A DDE is a single-variable differential equation, usually called time, in which the derivative of the solution at a certain time is given in terms of the values of the solution at earlier times. Moreover, if the highest-order derivative of the solution appears both with and without delay, then the DDE is called of the neutral type. The neutral DDEs have many interesting applications in various branches of applied science, as these equations appear in the modeling of many technological phenomena. The problem of studying the oscillatory and nonoscillatory properties of DDEs has been a very active area of research in the past few decades.
1. Introduction
Consider the 2nd-order delay differential equation (DDE) of the neutral type:
(1)
where
and
. In this entry, we obtain new sufficient criteria for the oscillation of solutions of (
1) under the following hypotheses:
(A1) is a ratio of odd integers;
(A2) for a constant (this constant plays an important role in the results), and does not vanish identically on any half-line with
(A3) and for
By a proper solution of (
1), we mean a
with
and
for
and u satisfies (
1) on
. A solution u of (
1) is called nonoscillatory if it is eventually positive or eventually negative; otherwise, it is called oscillatory.
The oscillatory properties of solutions of second-order neutral DDE (
1) in the noncanonical case, that is:
(2)
where
2. Oscillatory Properties of Noncanonical Neutral DDEs of Second-Order
We begin with the following notations: is the set of all eventually positive solutions of (1), ,
Lemma 1. Assume that and there exists a such that:
(3)
Then, v eventually satisfies:
and:
Proof. Let . Then, we have that , and are positive for , for some . Therefore, it follows from (1) that:
Using (1) and Lemma 1 in [1], we see that:
and so:
(4)
Integrating this inequality from to t and using the fact , we find:
(5)
Assume the contrary, that for . Thus, from (5), we have:
This, from (3), implies:
Letting and taking the fact that as , we obtain , which contradicts the positivity of .
Next, since v is positive decreasing, we have that . Assume the contrary, that . Then, for all , for some . Thus, from (3) and (5), we have:
or
and so,
(6)
Using the fact that , we obtain that for all . Hence, by integrating (6) from to t, we obtain:
Letting and taking the fact that as , we obtain , which contradicts the positivity of . Therefore, .
Since is decreasing, we obtain:
and:
(7)
Then, .
From (7), we obtain:
Thus, from (4) and the fact , we obtain:
and then:
The proof is complete.
Lemma 2. Assume that and there exists a such that (3) holds. Then:
Proof. Let . From Lemma 1, we have that – hold for .
Integrating from to t, we arrive at:
From (3), we obtain:
and:
(8)
Using , we eventually have:
Hence, (8) becomes:
This implies that is a decreasing function.
The proof is complete.
2.2. Oscillation Theorems
In the next theorem, by using the principle of comparison with an equation of the first-order, we obtain a new criterion for the oscillation of (
1).
Theorem 6. Assume that and there exists a such that (3) holds. If the delay differential equation:
(9)
is oscillatory, then every solution of (1) is oscillatory.
Proof. Assume the contrary, that (1) has a solution . Then, we have that and are positive for , for some . From Lemmas 1 and 2, we have that – hold for .
Next, we define:
From , for . Thus,
Thus, it follows from that:
(10)
Using , we obtain that:
(11)
Now, we set:
Then, , and so, (11) becomes:
which has a positive solution. In view of
[2] (Theorem 1), (
9) also has a positive solution, which is a contradiction.
The proof is complete.
Corollary 1. Assume that and there exists a such that (3) holds. If:
(12)
then every solution of (1) is oscillatory.
Proof. It follows from Theorem 2 in [3] that the condition (12) implies the oscillation of (9).
Next, by introducing two Riccati substitution, we obtain a new oscillation criterion for (1).
Theorem 7. Assume that and there exists a such that (3) holds. If:
(13)
then every solution of (1) is oscillatory.
Proof. Assume the contrary, that (1) has a solution . Then, we have that and are positive for , for some . From Lemmas 1 and 2, we have that – hold for .
Now, we define the functions:
and:
Then, and are negative for . From , we obtain:
Hence,
and:
Then:
(14)
and:
(15)
Combining (14) and (15), we obtain:
Integrating this inequality from to t, we have:
From we obtain . Therefore,
where:
Since and , we find:
Taking and using (13), we arrive at a contradiction.
The proof is complete.
2.3. Applications and Discussion
Remark 1. It is easy to see that the previous works that dealt with the noncanonical case required either or . Since η is decreasing and , we have that . Then, the results of these works only apply when .
Example 1. Consider the DDE:
(16)
where and . By choosing the condition (12) becomes:
(17)
Using Corollary 1, Equation (16) is oscillatory if (17) holds.
Remark 2. To apply Theorems 3 and 4 on (16), we must stipulate that . Let a special case of (16), namely,
A simple computation shows that (16) is oscillatory if:
(18)
or:
(19)
or:
(20)
Consider the following most specific special case:
(21)
Note that (18)–(20) fail to apply. However, (17) reduces to:
which ensures the oscillation of (21).
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/math9172026