fractional difference and monotonicity and convexity; and

asymptotic behavior of solutions to fractional difference equations.
All in all, then, the outline of the remainder of this survey is as follows. In Section 2 we provide an uptodate treatment of the relationship between \(\Delta_{a}^{\nu}f(t)\) and \(\nabla_{a}^{\nu}f(t)\), in the case where \(1<\nu<2\), and the associated monotone behavior of the map \(t\mapsto f(t)\). We mention both the results in the delta case and the nabla case. In Section 3 we then conduct the same sort of study, but here we focus on the relationship between these operators and the convexity or concavity of the map f; thus, here we shall focus on the setting where \(2<\nu<3\). Once again, we treat both the delta and the nabla cases. Finally, in Section 4 we demonstrate how these operators induce certain asymptotic properties in the solutions of fractional initial value problems.
For the most part in our discussion we eschew the proofs of the relevant results since we wish here to give the reader a broad overview of the current frontier of this area of research. Nonetheless, we do, at times, provide some of the proofs in order to illustrate, broadly speaking, the techniques that are utilized to establish the results; we hope this will be of interest to readers wishing to contribute to this area. In any case, for more details on the proofs of these results, the interested reader can consult either the relevant papers, which we cite, or Chapter 7 of the textbook by Goodrich and Peterson [3].
1.5 Suggestions for further reading
Finally, we wish to conclude our introduction by highlighting some relevant articles for the interested reader, who wishes to go beyond the introduction provided by this survey. There are a great many articles nowadays on discrete fractional calculus; here we briefly recall a few of these, and we then direct the reader to the relevant references in these articles for additional reading.
First of all, for a general overview of the discrete fractional calculus, together with substantial background on the integerorder difference calculus, we direct the interested reader to the textbook by Goodrich and Peterson [3]. This book contains not only a treatment of the integer and fractionalorder discrete calculus on the time scale \(\mathbb{Z}\) with both delta and nabla differences, but also contains a treatment of the wellknown qcalculus as well as the socalled mixed time scales. Of particular relevance, a greatly expanded discussion of fractional Taylor monomials is contained in the book.
Second of all, regarding research articles, depending upon one’s interest there are a great many relevant articles that have appeared in the past five to ten years. After the initial work of Atici and Eloe [4–7], which served to pique mathematicians’ interest in discrete fractional calculus, a number of subsequent works have appeared. For example, if one wishes to delve further into the operational properties of the discrete fractional calculus, one can consult the papers by Anastassiou [8–16], Atici and Acar [17], Atici and Eloe [4–6, 18, 19], Atici and Uyanik [20], Baoguo et al. [21, 22], Jia et al. [2, 23, 24], Čermák and Nechvátal [25], Čermák et al. [26], Dahal and Goodrich [27, 28], Ferreira [29], Goodrich [30, 31], and Holm [32]. Ahrendt et al. [33] and Holm [34] have considered the Laplace transform and its application in various discrete fractional problems. On the other hand, for those interested in the development and analysis of boundary and initial value problems with fractional differences, one may consult, for example, the works by Agarwal et al. [35], Atici and Eloe [7, 36], Awasthi [37, 38], Aswathi et al. [39], Baleanu et al. [40], Dahal et al. [41], Ferreira [42], Ferreira and Goodrich [43, 44], Goodrich [45–54], He et al. [55], Holm [56], Lv et al. [57], and Sitthiwirattham et al. [58], and Sitthiwirattham [59]. There are also some papers detailing extensions of the fractional calculus on the time scale \(\mathbb{Z}\) to other time scales, and one may consult Bastos et al. [60], Ferreira [61, 62], Ferreira and Torres [63], and Graef and Kong [64]. Consideration of various inequalities in the discrete fractional calculus (e.g., Grüss and Gronwalltype inequalities) have been considered by Akin et al. [65], Güvenilir et al. [66], and Xu and Zhang [67]. Very recently Jia et al. have investigated asymptotic behavior of solutions to initial value problems in discrete fractional calculus [68–70]. Finally, there has recently been some interesting attempts to investigate the chaotic behavior of fractional discrete dynamical systems, and the paper by Wu and Baleanu [71] may be consulted to see the directions that this research has taken.
All in all, then, there is a wide and growing body of literature on discrete fractional calculus. In particular, the nonlocal structure of the fractional operators induce substantial difficulties in their analysis and significant dissimilarities in comparison with their integerorder counterparts. Therefore, we believe that this will continue to be a wellspring of interesting mathematics in the foreseeable future. We hope that this paper serves as an invitation for additional researchers to join us in investigating this surprisingly complex and subtle area of analysis.
2 Monotonicity
2.1 Results for the delta fractional difference
As mentioned in Section 1, the following is a wellknown fact in the difference calculus, and indeed requires almost no effort to prove.
Proposition 2.1
Let \(f : \mathbb{N}_{a}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\). Then \(\Delta y(t)\ge0\) for each \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a}\) if and only if y is increasing on \(\mathbb{N}_{a}\).
In light of this, a natural question is whether such a result holds in the discrete fractional setting. In particular, we might wonder whether the following statement is true: ‘If \(1<\nu<2\) and \(\Delta_{a}^{\nu }y(t)\ge0\) for each \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a+N\nu}\), then y is increasing on \(\mathbb{N}_{a}\).’ As it turns out, the answer to this seemingly innocuous conjecture is rather complicated and subtle.
The first researchers to consider this question were Dahal and Goodrich. They obtained the following result, which can be seen as a partial affirmative answer to the preceding question. In order to illustrate to the reader the method of proof utilized by Dahal and Goodrich, we provide the proof in full. This will also illustrate the seriously complicating effect of the nonlocal structure of the fractional difference. We also point out that the statement and proof of this result may also be found in [27], Theorem 2.2, and [3], Theorem 7.2. Prior to stating and proving the monotonicity result, we need to recall a preliminary lemma, which is due to Holm [32] and is of independent interest.
Lemma 2.2
Theorem 2.3
Let \(y : \mathbb{N}_{0}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\) be a nonnegative function satisfying \(y(0)=0\). Fix \(\nu\in(1,2)\) and suppose that \(\Delta _{0}^{\nu}y(t)\ge0\) for each \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{2\nu}\). Then y is increasing on \(\mathbb{N}_{0}\).
Proof
The manner in which Dahal and Goodrich proved this result was by the principle of strong induction. So, we follow the same method here.
One may make a couple of observations regarding Theorem 2.3 and its proof. First of all, we notice that the proof is vastly more complicated than that of Proposition 2.1, and this is due precisely to the presence of the nonlocal elements in the definition of the fractional difference. Second of all, however, one may notice that the hypotheses of Theorem 2.3 contain some unusual restrictions  namely, that \(y(0)=0\) and that y be nonnegative. This is slightly surprising since such restrictions evidently are not required in the integerorder setting. Indeed, it makes no difference whether y is negative or positive in Proposition 2.1, nor is it necessary that \(y(0)=0\).
As such, in light of the statement of Theorem 2.3 one may reasonably ask the following question: Is it possible to eliminate the condition \(\Delta y(0)\ge0\), which implicitly occurs in the statement of this theorem? Note that this is because we assume that \(y(0)=0\) and that y is also nonnegative. In some sense, the implicit requirement that \(\Delta y(0)\ge0\) hold is odd, for it implies that \(\Delta_{a}^{\nu}f(t)\ge0\) is, in isolation, insufficient to ensure the monotonicity of f, that, rather, we need a sort of ‘initial increasingness’ as embodied by the condition \(\Delta y(0)\ge0\). Certainly, this is not required in the integerorder setting  i.e., if \(\Delta y(t)\ge0\) for \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{1}\), then f is increasing on \(\mathbb{N}_{1}\) by Proposition 2.1; we do not need \(\Delta f(0)\ge0\).
Perhaps surprisingly, the answer to the preceding query is that the condition \(\Delta y(0)\ge0\) cannot be eliminated without replacing it with other suitable auxiliary condition. That is to say, the condition that the fractional difference be nonnegative is insufficient in isolation to guarantee the monotonicity of f. And it was Jia et al. who discovered this. To illustrate explicitly their discovery, we present next the original example that they provided  see [2, 3] for this example.
Example 2.4

