AubryMather sets in semilinear asymmetric Duffing equations
 Xiaoming Wang^{1, 2}Email author
Received: 23 July 2016
Accepted: 10 November 2016
Published: 23 November 2016
Abstract
Keywords
MSC
1 Introduction
As one of the simplest but nontrivial conservative systems, equation (1.1) has been extensively and intensively studied by many researchers as regards its dynamic behavior such as periodic solutions [1–10], and the existence of bounded or unbounded solutions [11–16]. In the existing literature, a lot of work has been done to prove the existence of the periodic solutions, such as [1–10] and the references given therein, but there is little information as regards the dynamics behavior of its periodic solution. On the other hand, AubryMather theory about twist maps heavily indicates that equation (1.1) most likely possesses at least some ‘good’ periodic solutions as well as some generalized quasiperiodic solutions. This is the main objective of this paper and we will prove the existence of AubryMather sets for equation (1.1) under some suitable assumptions.
In the early 1980s, Aubry [17] and Mather [18] have proved independently that invariant curves of integral system will be broken if its perturbation increased gradually and/or the smoothness of integrable system is weakened, when they, respectively, studied a one dimensional liquid crystal model of solid state physics and the qualitative properties of the orbits of an areapreserving twist map of the annulus. They also found that when invariant curves break, they do not disappear completely, some special invariant sets still exist. Today, these invariant sets are called the AubryMather sets. For the planar differential system, AubryMather theory suggests that for its Poincaré mapping if there exist AubryMather sets \(M_{\sigma }\) with a rotation number σ, then the planar differential system possesses AubryMather type solutions \(z_{\sigma }(t)=(x_{\sigma }(t),y_{\sigma }(t))\), such that \(M_{\sigma }\equiv \overline{\{z_{\sigma }(2\pi i),i\in Z\}}\) satisfying the following geometrical properties:
\((1)\) if \(\sigma =\frac{n}{m}\in {\mathbb{Q}}\) with \((n,m)=1\), then \(z_{\sigma }(t)\) is a Birkhoff periodic solution with periodic \(2m\pi \) and \(\arg (z_{\sigma }(t)+m)=\arg (z_{\sigma }(t))+n\), the m solutions \(z_{\sigma }(t+2\pi i), 0\leq i\leq m1\), can be homotopically transformed to m distinct parallel lines;
\((2)\) if \(\sigma \in {{\mathbb{R}}\backslash {\mathbb{Q}}}\), then \(M_{\sigma }\) is either an invariant circle and its orbits are just usual quasiperiodic orbits, or an invariant Cantor set and its orbits become generalized ones. For further interpretations, we refer to the recent work of [19] and [20].
Now a natural and open question is whether equation (1.3) still possesses AubryMather sets when the smoothness of \(\psi (x)\) and \(e(t)\) is further weakened. Our Theorem 1.1 in the following will answer this question and we will deal with a more general case (1.1) than that of (1.3). Owing to the appearance of weak smoothness nonlinearity, the methods in [25–31] are no longer valid. To overcome this difficulty, we first introduce a suitable action and angle variable transformation similar to [29] so that the transformed system of (1.1) is a perturbation of an integral Hamiltonian system, and then apply a new estimate approach developed by the present author (see the recent papers [32–34]) to directly prove the Poincaré map of the transformed system satisfying monotone twist property. Furthermore, the AubryMather theorem on a cylinder with monotone twist assumption by Pei [25] guarantees the existence of AubryMather sets for (1.1), which leads to our desired results. The results of this paper are new and they are natural generalizations and refinements of previously known results obtained in [25, 29].
More exactly, the following theorem is proved.