\(\Delta_{0}^{\nu}f(t)\ge0\) for \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{2\nu}\),

\(f(t)\ge0\) for \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{0}\),

f is nonincreasing on \(\mathbb{N}_{1}\).
Thus, Example 2.4 definitively establishes that, in general, Proposition 2.1 does not carry over to the discrete fractional setting with delta difference. On the one hand, this is surprising, for one might expect, at a minimum, the fractional difference to preserve this wellknown property of the integerorder operator. However, upon more careful thought, due to the nonlocal structure of the fractional operator, this is perhaps less surprising.
It turns out that this is not quite the end of the story, however, for it is possible to generalize Theorem 2.3 by introducing a suitable hypothesis. This generalization was accomplished by Jia et al. (see [2]), and their work represented the first significant extension and, more importantly, refinement of the original work by Dahal and Goodrich.
Corollary 2.5
Let \(y : \mathbb{N}_{0}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\) be a nonnegative function. Fix \(\nu\in(1,2)\) and suppose that \(\Delta_{0}^{\nu}y(t)\ge0\), for each \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{2\nu}\). If \(\Delta y(0)\ge0\), then y is increasing on \(\mathbb{N}_{0}\).
Thus, we see that the addition of the condition \(\Delta y(0)\ge0\) allows the result to hold. Obviously, the statement of Theorem 2.3 ensures that this is so since if y is nonnegative and satisfies \(y(0)=0\), then \(\Delta y(0)\ge0\).
It turns out that Corollary 2.5 is not even the last word on the subject. In fact, the condition \(\Delta y(0)\ge0\) while sufficient is not necessary insofar as it can be replaced by a somewhat weaker condition. And this particular refinement was recently produced jointly by Baoguo et al. (see [22]). Before stating this most uptodate monotonicity theorem, which is Theorem 2.7, we first state a preliminary lemma, namely Lemma 2.6. This lemma was originally proved by Jia et al. [2]. In fact, this was the key discovery necessary to upgrade the result of Theorem 2.3 to the result of Corollary 2.5. Moreover, the lemma plays a key role in establishing Theorem 2.7.
Lemma 2.6
As can be seen, Lemma 2.6 establishes a lower bound on \(\Delta f(a+k+1)\) that must be observed whenever \(\Delta_{a}^{\nu}f(t)\ge0\) holds. This lower control over the firstorder difference of f is a truly important observation. Indeed, it facilitates all of the refined monotonicity results (e.g., Corollary 2.5 and Theorem 2.7). It seems that without this lemma in hand, one must prove associated monotonicity results in the more technical manner that, say, Theorem 2.3 is established. In any case, we now state and prove our next monotonicity result.
Theorem 2.7
Proof
Example 2.8
ν  1.2  1.4  1.6  1.8 
Condition:  \(f(a+1)\ge\frac{3}{5}f(a)\)  \(f(a+1)\ge\frac {7}{10}f(a)\)  \(f(a+1)\ge\frac{4}{5}f(a)\)  \(f(a+1)\ge\frac{9}{10}f(a)\) 
Remark 2.9
The statement of Theorem 2.7 is the most general known result for monotonicity theorems when using the delta fractional difference. Obviously, the condition given in the statement of this theorem is sufficient. Whether it is also necessary, however, is, to the best of the authors’ knowledge still an open question. It would be interesting to establish whether this is the case, and, if it is not necessary, whether one can derive a sharp result.
Remark 2.10
Note also that Theorem 2.7 does not require that f be a nonnegative map. This represents an improvement over Theorem 2.3. However, if f happens to be nonnegative, as we assumed in Example 2.8, for instance, then one can obtain more refined information from Theorem 2.7. For refinements in this direction, we encourage the interested reader to consult the forthcoming paper [22].
2.2 Results for the nabla fractional difference
In this section we consider some additional monotonicitytype results but, crucially, when the nabla difference is utilized instead. One might reasonably suppose that the results would parallel the delta case. However, it turns out that this is not quite the case. Instead, as we shall see momentarily, there is a rather stronger connection between monotonicity and the sign of \(\nabla_{a}^{\nu}f(t)\).
To begin, as we did in the previous subsection, let us recall the following, obvious result from the integerorder difference calculus.
Proposition 2.11
The map \(y : \mathbb{N}_{a}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\) is increasing on \(\mathbb{N}_{a}\) if and only if \(\nabla y(t)\ge0\) for \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a+1}\).