Theorem 1.1
 \((A_{1})\) :

the limit \(\lim_{\vert x \vert \to +\infty }f_{x}(t,x)=0\), uniformly in \(t\in [0,2\pi ]\);
 \((A_{2})\) :

there exist constants \(d\geq 0, \mu >0\), such that$$ \operatorname{sgn}(x) \bigl[f(t,x)xf_{x}(t,x) \bigr]>\mu ,\quad\textit{for } \vert x \vert \geq d. $$
 (i)
when \(\sigma =\frac{n}{m}\) is rational, and \((n,m)=1\), the solutions \(z_{\sigma }^{i}(t)=z_{\sigma }(t+2\pi i) , 0\leq i\leq m1\), are mutually unlinked periodic solutions of period m;
 (ii)when σ is irrational, the solution \(z_{\sigma }(t)\) is either a usual quasiperiodic solution or a generalized one exhibiting a Denjoy minimal set (see the definition in [35])$$ M_{\sigma }\equiv \overline{ \bigl\{ z_{\sigma }(2\pi i),i\in { \mathbb{Z}} \bigr\} }. $$
Remark 1.1
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: The proof of Theorem 1.1 will be given in Section 4. Section 2 introduces some basic results which are necessary for the proof of Theorem 1.1. In Section 2.1, we introduce a polar coordinate type actionangle variable which transform equation (1.1) into a perturbation of an integral Hamiltonian system, and then in Section 2.2, we will give some estimates on the corresponding action and angle variables functions. Section 3 deals with the proof of monotone twist property of the Poincaré map P of the new system around infinity. Finally, Section 5 presents some examples and remarks on Theorem 1.1.
2 Some basic results
2.1 Actionangle variables
 (i)
\(C'(t)=S(t), S'(t)=\alpha C^{+}(t)\beta C^{}(t)\);
 (ii)
\((S(t))^{2}+\alpha (C^{+}(t))^{2}+\beta (C^{}(t))^{2}\equiv \alpha \);
 (iii)
\(\vert C(t) \vert \leq \max \{1,\sqrt{\frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\}:=C_{\infty }, \vert S(t) \vert \leq \sqrt{\alpha }\).
2.2 Some estimates on action and angle variables functions
According to the assumptions of \((A_{1})\) and \((A_{2})\), it is easy to prove the existence and uniqueness of the solution of the initial value problem associated with (2.4). Moreover, this solution has continuous derivatives with respect to initial data.
For notional convenience, hereinafter, we write x, y, θ, r instead of \(x(\theta (t;\theta _{0},r_{0}),r(t;\theta _{0}, r_{0}))\), \(y(\theta (t;\theta _{0},r_{0}),r(t;\theta _{0},r_{0})),\theta (t;\theta _{0},r_{0}), r(t;\theta _{0},r_{0})\), respectively.
Now in the following, we will give some growth estimation properties with respect to the action and angle variables functions \(r(t;\theta _{0},r_{0})\) and \(\theta (t;\theta _{0},r_{0})\).
Proposition 2.1
Proof
Consequently, by (2.6), \(r(t;\theta _{0},r _{0})\to +\infty \) as \(r_{0}\to +\infty \) uniformly for \(t\in [0,2\pi ]\). □
By (2.6), we can easily verify the following.
Proposition 2.2
Proposition 2.3
Proof
Hence, by (2.3) and Proposition 2.1, there exists a constant \(\bar{r_{2}}>0\), such that \(\frac{d\theta }{dt}\geq \frac{\omega }{2}\) if \(r_{0}\geq \bar{r_{2}}\).
If we choose \(\bar{r}=\max \{\bar{r_{1}},\bar{r_{2}}\}\), then \(r_{0}\geq \bar{r}\) implies \(\frac{d\theta }{dt}\geq \frac{\omega }{2}\).
Using the same arguments as above, one can prove that the inequality on the right side of (2.7) holds. □
3 Monotone twist property
Now in the following, we will start to examine the behavior of \(\frac{\partial \theta (2\pi ;\theta _{0},r_{0}) }{\partial r_{0}} \) when \(r_{0}\gg 1\).
Lemma 3.1
 (i)
\(a_{1}(t)=o(\frac{1}{r_{0}})\);
 (ii)
\(a_{2}(t)=o(1)\);
 (iii)
\(a_{1}(t)\cdot a_{3}(s)=o(1)\).
Proof
By using Lemma 3.2, the proof can be obtained immediately. □
Next we are going to give a detailed proof of Lemma 3.2.
Lemma 3.2
 (i)
\(\frac{xf(t,x)}{r}\rightarrow 0\), \(\frac{x^{2}f_{x}(t,x)}{r}\rightarrow 0\);
 (ii)
\(\frac{yf(t,x)}{r}\rightarrow 0\), \(\frac{yxf_{x}(t,x)}{r}\rightarrow 0\), \(\frac{y^{2}xf(t,x)f_{x}(t,x)}{r^{2}}\rightarrow 0\).
Proof
Set \(F_{1}(\varepsilon )=\max \{\vert f(t,x) \vert :t\in [0,2\pi ],\vert x \vert \leq X\}, F_{2}(\varepsilon )=\max \{\vert f_{x}(t,x) \vert :t\in [0,2\pi ],\vert x \vert \leq X\}\).
Since \(\varepsilon >0\) is arbitrary, the proof of (i) is complete.
Since \(\varepsilon >0\) is arbitrary, (ii) is proved. □
Combining the previous lemmas, we have the following.
Lemma 3.3
 (i)
\(\theta _{r_{0}}(t;\theta _{0}, r_{0})\rightarrow 0\);
 (ii)
\(r_{r_{0}}(t;\theta _{0}, r_{0})=1+o(1)\);
 (iii)
\(\theta _{\theta _{0}}(t;\theta _{0}, r_{0})=1+o(1)\).
Proof
Therefore, for all \(t\in (0,2\pi ]\), sending \(r_{0}\rightarrow +\infty \), we have \(r_{r_{0}}(t)=1+o(1)\) and \(\theta _{r_{0}}(t)=(1+o(1))\int _{0}^{t}a_{1}(s)\,ds\rightarrow 0\). This completes the proof of (i) and (ii).
Similar to the proof of (ii), one can see that \(\theta _{\theta _{0}}(t;\theta _{0}, r_{0})=1+o(1)\) for \(\forall t\in (0,2\pi ]\), as \(r_{0}\rightarrow +\infty \). This completes the proof of Lemma 3.3. □
Now, we will give an estimate of upper bound and lower bound for \(a_{1}(t)\).
Lemma 3.4
 (i)
If \(\vert x(t;\theta _{0},r_{0}) \vert \leq d\) for all \(t \in [0,2\pi ]\), then there exists a constant \(K_{d}>0\), such that \(\vert a_{1}(t) \vert \leq \frac{K_{d}}{r^{2}(t)}\).
 (ii)
If \(\vert x(t;\theta _{0},r_{0}) \vert \geq d\) for all \(t \in [0,2\pi ]\), then there exists a constant \(L_{d}>0\), such that \(\vert a_{1}(t) \vert \geq \frac{L_{d}}{r^{2}(t)}\). Moreover, \(\vert x(t;\theta _{0},r_{0}) \vert \geq d\) implies that \(a_{1}(t)<0\).
Proof
(i) If \(\vert x(t;\theta _{0},r_{0}) \vert \leq d\), we take \(f_{d}=\max_{\vert x \vert \leq d, t\in [0,2\pi ]}\vert f(x,t)xf_{x}(x,t) \vert \).
Set \(K_{d}= \frac{df_{d}}{4}\), we get \(\vert a_{1}(t) \vert \leq \frac{K_{d}}{r^{2}(t)}\).
Denote \(a_{1}(t)=a_{1}^{+}(t)a_{1}^{}(t)\), where \(a_{1}^{\pm }(t)=\max \{\pm a_{1}(t),0\}\). To estimate the integral of \(a_{1}^{+}(t)\) on \([0,2\pi ]\) is smaller than the integral of \(a_{1}^{}(t)\) on \([0,2\pi ]\), we need the following lemma. □
Lemma 3.5
Proof
By Proposition 2.3, we know that \(\Delta t\rightarrow 0\) if and only if \(\Delta \theta \rightarrow 0\).
In the following, we will give an estimate of \(\frac{\partial \theta (2\pi ;\theta _{0},r_{0}) }{\partial r_{0}}\) if \(r_{0}\gg 1\).
Lemma 3.6
For \(r_{0}\gg 1\), we have \(\theta _{r_{0}}(2\pi )<0\).
Proof
Consequently, if \(\sqrt{r_{0}}>\frac{(\beta _{1}^{2} L_{d} +\beta _{2}^{2}K_{d})D}{2\pi L_{d}\beta _{1}^{2}}\), then \(\theta _{r_{0}}(2\pi )<0\). □
4 Proof of Theorem 1.1
Now we are in a position to prove Theorem 1.1.
Proof of Theorem 1.1.