As with the delta case, we see that Proposition 2.11 is really a triviality. Passing to the fractionalorder case, however, something very interesting happens. Before stating the monotonicity result we obtain in the nabla setting, we require a preliminary lemma. This particular lemma is the nabla analog of Lemma 2.6, and it was similarly established by Jia et al.  see [2], Section 2; we omit its proof.
Lemma 2.12
As with Lemma 2.6 we see that Lemma 2.12 establishes a lower bound on the nabla difference, and it does so in terms of the Taylor monomials. This is the key observation needed to establish a monotonicity result in the nabla setting. Indeed, with Lemma 2.12 in hand, we can then easily obtain the following result, Theorem 2.13, which was originally discovered by Jia et al. [2].
Theorem 2.13
Suppose that \(f : \mathbb{N}_{a}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\). If \(\nabla _{a}^{\nu}f(t)\ge0\) for each \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a+1}\), where \(1<\nu<2\), then \(\nabla f(t)\ge0\) for each \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a+2}\).
Proof
As a comparison of Theorem 2.3 to Theorem 2.13 reveals, we observe immediately that there are substantial differences between the delta and nabla cases. For example, we notice that in Theorem 2.3 we require the ‘initial monotonicity’ of the map f  i.e., we have \(f(a+1)\ge0\) and \(f(a)=0\). Even in the more refined results, namely Corollary 2.5 and Theorem 2.7, we see that some sort of additional hypothesis is required above and beyond the nonnegativity of the fractional difference.
In great contrast, we see in Theorem 2.13 that in the nabla setting the imposition of the condition \(\nabla_{a}^{\nu}f(t)\ge0\), for \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a+1}\), is sufficient that f is increasing on \(\mathbb{N}_{a+2}\). Thus, the nabla operator behaves differently in this case. And, in fact, the nabla operator behaves more naturally insofar Theorem 2.13 is a more natural analog of Proposition 2.1 than are the results in the delta difference setting.
3 Convexity
3.1 Results for the delta fractional difference
We now discuss the known connections between the delta fractional difference and the convexity of the map f. As with monotonicity the connections are not as straightforward as one might hope and certainly are more complicated than in the integerorder setting. To emphasize this fact going forward, let us first recall the following basic result.
Proposition 3.1
Let \(f : \mathbb{N}_{a}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\). Then \(\Delta^{2}y(t)>0\) for each \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a}\) if and only if y is a convex map on \(\mathbb{N}_{a}\). Similarly, \(\Delta^{2}y(t)<0\) for each \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a}\) if and only if y is a concave map on \(\mathbb{N}_{a}\).
As was mentioned in Section 1 the proof of this result is essentially trivial. If we pass to the fractionalorder setting, however, then the relationship is much more complicated. Goodrich [31] was the first to investigate this relationship, and his original result in this area was the following  see also Dahal and Goodrich [28]. (It should be noted that the original statement, i.e., in [31], omitted the hypothesis \(\Delta ^{N1}f(0)\ge0\). This was later pointed out by Jia et al. [23]. Thus, as a technical matter, the statement of Theorem 3.2 provided here really is that given in [23].)
Theorem 3.2
 (1)
\((1)^{Ni}\Delta^{i}f(a)\ge0\), for each \(i\in\mathbb {N}_{0}^{N2}\); and
 (2)
\(\Delta^{N1}f(a)\ge0\).
We omit the proof, which can be found in [31], but, essentially, the result is proved by applying Theorem 2.3 to the map \(w : \mathbb{N}_{0}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\) defined by \(w(t):=\Delta^{N2}y(t)\) to establish that w is an increasing map. An interesting corollary of this result is the following.
Corollary 3.3
For the proof of this result, one may consult either Goodrich [31] or Goodrich and Peterson [3]. Here we wish to focus on some interesting examples that follow from Corollary 3.3.
Example 3.4
Let us focus on the case \(N=3\) for a moment. Observe from the above application of Corollary 3.3 that we have a sort of unusual collection of conditions  namely, that y must be ‘initially’ negative, increasing, and convex. If all this is so and also \(\Delta_{0}^{\mu}y(t)\) is nonnegative, then we may deduce that \(\Delta^{2}y(t)\ge0\); in fact, if \(\Delta_{0}^{\mu}y(t)\) is positive, then we can actually deduce that y is a convex map  i.e., that \(\Delta^{2}y(t)>0\).
So, one perhaps unexpected aspect of this is that we require a certain ‘initial convexity’, roughly speaking, in order to obtain the result. We also have to require the auxiliary conditions on \(y(0)\) and \(\Delta y(0)\). All in all, this stands in bold relief to the integerorder case as embodied by Proposition 3.1.

\(f(a)\le0\),

\(\Delta f(a)\ge0\),

\(\Delta_{a}^{\mu}f(t)\ge0\)
Example 3.5

\(f(0)\le0\),

\(\Delta f(0)\ge0\),

\(\Delta_{0}^{2.6}f(t)\ge0\), \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{3+a\nu}\),
Thus, in light of Example 3.5 a natural question is in what way, if any way at all, can Theorem 3.2 be ameliorated. As with the connection between delta fractional differences and monotonicity this answer is frankly complicated. And to the best of the authors’ knowledge, sharp results are not known at present. Nonetheless, we can improve Theorem 3.2. The following theorem, which we state without proof, was recently proved by Goodrich in [72]. Associated to it are several corollaries, which we omit  see [72]. But we do provide an example here to illustrate the specific improvement it affords over Theorem 3.2.
Theorem 3.6
Example 3.7
Suppose that we put \(f(a):=0\), \(f(a+1):=1\), and \(f(a+2):=1.9\). Let us also fix \(\nu=\frac{5}{2}\). Then it is easy to show that inequality (3.1) holds. In spite of this, one finds that \(\Delta^{2}f(a)=\frac{1}{10}<0\). Thus, we see that Theorem 3.6 does not require any ‘initial convexity’, and in this sense, then, Theorem 3.6 can be seen as both a refinement and an improvement of Theorem 3.2.
We end this subsection with the following remark.
Remark 3.8
As previously mentioned, it is not known if the results presented here are sharp. As with the monotonicity results of Section 2 for the delta fractional difference, it would be interesting to determine precisely the optimal convexitytype result one can obtain.
3.2 Results for the nabla fractional difference
We now look at some related convexity results in the nabla fractional setting. As with the monotonicity results, we shall see quickly that the results in the nabla setting are simpler, cleaner, and more natural than those in the delta setting. Also as with the delta setting the nabla results follow from the following inequality, which is of independent interest and was first discovered by Erbe et al. [23].
Lemma 3.9
With Lemma 3.9 in hand, it is a simple matter to obtain the following convexitytype result for the nabla fractional difference.
Theorem 3.10
Assume that \(f : \mathbb{N}_{a+1}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\) satisfies \(\nabla_{a}^{\nu}f(t)\ge0\), for each \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a+1}\), where \(2<\nu <3\). Then \(\nabla^{2}f(t)\ge0\), for each \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a+3}\).
Proof
As with the monotonicity results presented in Section 2, a comparison of Theorem 3.10 to either Theorem 3.2 or 3.6 demonstrates that in the nabla setting we are able to obtain a convexitytype result that is a much more natural analog of Proposition 3.1. In particular, we do not need to impose a number of extra conditions, which are not necessary in the integerorder setting, and so, Theorem 3.10 is cleaner in this way. So, all in all, we see yet another dissimilarity between the delta and nabla fractional differences.
3.3 Further results
In this subsection we collect some further results on the relationship between fractional differences of a map f and associated properties of f itself. We state each of these results without proof. Our first collection of results provides a relationship between the nabla fractional difference and the sign of \(\nabla^{k}f(t)\) for various choices of \(k\in\mathbb{N}\). These results were proved by Baoguo et al. [21].
Theorem 3.11
Assume that \(f : \mathbb{N}_{a}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\) satisfies \(\nabla _{a}^{\nu}f(t)\ge0\) for each \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a+1}\), where \(3<\nu<4\). Then \(\nabla^{3}f(t)\ge0\), for each \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a+4}\).
Theorem 3.12
Assume that \(f : \mathbb{N}_{a}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\) satisfies \(\nabla _{a}^{\nu}f(t)\ge0\) for each \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a+1}\), where \(4<\nu<5\). Then \(\nabla^{4}f(t)\ge0\), for each \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a+5}\).
Theorem 3.13
Assume that \(f : \mathbb{N}_{a}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\) satisfies \(\nabla _{a}^{\nu}f(t)\ge0\) for each \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a+1}\), where \(5<\nu<6\). Then \(\nabla^{5}f(t)\ge0\), for each \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a+6}\).
Notice that in each of Theorems 3.11, 3.12, and 3.13 we obtain the conclusion without the imposition of additional hypotheses. As before, this is typical when considering the nabla fractional difference.
Remark 3.14
It is possible to extend the preceding theorems to the case where \(\nu >6\). The results are analogous to those stated above, and we leave it to the reader to state and prove such results  see the discussion in [21] for additional details.
To illustrate results of a different flavor, we can study the reversal of some of the relationships we have previously deduced. That is to say, we have thus far focused on what properties of f the sign of \(\Delta_{a}^{\nu}f(t)\) or \(\nabla_{a}^{\nu}f(t)\) imply. But this question can be reversed, and we can ask what, if anything, the sign of the integerorder differences imply about the fractionalorder difference. As a particular case of this sort of result, we consider the following theorem, which was also recently proved by Baoguo et al. [22].
Theorem 3.15
 (1)
\(\Delta^{N}f(t)\ge0\), for each \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a}\),
 (2)
\((1)^{Ni}\Delta^{i}f(a)\le0\), for each \(i\in\mathbb{N}_{0}^{N1}\).
By specializing \(N\in\mathbb{N}_{1}\) to various particular values, we can obtain a suite of corollaries that follow from Theorem 3.15, one of which was earlier discovered independently as a special case. We identify certain of these special cases in the following examples.
Example 3.16

\(\Delta f(t)\ge0\), for each \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a}\),

\(f(a)\ge0\)
Example 3.17

\(\Delta^{2}f(t)>0\), for each \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a}\),

\(\Delta f(a)>0\),

\(f(a)\le0\).
Example 3.18

\(\Delta^{3}f(t)\ge0\), for each \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a}\),

\(\Delta^{2}f(t)\ge0\),

\(\Delta f(a)\le0\),

\(f(a)\ge0\).
As our final collection of examples in this subsection, we consider briefly the relationship between the socalled Caputo nabla fractional difference of a map \(t\mapsto f(t)\) and the monotonicity or convexity of f. These sorts of results were recently investigated by Erbe et al. [24]; for a more thorough introduction to Caputo fractional differences than what we provide here, the reader is encouraged to consult the textbook by Goodrich and Peterson [3].
First of all, the definition of the Caputo nabla fractional difference is as follows.
Definition 3.19
Remark 3.20
As Definition 3.19 demonstrates, the Caputo difference utilizes the ‘original’ nabla sum. As such, when working with Caputo nabla differences we utilize Definition 1.8 for our notion of a fractional sum. In other words, there is not, as such, a specialized ‘Caputotype fractional nabla sum’.
Our interest in Definition 3.19 in this paper is primarily that we can obtain the following inequality, which then leads, as a consequence, to an interesting monotonicitytype result. We omit the proofs of these results  see [3, 24].
Lemma 3.21
 (1)
\(\nabla_{a^{*}}^{\nu}f(t)\ge0\), for each \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a+1}\); and
 (2)
\(\nabla^{N1}f(a)\ge0\);
Theorem 3.22
 (1)
\(\nabla_{a^{*}}^{\nu}f(t)\ge0\), for each \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a+1}\); and
 (2)
\(f(a)\ge f(a1)\);
While it turns out that the converse of Theorem 3.22 is not necessarily true, we can obtain a partial converse. This is the following theorem.
Theorem 3.23
Assume that \(0<\nu<1\) and that \(f : \mathbb{N}_{a1}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\). If f is increasing on \(\mathbb{N}_{a}\), then \(\nabla _{a^{*}}^{\nu}f(t)\ge0\), for each \(t\in\mathbb{N}_{a+1}\).
We conclude with an example to demonstrate that the converse of Theorem 3.22 is not true, in general. This example can also be found in the textbook by Goodrich and Peterson  see [3], Example 3.135.
Example 3.24
Define the map \(f : \mathbb{N}_{1}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\) by \(f(t):=\sqrt{t}\); put \(a:=2\). Observe that \(f''(t)\ge0\) on \([1,+\infty )\). It can be argued by means of Taylor’s theorem that if f is of class \(\mathcal{C}^{2}([a,+\infty))\) and \(f''(t)\ge0\) on \([a,+\infty)\), then it follows that \(\nabla_{a^{*}}^{\nu}f(t)\ge0\) for each \(t\in\mathbb {N}_{a+1}\), provided that \(1<\nu<2\). An application of this result implies that \(\nabla_{a^{*}}^{\nu}f(t)\ge0\). However, f is actually a decreasing map, as is easily seen. Thus, we conclude that the converse of Theorem 3.22 is, in general, not true.
3.4 Results for the qfractional difference
The following two definitions appear in [25].
Definition 3.25
(Nabla fractional sum)
Definition 3.26
The power rules in the following lemma are very useful.
Lemma 3.27
 (1)the nabla qdifference of the qfactorial function \((ts)^{(\alpha)}_{q^{1}}\) with respect to t is$$_{t}\nabla_{q}(ts)_{q^{1}}^{(\alpha)}= \frac{1q^{\alpha}}{1q^{1}}(ts)_{ q^{1}}^{(\alpha1)}, $$
 (2)the nabla qdifference of the qfactorial function \((ts)^{(\alpha)}_{q^{1}}\) with respect to s is$$_{s}\nabla_{q}(ts)_{q^{1}}^{(\alpha)}= \frac{1q^{\alpha}}{1q^{1}}\bigl(tq^{ 1} s\bigr)_{q^{1}}^{(\alpha1)}, $$
The following lemma appears in [74].
Lemma 3.28
(Leibniz rule)
With the preceding preliminary results in hand, it is then possible to state monotonicity and convexitytype results associated to the qfractional difference. Here we state a couple of representative results.
In particular, in [73] the following monotonicity result is given.
Theorem 3.29
Assume \(f:q^{\mathbb {N}_{0}}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\), \(\nabla_{q}^{\nu}f(t)\geq0\) for each \(t\in q^{\mathbb {N}_{0}}\), with \(1<\nu<2\), then \(\nabla_{q} f(t)\geq0\) for \(t\in q^{\mathbb {N}_{1}}\).
Also in [73] the important convexity result is proved.
Theorem 3.30
Assume \(f:q^{\mathbb {N}_{0}}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\), \(\nabla_{q}^{\nu}f(t)\geq0\) for each \(t\in q^{\mathbb {N}_{1}}\), with \(2<\nu<3\), then \(\nabla_{q}^{2} f(t)\geq0\) for \(t\in q^{\mathbb {N}_{2}}\).
4 Qualitative behavior of solutions to fractional difference equations
4.1 Results for the delta fractional difference
Many of the results in this subsection can be found in the paper by Baoguo et al. [75] and in the references given there. First we give a comparison theorem for certain delta fractional equations of order ν, \(0<\nu<1\).
Theorem 4.1
Theorem 4.2
Theorem 4.3
Theorem 4.4
Theorems 4.3 and 4.4 give the following two results.
Theorem 4.5
Theorem 4.6
4.2 Results for the nabla fractional difference