According to Lemma 3.6 and the AubryMather theory framework developed by Pei [25], we know that the Poincaré map P of system (2.4) is a monotone twist map if \(r_{0}\gg 1\). At last, using similar arguments as in [25], one may extend the Poincaré map P to a new map P̂ which is a global monotone twist homeomorphism of the cylinder \(\mathbf{S}^{1}\times \mathbb{R}\) and coincides with P on \(\mathbf{S}^{1}\times [r_{0},+\infty )\) with a fixed constant \(r_{0}\gg 1\). Therefore, the existence of AubryMather sets \(M_{\sigma }\) of P̂ is guaranteed by the AubryMather theorem by Pei [25]. Moreover, for some small \(\varepsilon _{0}>0\), all those AubryMather sets with rotation number \(\sigma \in (2\omega \pi ,2\omega \pi +\varepsilon _{0}) \) lie in the domain \(\mathbf{S}^{1}\times [r_{0},+\infty )\). Hence they are just the AubryMather sets of the Poincaré map of P. From the above discussions, we have showed the existence of AubryMather sets, this implies that equation (1.1) has a solution \(z_{\sigma }(t)=(x_{\sigma }(t),x'_{\sigma }(t))\) with rotation number σ. Thus, the proof of Theorem 1.1 is completed. □
5 Examples and remarks
Example 5.1
Bounded perturbation
Consider \(f(t, x) =\operatorname{sgn}(x)\arctan x\cdot (1+\vert p(t) \vert )\), where \(p(t)\) is a continuous function satisfying \(p(t +2\pi ) = p(t)\). We can easily check \(f(t, x)\in C^{0,1}(\mathbf{S}^{1}\times \mathbb{R})\) is a bounded function satisfying conditions \((A_{1})\) and \((A_{2})\) in Theorem 1.1 when \(d=1\) and \(\mu =\frac{\pi }{4}\frac{1}{2}\) for any \(\alpha \neq \beta \) in (5.2). But \(f(t, x)\) does not satisfy the conditions \((H_{1})\)\((H_{4})\) of Theorem 1 in [29]. Therefore, the results obtained in this paper can be viewed as natural generalizations and refinements of the results in [29].
Example 5.2
Unbounded perturbation
Let \(\alpha =\beta =\lambda \) in (5.2) and \(f(t,x)=\operatorname{sgn}(x)\ln (1+\vert x \vert )\cdot (1+\vert p(t) \vert )\), where \(p(t)\) is a continuous function satisfying \(p(t +2\pi ) = p(t)\). It is obvious that \(f(t, x)\in C^{0,1}(\mathbf{S}^{1}\times \mathbb{R})\) is an unbounded function satisfying conditions \((A_{1})\) and \((A_{2})\) in Theorem 1.1 if \(d=e^{2}\) and \(\mu =1\). It is clear that the conditions \((D_{1})\) and \((D_{2})\) of Theorem B in [25] are not satisfied. Thus our situation is more general than the results obtained in [25].
Remark 5.1
Comparing the estimation method in this paper with [25, 29], it seems that our estimation processes are much simpler than those used in [25, 29] to some degree. Moreover, it is easy to see that the results of this paper generalize and refine the early results published so far, our results are new and not covered by any known work in the literature.
Remark 5.2
Finally, let us note that our method could be useful in more general situations such as equations depending nonlinearly on the derivative, Hamiltonian or more general second order differential equations. These extensions should be developed elsewhere.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11461056).