Many of the results in this subsection can be found in the paper by Baoguo et al. [75] and in the references given therein. First we define the nabla MittagLeffler function.
Definition 4.7
The next two results give us some properties of the MittagLeffler function.
Theorem 4.8
Theorem 4.9
The following result is an important comparison theorem for nabla fractional equations.
Theorem 4.10
Theorem 4.10 gives us the following result.
Theorem 4.11
The following result follows from the comparison theorem (Theorem 4.11).
Theorem 4.12
Theorem 4.13
Theorem 4.14
From Theorem 4.12 and Theorem 4.14, we get the following result, which can be regarded as an extension of a result which appears in Atici and Eloe [36].
Theorem 4.15
In the following theorem we get conditions under which the solutions of a nabla fractional equation tend to zero.
Theorem 4.16
Theorems 4.15 and 4.16 give us the following result.
Theorem 4.17
For results similar to the results in these last two subsections for the qcalculus we refer the reader to the paper by Jia et al. [68].
Declarations
Acknowledgements
The third author was supported by The National Science Foundation of China (No. 11271380) and Guangdong Province Key Laboratory of Computational Science.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Atici, FM, Şengül, S: Modeling with fractional difference equations. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 369, 19 (2010) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Jia, B, Erbe, L, Peterson, A: Two monotonicity results for nabla and delta fractional differences. Arch. Math. (Basel) 104, 589597 (2015) View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Goodrich, C, Peterson, AC: Discrete Fractional Calculus. Springer, Berlin (2015). doi:10.1007/9783319255620 Google Scholar
 Atici, FM, Eloe, PW: A transform method in discrete fractional calculus. Int. J. Difference Equ. 2, 165176 (2007) MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Atici, FM, Eloe, PW: Discrete fractional calculus with the nabla operator. Electron. J. Qual. Theory Differ. Equ. Special Edition I, 3 (2009) Google Scholar
 Atici, FM, Eloe, PW: Initial value problems in discrete fractional calculus. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 137, 981989 (2009) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Atici, FM, Eloe, PW: Twopoint boundary value problems for finite fractional difference equations. J. Differ. Equ. Appl. 17, 445456 (2011) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Abdeljawad, T: Dual identities in fractional difference calculus within Riemann. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2013, Article ID 19 (2013) View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Abdeljawad, T: On delta and nabla Caputo fractional differences and dual identities. Discrete Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2013, Article ID 406910 (2013) MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Anastassiou, GA: Nabla discrete fractional calculus and nabla inequalities. Math. Comput. Model. 51, 562571 (2010) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Anastassiou, GA: Principles of delta fractional calculus on time scales and inequalities. Math. Comput. Model. 52, 556566 (2010) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Anastassiou, GA: Foundations of nabla fractional calculus on time scales and inequalities. Comput. Math. Appl. 59, 37503762 (2010) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Anastassiou, GA: Right nabla discrete fractional calculus. Int. J. Difference Equ. 6, 91104 (2011) MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Anastassiou, GA: qFractional inequalities. CUBO 13, 6171 (2011) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Anastassiou, GA: Elements of right delta fractional calculus on time scales. J. Concr. Appl. Math. 10, 159167 (2012) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Anastassiou, GA: Nabla fractional calculus on time scales and inequalities. J. Concr. Appl. Math. 11, 96111 (2013) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Atici, FM, Acar, N: Exponential functions of discrete fractional calculus. Appl. Anal. Discrete Math. 7, 343353 (2013) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Atici, FM, Eloe, PW: Gronwall’s inequality on discrete fractional calculus. Comput. Math. Appl. 64, 31933200 (2012) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Atici, FM, Eloe, PW: Linear forward fractional difference equations. Commun. Appl. Anal. 19, 3142 (2015) Google Scholar
 Atici, FM, Uyanik, M: Analysis of discrete fractional operators. Appl. Anal. Discrete Math. 9, 139149 (2015) View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Baoguo, J, Erbe, L, Goodrich, CS, Peterson, A: The relation between nabla fractional differences and nabla integer differences. Filomat (to appear) Google Scholar
 Baoguo, J, Erbe, L, Goodrich, CS, Peterson, A: Monotonicity results for delta fractional differences revisited. Math. Slovaca (to appear) Google Scholar
 Jia, B, Erbe, L, Peterson, A: Convexity for nabla and delta fractional differences. J. Differ. Equ. Appl. 21, 360373 (2015) View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Jia, B, Erbe, L, Peterson, A: Some relations between the Caputo fractional difference operators and integer order differences. Electron. J. Differ. Equ. 2015, 163 (2015) View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Čermák, J, Nechvátal, L: On \((q,h)\)analogue of fractional calculus. J. Nonlinear Math. Phys. 17, 5168 (2010) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Čermák, J, Kisela, T, Nechvátal, L: Discrete MittagLeffler functions in linear fractional difference equations. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2011, Article ID 565067 (2011) Google Scholar
 Dahal, R, Goodrich, CS: A monotonicity result for discrete fractional difference operators. Arch. Math. (Basel) 102, 293299 (2014) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Dahal, R, Goodrich, CS: Erratum to ‘R. Dahal, C. S. Goodrich, A monotonicity result for discrete fractional difference operators, Arch. Math. (Basel) 102 (2014), 293299’. Arch. Math. (Basel) 104, 599600 (2015) View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Ferreira, RAC: A discrete fractional Gronwall inequality. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 140, 16051612 (2012) View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Goodrich, CS: Continuity of solutions to discrete fractional initial value problems. Comput. Math. Appl. 59, 34893499 (2010) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Goodrich, CS: A convexity result for fractional differences. Appl. Math. Lett. 35, 5862 (2014) View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Holm, M: Sum and difference compositions and applications in discrete fractional calculus. CUBO 13, 153184 (2011) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Ahrendt, K, Castle, L, Holm, M, Yochman, K: Laplace transforms for the nabladifference operator and a fractional variation of parameters formula. Commun. Appl. Anal. 16, 317347 (2012) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Holm, M: The Laplace transform in discrete fractional calculus. Comput. Math. Appl. 62, 15911601 (2011) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Agarwal, RP, Ahmad, B, Alsaedi, A, AlHutami, H: Existence theory for qantiperiodic boundary value problems of sequential qfractional integrodifferential equations. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2014, Article ID 207547 (2014) MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Atici, FM, Eloe, PW: Linear systems of fractional nabla difference equations. Rocky Mt. J. Math. 41, 353370 (2011) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Awasthi, P: Existence and uniqueness of solutions of a conjugate fractional boundary value problem. Commun. Appl. Anal. 16, 529540 (2012) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Awasthi, P: Boundary value problems for a discrete selfadjoint equation. Panam. Math. J. 23, 1334 (2013) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Awasthi, P, Erbe, L, Peterson, A: Existence and uniqueness results for positive solutions of a nonlinear fractional difference equation. Commun. Appl. Anal. 9, 6178 (2015) Google Scholar
 Baleanu, D, Rezapour, S, Salehi, S: On the existence of solution for a fractional finite difference inclusion via three points boundary conditions. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2015, Article ID 242 (2015) View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Dahal, R, Duncan, D, Goodrich, CS: Systems of semipositone discrete fractional boundary value problems. J. Differ. Equ. Appl. 20, 473491 (2014) View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Ferreira, RAC: Existence and uniqueness of solution to some discrete fractional boundary value problems of order less than one. J. Differ. Equ. Appl. 19, 712718 (2013) View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Ferreira, RAC, Goodrich, CS: Positive solution for a discrete fractional periodic boundary value problem. Dyn. Contin. Discrete Impuls. Syst., Ser. A Math. Anal. 19, 545557 (2012) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Ferreira, RAC, Goodrich, CS: On positive solutions to fractional difference inclusions. Analysis 35, 7383 (2015) View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Goodrich, CS: Solutions to a discrete rightfocal boundary value problem. Int. J. Difference Equ. 5, 195216 (2010) MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Goodrich, CS: Existence and uniqueness of solutions to a fractional difference equation with nonlocal conditions. Comput. Math. Appl. 61, 191202 (2011) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Goodrich, CS: Existence of a positive solution to a system of discrete fractional boundary value problems. Appl. Math. Comput. 217, 47404753 (2011) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Goodrich, CS: On discrete sequential fractional boundary value problems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 385, 111124 (2012) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Goodrich, CS: On a discrete fractional threepoint boundary value problem. J. Differ. Equ. Appl. 18, 397415 (2012) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Goodrich, CS: On a fractional boundary value problem with fractional boundary conditions. Appl. Math. Lett. 25, 11011105 (2012) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Goodrich, CS: On discrete fractional boundary value problems with nonlocal, nonlinear boundary conditions. Commun. Appl. Anal. 16, 433446 (2012) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Goodrich, CS: On a firstorder semipositone discrete fractional boundary value problem. Arch. Math. (Basel) 99, 509518 (2012) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Goodrich, CS: On semipositone discrete fractional boundary value problems with nonlocal boundary conditions. J. Differ. Equ. Appl. 19, 17581780 (2013) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Goodrich, CS: Systems of discrete fractional boundary value problems with nonlinearities satisfying no growth conditions. J. Differ. Equ. Appl. 21, 437453 (2015) View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 He, Y, Sun, M, Hou, C: Multiple positive solutions of nonlinear boundary value problem for finite fractional difference. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2014, Article ID 147975 (2014) MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Holm, M: Solutions to a discrete, nonlinear, \((N1,1)\) fractional boundary value problem. Int. J. Dyn. Syst. Differ. Equ. 3, 267287 (2011) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Lv, Z, Gong, Y, Chen, Y: Multiplicity and uniqueness for a class of discrete fractional boundary value problems. Appl. Math. 59, 673695 (2014) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Sitthiwirattham, T, Tariboon, J, Ntouyas, SK: Boundary value problems for fractional difference equations with threepoint fractional sum boundary conditions. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2013, Article ID 296 (2013) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Sitthiwirattham, T: Existence and uniqueness of solutions of sequential nonlinear fractional difference equations with threepoint fractional sum boundary conditions. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 38, 28092815 (2015) View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Bastos, NRO, Mozyrska, D, Torres, DFM: Fractional derivatives and integrals on time scales via the inverse generalized Laplace transform. Int. J. Math. Comput. 11, 19 (2011) MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Ferreira, RAC: Nontrivial solutions for fractional qdifference boundary value problems. Electron. J. Qual. Theory Differ. Equ. 2010, 70 (2010) Google Scholar
 Ferreira, RAC: Positive solutions for a class of boundary value problems with fractional qdifferences. Comput. Math. Appl. 61, 367373 (2011) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Ferreira, RAC, Torres, DFM: Fractional hdifference equations arising from the calculus of variations. Appl. Anal. Discrete Math. 5, 110121 (2011) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Graef, J, Kong, L: Positive solutions for a class of higher order boundary value problems with fractional qderivatives. Appl. Math. Comput. 218, 96829689 (2012) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Akin, E, Asliyüce, S, Güvenilir, A, Kaymakçalan, B: Discrete Grüss type inequality on fractional calculus. J. Inequal. Appl. 2015, Article ID 174 (2015) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Güvenilir, A, Kaymakçalan, B, Peterson, AC, Taş, K: Nabla discrete fractional Grüss type inequality. J. Inequal. Appl. 2014, Article ID 86 (2014) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Xu, R, Zhang, Y: Generalized Gronwall fractional summation inequalities and their applications. J. Inequal. Appl. 2015, Article ID 242 (2015) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Jia, B, Erbe, L, Peterson, A: Asymptotic behavior of solutions of fractional nabla qdifference equations (submitted) Google Scholar
 Jia, B, Erbe, L, Peterson, A: Comparison theorems and asymptotic behavior of solutions of discrete fractional equations (submitted) Google Scholar
 Jia, B, Erbe, L, Peterson, A: Comparison theorems and asymptotic behavior of solutions of Caputo fractional equations (submitted) Google Scholar
 Wu, G, Baleanu, D: Discrete fractional logistic map and its chaos. Nonlinear Dyn. 75, 283287 (2014) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Goodrich, CS: A note on convexity, concavity, and growth conditions in discrete fractional calculus with delta difference. Math. Inequal. Appl. (to appear). doi:10.7153/mia1957
 Baoguo, J, Erbe, L, Peterson, A: Monotonicity and convexity for nabla fractional qdifferences. Dyn. Syst. Appl. (to appear) Google Scholar
 Bohner, M, Peterson, A (eds.): Advances in Dynamic Equations on Time Scales. Birkhäuser, Boston (2003) MATHGoogle Scholar
 Baoguo, J, Erbe, L, Peterson, A: Comparison theorems and asymptotic behavior of solutions of discrete fractional equations. Electron. J. Qual. Theory Differ. Equ. 2015, 89 (2015) View ArticleGoogle Scholar