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
 Dancer, EN: On the Dirichlet problem for weakly nonlinear elliptic partial differential equations. Proc. R. Soc. Edinb., Sect. A, Math. 76(4), 283300 (1977) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Dancer, EN: Boundaryvalue problems for weakly nonlinear ordinary differential equations. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 15, 321328 (1976) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Fuc̆ik, S: Solvability of Nonlinear Equations and Boundary Value Problems. Reidel, Dordrecht (1980) Google Scholar
 Lazer, AC, McKenna, PJ: A semiFredholm principle for periodically forced systems with homogeneous nonlinearities. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 106(1), 119125 (1989) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Lazer, AC, McKenna, PJ: Largeamplitude periodic oscillations in suspension bridge: some new connections with nonlinear analysis. SIAM Rev. 32(4), 537578 (1990) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Fabry, C: LandesmanLazer conditions for periodic boundary value problems with asymmetric nonlinearities. J. Differ. Equ. 116, 405418 (1995) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Fabry, C, Fonda, A: Nonlinear resonance in asymmetric oscillators. J. Differ. Equ. 147, 5878 (1998) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Fabry, C, Mawhin, J: Oscillations of a forced asymmetric oscillator at resonance. Nonlinearity 13(3), 493505 (2000) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Wang, ZH, Li, J, Ma, TT: Periodic solutions of Duffing equation with an asymmetric nonlinearity and a deviating argument. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2013, 717 (2013) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Chu, JF, Wang, F: Prevalence of stable periodic solutions for Duffing equations. J. Differ. Equ. 260, 78007820 (2016) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Ortega, R: Asymmetric oscillators and twist mappings. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 53, 325342 (1996) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Liu, B: Boundedness in asymmetric oscillations. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 231, 355373 (1999) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Liu, B: Boundedness in nonlinear oscillations at resonance. J. Differ. Equ. 153(1), 142174 (1999) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Alonso, JM, Ortega, R: Roots of unity and unbounded motions of an asymmetric oscillator. J. Differ. Equ. 143, 201220 (1998) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Alonso, JM, Ortega, R: Unbounded solutions of semilinear equations at resonance. Nonlinearity 9, 10991111 (1996) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Ma, SW, Wang, LX: Bounded and unbounded motions in asymmetric oscillators at resonance. J. Dyn. Differ. Equ. 25, 10571087 (2013) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Aubry, S, Le Daeron, PY: The discrete Frenkel Kontorova model and its extensions: exact results for the ground state. Physica D 8(3), 384422 (1983) View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Mather, JN: Existence of quasiperiodic orbits for twist homeomorphisms of the annulus. Topology 21(4), 457467 (1982) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Mazzucchelli, M, Sorrentino, A: Remarks on the symplectic invariance of AubryMather sets. C. R. Math. 354(4), 419423 (2016) MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Sorrentino, A: Actionminimizing methods in Hamiltonian dynamics: an introduction to AubryMather theory. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 53(53), 797802 (2015) MATHGoogle Scholar
 Bernstein, D, Katok, A: Birkhoff periodic orbits for small perturbations of completely integrable Hamiltonian systems with convex Hamiltonians. Invent. Math. 88(2), 225241 (1987) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Bangert, V: Mather sets for twist maps and geodesics on tori. Dyn. Rep. 1, 156 (1988) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Moser, J: Recent developments in the theory of Hamiltonian systems. SIAM Rev. 28(4), 459485 (1986) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Denzler, J: Mather sets for plane Hamiltonian systems. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 38(6), 791812 (1987) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Pei, ML: AubryMather sets for finitetwist maps of a cylinder and semilinear Duffing equations. J. Differ. Equ. 113(1), 106127 (1994) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Pei, ML: Mather sets for superlinear Duffing’s equations. Sci. China Math. 36(5), 524537 (1993) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Qian, DB: Mather sets for sublinear Duffing equations. Chin. Ann. Math 15B(1), 421434 (1994) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Chow, SN, Pei, ML: AubryMather theorem and quasiperiodic orbits fortime dependent reversible systems. Nonlinear Anal. 25(9), 905931 (1995) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Capietto, A, Liu, B: Quasiperiodic solutions of a forced asymmetric oscillator at resonance. Nonlinear Anal. 56(1), 105117 (2004) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Capietto, A, Dambrosio, W, Liu, B: On the boundedness of solutions to a nonlinear singular oscillator. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 60(6), 10071034 (2009) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Yang, XJ, Lo, KM: Quasiperiodic solutions in nonlinear asymmetric oscillations. Z. Anal. Anwend. 26(4), 207220 (2007) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Wang, XM: AubryMather sets for sublinear asymmetric Duffing equations. Sci. China Math. 42(1), 1321 (2012) (in Chinese) Google Scholar
 Wang, XM: Quasiperiodic solutions for second order differential equation with superlinear asymmetric nonlinearities and nonlinear damping term. Bound. Value Probl. 2015, 101 (2015) View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Wang, XM, Wang, LX, Tan, HN: A new approach to the existence of quasiperiodic solutions for a class of semilinear Duffingtype equations with timeperiodic parameters. Bound. Value Probl. 2016, 132 (2016) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Mather, JN: More Denjoy minimal sets for area preserving diffeomorphisms. Comment. Math. Helv. 60, 508557 (1985) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar