Next Article in Journal
Chaotic Dynamics by Some Quadratic Jerk Systems
Next Article in Special Issue
On Solvability Conditions for a Certain Conjugation Problem
Previous Article in Journal
An Expository Lecture of María Jesús Chasco on Some Applications of Fubini’s Theorem
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Dynamic Model of Multiple Time-Delay Interactions between the Virus-Infected Cells and Body’s Immune System with Autoimmune Diseases
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Closed-Form Solutions of Linear Ordinary Differential Equations with General Boundary Conditions

by
Efthimios Providas
1,*,
Stefanos Zaoutsos
2 and
Ioannis Faraslis
1
1
Department of Environmental Sciences, Gaiopolis Campus, University of Thessaly, 415 00 Larissa, Greece
2
Department of Energy Systems, Gaiopolis Campus, University of Thessaly, 415 00 Larissa, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Axioms 2021, 10(3), 226; https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms10030226
Submission received: 31 July 2021 / Revised: 4 September 2021 / Accepted: 10 September 2021 / Published: 14 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Modern Problems of Mathematical Physics and Their Applications)

Abstract

:
This paper deals with the solution of boundary value problems for ordinary differential equations with general boundary conditions. We obtain closed-form solutions in a symbolic form of problems with the general n-th order differential operator, as well as the composition of linear operators. The method is based on the theory of the extensions of linear operators in Banach spaces.

1. Introduction

Differential equations model numerous phenomena and processes in sciences and engineering. Boundary value problems for elementary differential equations with classical boundary conditions have been studied exhaustively by many researchers and comprehensive material is now included in various standard texts. A more difficult and less investigated subject is the general or nonlocal boundary value problems. In many applications, the incorporation of general boundary conditions such as multipoint and integral conditions is inevitable. For example, in [1], the necessity of integral conditions in certain models of epidemics and population growth and the effects when neglecting these conditions are explained.
Ordinary differential equations with non-local boundary conditions were first studied at the beginning of the 20th century in [2,3,4], and later in [5]. Abstract non-local boundary value problems were considered in [6,7,8]. Operator methods for solving differential equations are analyzed in the books [9,10,11]. A description of the theory and the different directions of differential equations with non-local boundary conditions are given in the monograph [12]. An overview of non-local boundary value problems and their historical evolution can also be found in the survey papers [13,14,15,16]. Boundary value problems with integral constraints have been considered in [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25], to mention but a few. Boundary value problems with multipoint and integral conditions have been studied in [26,27,28,29,30,31,32], and others. The present paper aims at providing a framework for symbolic computations for the solution of linear ordinary differential equations of order n with the most general multipoint and integral conditions, and boundary value problems for powers and products of differential operators.
In C [ a , b ] , let the general n-th order linear ordinary differential operator,
A = a 0 ( x ) d n d x n + a 1 ( x ) d n 1 d x n 1 + + a n 1 ( x ) d d x + a n ( x ) ,
where the coefficients a i ( x ) , i = 0 , , n , are all continuous functions on the interval [ a , b ] , a 0 ( x ) 0 , and D ( A ) = C n [ a , b ] and R ( A ) = C [ a , b ] are its domain and range, respectively. We are concerned with the solution in the closed-form of boundary value problem for the differential equation
A u ( x ) = f ( x ) , x ( a , b ) ,
and the boundary conditions
Υ ( u ) = b ,
where Υ = col ( Υ 1 , , Υ n ) is a vector of linear bounded functionals of the general form
Υ i ( u ) = j = 0 m k = 0 n 1 ν i k j u ( k ) ( x j ) + k = 0 n 1 a b h i k ( t ) u ( k ) ( t ) d t , i = 1 , , n ,
where Υ i [ C n 1 [ a , b ] ] * , i = 1 , , n ; the m + 1 ordered points a x 0 < x 1 < < x m b are fixed boundary points, h i k ( x ) , i = 1 , , n , k = 0 , , n 1 , are continuous functions on [ a , b ] , ν i k j , i = 1 , , n , k = 0 , , n 1 , j = 0 , , m , are constants, and u ( k ) designates the k-th order derivative of u. The non-homogeneous term f ( x ) C [ a , b ] , while the non-homogeneous term b = col ( β 1 , , β n ) is a constant vector. The function u ( x ) C n [ a , b ] is the sought solution. We formulate the above problem in a convenient symbolic form and establish uniqueness solvability criteria and derive the solution in closed-form. Solution formulae to some special boundary value problems for composite differential operators are also obtained. The method is based on the theory of the extensions of linear operators in Banach spaces, see, for example, [33,34,35,36], and is an extension of the work [37] by the authors.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we give some results needed for the analysis in later sections. Section 3 and Section 4 contain the main findings of our investigation. In Section 5, the implementation of the technique is explained by solving two example problems. Finally, some conclusions are quoted in Section 6.

2. Preliminaries

Let X , Y be Banach spaces and P : X Y a linear operator. The operator P is injective or one-to-one if for every u 1 , u 2 D ( P ) , u 1 u 2 implies P u 1 P u 2 . The operator P is surjective or ontoY if R ( P ) = Y . If P is both injective and onto, then there exists the inverse operator P 1 : Y X defined by P 1 f = u if and only if P u = f for each f Y ; in this case, R ( P 1 ) = D ( P ) .
The operator P is called closed if for every sequence u m in D ( P ) converging to u 0 with P u m y 0 , y 0 Y , it follows that u 0 D ( P ) and P u 0 = y 0 . A closed operator P is called maximal if R ( P ) = Y and ker P { 0 } .
The operator P is correct if it is both injective and onto, and the inverse operator P 1 is bounded on Y. The problem P u = f is correct if the operator P is correct.
An operator P r : X Y is a restriction of P, or P is an extension of P r , if D ( P r ) D ( P ) and P r u = P u for all u D ( P r ) .
Let Ψ = col ( Ψ 1 , , Ψ n ) be a column vector of functionals Ψ i X * , i = 1 , , n , and v = ( v 1 , , v n ) a row vector of elements v i X , i = 1 , , n . By Ψ ( v ) , we symbolize the n × n matrix
Ψ ( v ) = Ψ 1 ( v 1 ) Ψ 1 ( v n ) Ψ n ( v 1 ) Ψ n ( v n ) ,
whose Ψ i ( v j ) element is the value of the functional Ψ i on the element v j . It is easy to show that
Ψ ( v N ) = Ψ ( v ) N .
where N is a n × m constant matrix.
Proposition 1.
Let X , Y be real Banach spaces, A : X o n Y a linear operator, z = ( z 1 , , z n ) a basis of ker A , and A ^ the restriction of A defined by
A ^ A , D ( A ^ ) = { u : u D ( A ) , Φ ( u ) = 0 } ,
where the components of the vector Φ = c o l ( Φ 1 , , Φ n ) are linear bounded functionals on X. Then:
(i)
The operator A ^ is injective if and only if
det Φ ( z ) = det Φ 1 ( z 1 ) Φ 1 ( z n ) Φ n ( z 1 ) Φ n ( z n ) 0 .
(ii)
If additionally to (i), the operator A ^ 1 is bounded on the whole Y, then the operator A ^ is correct.
Proof. 
(i) Let det Φ ( z ) 0 . Take u 0 ker A ^ , then A ^ u 0 = 0 , Φ ( u 0 ) = 0 and
u 0 = z a = a 1 z 1 + + a n z n ,
where a = col ( a 1 , , a n ) R n . Acting by the vector Φ on u 0 , we get
Φ ( u 0 ) = Φ ( z a ) = Φ ( z ) a = 0 .
Since det Φ ( z ) 0 by hypothesis, it is implied that a = 0 and so u 0 = 0 . That is ker A ^ = { 0 } , and therefore A ^ is injective. Conversely, let det Φ ( z ) = 0 . Then, there exists a nonzero vector c = col ( c 1 , , c n ) R n such that Φ ( z ) c = 0 . Consider the element u 0 = z c . Note that u 0 0 , since the components of z are linearly independent, and that Φ ( u 0 ) = Φ ( z ) c = 0 . This means that u 0 D ( A ^ ) . Furthermore, A ^ u 0 = A u 0 = ( A z ) c = 0 . From the above, it follows that u 0 ker A ^ . Hence, A ^ is not injective.
(ii) Since A ^ is injective and the operator A ^ 1 is bounded on the whole Y by hypothesis, it follows that the operator A ^ is correct. □
Proposition 2.
Let X , Y be real Banach spaces, A : X o n Y a linear operator, and z = ( z 1 , , z n ) a basis of ker A . If there exists a correct restriction A ^ of A defined by
A ^ A , D ( A ^ ) = { u : u D ( A ) , Φ ( u ) = 0 } ,
where the components of the vector Φ = c o l ( Φ 1 , , Φ n ) are linear bounded functionals on X, then A is closed and so A is a maximal operator.
Proof. 
Let u m D ( A ) , u m u and A u m y , m . Denote A u m = y m . Since A is a linear operator and A ^ 1 y m is a particular solution of A u m = y m , then every solution u m to this equation can be represented as
u m = A ^ 1 y m + z a m = A ^ 1 y m + a m 1 z 1 + + a m n z n ,
where a m = col ( a m 1 , , a m n ) R n . Acting by the vector Φ on (6), we obtain
Φ ( u m ) = Φ ( z ) a m .
Since, by hypothesis, the operator A ^ is correct, it follows from Proposition 1 that det Φ ( z ) 0 and hence
a m = Φ 1 ( z ) Φ ( u m ) .
Substitution of (7) into (6) yields
u m = A ^ 1 y m + z Φ 1 ( z ) Φ ( u m ) .
Since A ^ 1 , Φ 1 , , Φ n are bounded and u m u , y m y for m , it follows that
u = A ^ 1 y + z Φ 1 ( z ) Φ ( u ) .
Further, taking into account that D ( A ) = D ( A ^ ) ker A [34], we conclude that u D ( A ) and A u = y . So the operator A is closed and hence A is a maximal operator. □

3. General Boundary Conditions

In this Section, we study boundary value problems for ordinary differential equations with general homogeneous and nonhomogeneous boundary conditions.
Let now X = Y = C [ a , b ] and X n = C n [ a , b ] . Let A : X X be the n-th order linear operator in (1), A ^ : X X a correct restriction of A defined by
A ^ u ( x ) = A u ( x ) , x ( a , b ) D ( A ^ ) = { u : u D ( A ) , Φ ( u ) = 0 } ,
where Φ = col Φ 1 , , Φ n is a vector of n linear bounded functionals Φ i [ X n 1 ] * , i = 1 , , n , and A ^ 1 the inverse of A ^ .
For example, the operator
A ^ u ( x ) = A u ( x ) , x ( a , b ) D ( A ^ ) = { u : u X n , u ( x 0 ) = u ( x 0 ) = = u ( n 1 ) ( x 0 ) = 0 } ,
where Φ i ( u ) = u ( i 1 ) ( x 0 ) = 0 , i = 1 , , n , with x 0 being a fixed point in [ a , b ] , known as Cauchy boundary conditions, is correct. In the particular case where A = d n d x n , the inverse A ^ and the unique solution of the correct problem A ^ u = f , for any f X , is given explicitly by
u = A ^ 1 f = 1 ( n 1 ) ! x 0 x ( x t ) n 1 f ( t ) d t , f X .
From the above and Proposition 2, it is concluded that the n-th order linear operator A in (1) is closed and maximal.

3.1. Homogeneous Boundary Conditions

First, we consider the boundary value problem with homogeneous boundary conditions, namely
A 0 u = A u = f , x ( a , b ) , D ( A 0 ) = { u : u D ( A ) , Υ ( u ) = 0 } ,
where the linear operator A 0 : X X is a restriction of the n-th order linear operator A in (1), the components of the vector Υ = col ( Υ 1 , , Υ n ) [ X n n 1 ] * are as in (3), (4), and f X .
Lemma 1.
The linear operator A 0 is a closed operator.
Proof. 
Let u r , r = 1 , 2 , , be a sequence in D ( A 0 ) , u r u 0 and A 0 u r f . Then, A u r f and since A is a closed operator, we get that u 0 D ( A ) and A u 0 = f . Moreover, since Υ 1 , , Υ n are bounded functionals on X, we get
0 = Υ i ( u r ) Υ i ( u 0 ) = 0 , i = 1 , , n , r .
This is that u 0 D ( A 0 ) and so A u 0 = A 0 u 0 = f . Hence, A 0 is a closed operator. □
Theorem 1.
Let A 0 be the linear operator defined by (9), z = ( z 1 , , z n ) a basis of ker A , and A ^ 1 the inverse of the correct operator A ^ in (8). Then:
(i)
The operator A 0 is injective if and only if det Υ ( z ) 0 .
(ii)
In addition, under (i), the operator A 0 is correct and the unique solution to the boundary value problem (9), for every f X , is given by
u = A 0 1 f = A ^ 1 f z Υ 1 ( z ) Υ ( A ^ 1 f ) .
Proof. 
(i) Suppose det Υ ( z ) 0 . Let u ker A 0 . Then, A 0 u = A u = 0 and u = z c , where c = col ( c 1 , , c n ) is a vector of arbitrary constants. Additionally, Υ ( u ) = Υ ( z c ) = Υ ( z ) c = 0 , which implies that c = 0 . That is u = 0 and consequently ker A 0 = { 0 } . This proves that A 0 is injective. Conversely, let det Υ ( z ) = 0 . Then, there exists a nonzero vector of constants c = col ( c 1 , , c n ) such that Υ ( z ) c = 0 . Let the element u 0 = z c and notice that u 0 0 since the components of z are linearly independent. Then, A 0 u 0 = A u 0 = A ( z c ) = ( A z ) c = 0 and Υ ( u 0 ) = Υ ( z c ) = Υ ( z ) c = 0 . That is u 0 = z c ker A 0 and as a consequence A 0 is not injective.
(ii) Let det Υ ( z ) 0 . Then, from statement (i) follows that the opeartor A 0 is injective and hence there exists the inverse operator A 0 1 : R ( A 0 ) X X . Since by Lemma 1 the operator A 0 is closed, it is implied that A 0 1 is a closed operator. Furthermore, A ^ is a correct restriction of the linear operator A and therefore the general solution of the problem A u = f , for every f X , may be written as follows
u = A ^ 1 f + z c ,
where c = col ( c 1 , , c n ) is a vector of arbitrary constants. By requiring u to satisfy the boundary conditions in (9), we have
Υ ( u ) = Υ ( A ^ 1 f ) + Υ ( z ) c = 0 , and   hence c = Υ 1 ( z ) Υ ( A ^ 1 f ) .
Substitution of c into (11) yields (10), which is the unique solution of the boundary value problem A 0 u = f . In addition, it follows that R ( A 0 ) = X and since A 0 1 is a closed operator with D ( A 0 1 ) = R ( A 0 ) = X , it is implied that A 0 1 is bounded on X. This proves that the operator A 0 is correct. □

3.2. Non-Homogeneous Boundary Conditions

Next, we consider the complete non-homogeneous boundary value problem
A 1 u = A u = f , x ( a , b ) D ( A 1 ) = { u : u D ( A ) , Υ ( u ) = b } ,
where A 1 : X X is a restriction of the n-th order linear operator A in (1), the components of the vector Υ = col ( Υ 1 , , Υ n ) [ X n n 1 ] * are as in (3), (4), b = col ( β 1 , , β n ) R n , and f X . It is noted that the operator A 1 is not linear, since its domain is a nonlinear set.
We state and prove the next theorem for the existence and construction of the unique solution of the boundary value problem (12).
Theorem 2.
Let A 1 be the operator defined by (12), z = ( z 1 , , z n ) a basis of ker A , A ^ 1 the inverse of the correct operator A ^ in (8), and A 0 the operator defined in (9). Then, the operator A 1 is injective if and only if A 0 is injective. In this case, for every f X and b R n , the unique solution of (12) is given by
u = A 1 1 f = A ^ 1 f + z Υ 1 ( z ) b Υ ( A ^ 1 f ) .
Proof. 
Suppose A 0 is injective. Then, ker A 0 = { 0 } and det Υ ( z ) 0 by Theorem 1. Let u 1 , u 2 D ( A 1 ) and A 1 u 1 = A 1 u 2 = f . That is,
A 1 u i = A u i = f , Υ ( u i ) = b , i = 1 , 2 ,
from which we get
A 1 u i = A u i = A ( u i z Υ 1 ( z ) b ) = f , Υ u i z Υ 1 ( z ) b = 0 , i = 1 , 2 ,
by taking into account that A z = 0 and (5). From (14), it is implied that u i z Υ 1 ( z ) b D ( A 0 ) and
A 1 u i = A 0 u i z Υ 1 ( z ) b = f , i = 1 , 2 .
From Theorem 1, we have
u i z Υ 1 ( z ) b = A 0 1 f o r u i = A 0 1 f + z Υ 1 ( z ) b , i = 1 , 2 .
Since A 0 is injective, it is concluded that u 1 = u 2 and therefore A 1 is an injective operator. Conversely, suppose A 1 is injective. Let u ker A 1 , which means
A 1 u = A u = 0 , Υ ( u ) = b , b R n .
It follows that u = z c , where c is a vector of constants, and
Υ ( u ) = Υ ( z c ) = Υ ( z ) c = b .
Since A 1 is injective, the system (16) has only one solution, that is det Υ ( z ) 0 , and hence by Theorem 1 A 0 is injective.
Finally, under the hypothesis that A 1 is injective, for any u D ( A 1 ) that solves the completely nonhomogeneous problem A 1 u = f , we have
A 1 u = A u = A ( u z Υ 1 ( z ) b ) = f , Υ u z Υ 1 ( z ) b = 0 .
This means that u z Υ 1 ( z ) b D ( A 0 ) and
A 1 u = A 0 u z Υ 1 ( z ) b = f .
The solution to this problem follows from Theorem 1, namely
u z Υ 1 ( z ) b = A 0 1 f = A ^ 1 f z Υ 1 ( z ) Υ ( A ^ 1 f ) ,
from where we get
u = A ^ 1 f z Υ 1 ( z ) Υ ( A ^ 1 f ) + z Υ 1 ( z ) b = A ^ 1 f + z Υ 1 ( z ) b Υ ( A ^ 1 f ) .

4. Composition of Operators

In this Section, we investigate boundary value problems for special differential operators, specifically the k-th power of an operator and the product of two operators, with general homogeneous boundary conditions.

4.1. k-th Power of an Operator

The k-th power of an operator A k is defined as the composition of the operator with itself, repeated k times, i.e.,
A k = A ( A k 1 ) = A A A k , k = 2 , 3 .
If A : X X is an n-th order linear differential operator with D ( A ) = X n then A k : X X is a k n -th order linear operator with D ( A k ) = X k n .
Let the boundary value problem
A 0 k u = A k u = f , x ( a , b ) , D ( A 0 k ) = { u : u D ( A k ) , Υ ( u ) = 0 , Υ ( A u ) = 0 , , Υ ( A k 1 u ) = 0 } ,
where the operator A 0 k : X X , the operators A and A 0 are defined as in (1) and (9), respectively, the components of the vector Υ = col ( Υ 1 , , Υ n ) are as in (3), (4) where now Υ i [ X k n 1 ] * , i = 1 , , n , and f X . We state the following theorem.
Theorem 3.
Let A 0 k be the linear operator defined in (18) and z = ( z 1 , , z n ) be a basis of ker A . Then:
(i)
The operator A 0 k is injective if and only if det Υ ( z ) 0 .
(ii)
Moreover, under (i), the operator A 0 k is correct and the unique solution to the boundary value problem (18), for any f X , is given by
u = ( A 0 k ) 1 f = A 0 k f .
Proof. 
(i) Let det Υ ( z ) 0 . Then, by Theorem 1, the operator A 0 is injective. Further, the operator A 0 k is injective as a composition of injective operators. Conversely, let A 0 k be injective. Then, ker A 0 k = { 0 } , and from the well known relation, which holds for any linear operator A 0 ,
ker A 0 ker A 0 2 . . . ker A 0 k , k N ,
follows that ker A 0 = { 0 } , i.e., A 0 is injective. Then, by Theorem 1, we have det Υ ( z ) 0 .
(ii) Let det Υ ( z ) 0 . Then, by Theorem 1, the operator A 0 is correct. Observe that the problem (18), for any f X , by setting A u = v 1 , A v 1 = v 2 , , A v k 2 = v k 1 , A v k 1 = f can be decomposed into the k boundary value problems:
A v k 1 = f , Υ ( v k 1 ) = 0 or A 0 v k 1 = f , A v k 2 = v k 1 , Υ ( v k 2 ) = 0 or A 0 v k 2 = v k 1 , A v 1 = v 2 , Υ ( v 1 ) = 0 or A 0 v 1 = v 2 , A u = v 1 , Υ ( u ) = 0 or A 0 u = v 1 .
By applying Theorem 1 successively, we get
v k 1 = A 0 1 f = A ^ 1 f z Υ 1 ( z ) Υ ( A ^ 1 f ) , v k 2 = A 0 1 v k 1 = A 0 1 A 0 1 f = A 0 2 f , v 1 = A 0 1 v 2 = A 0 1 A 0 ( k 2 ) f = A 0 ( k 1 ) f , u = A 0 1 v 1 = A 0 1 A 0 ( k 1 ) f = A 0 k f ,
which is (19) with
A 0 k = A 0 1 A 0 1 A 0 1 k .
Finally, since R ( A 0 k ) = X and A 0 k is bounded as a composition of bounded operators, it is concluded that the operator A 0 k is correct. □
For the important category of boundary value problems for k = 2 , we state the following corollary, which follows immediately from Theorem 3.
Corollary 1.
The boundary value problem
A 0 2 u = A 2 u = f , D ( A 0 2 ) = { u : u D ( A 2 ) , Υ ( u ) = 0 , Υ ( A u ) = 0 } ,
is correct if and only if det Υ ( z ) 0 and the unique solution, for every f X , is given by
u = A 0 2 f = A ^ 2 f z Υ 1 ( z ) Υ ( A ^ 2 f ) A ^ 1 z z Υ 1 ( z ) Υ ( A ^ 1 z ) Υ 1 ( z ) Υ ( A ^ 1 f ) .

4.2. Product of Two Operators

Here, we are looking at yet another special boundary value problem, which is the generalization of Corollary 1. In particular, we consider the boundary value problem
A 0 A ˜ 0 u = A 2 u = f , x ( a , b ) , D ( A 0 A ˜ 0 ) = { u : u D ( A 2 ) , Υ ˜ ( u ) = 0 , Υ ( A u ) = 0 } ,
where A , A 0 are defined as in (1) and (9), respectively, and A ˜ 0 : X X is a restriction of A defined by
A ˜ 0 u = A u , x ( a , b ) , D ( A ˜ 0 ) = { u : u D ( A ) , Υ ˜ ( u ) = 0 } ,
wherein Υ ˜ = col ( Υ ˜ 1 , , Υ ˜ n ) with Υ ˜ i [ X n 1 ] * being defined by
Υ ˜ i ( u ) = j = 0 m k = 0 n 1 ν ˜ i k j u ( k ) ( x j ) + k = 0 n 1 a b h ˜ i k ( t ) u ( k ) ( t ) d t , i = 1 , , n ,
where h ˜ i k ( x ) , i = 1 , , n , k = 0 , , n 1 , are continuous functions on [ a , b ] , ν ˜ i k j , i = 1 , , n , k = 0 , , n 1 , j = 0 , , m , are constants.
Theorem 4.
Let A 0 and A ˜ 0 be the linear operators defined in (22), z = ( z 1 , , z n ) a basis of ker A , and A ^ 1 the inverse of the correct operator A ^ in (8). Then:
(i)
The operator A 0 A ˜ 0 is injective if and only if
det Υ ( z ) 0 , det Υ ˜ ( z ) 0 .
(ii)
Furthermore, under (24), the operator A 0 A ˜ 0 is correct and the unique solution to the boundary value problem (22), for any f X , is given by
u = A ^ 2 f z Υ ˜ 1 ( z ) Υ ˜ ( A ^ 2 f ) A ^ 1 z z Υ ˜ 1 ( z ) Υ ˜ ( A ^ 1 z ) Υ 1 ( z ) Υ ( A ^ 1 f ) .
Proof. 
(i)–(ii) By setting A ˜ 0 u = v , the problem (22) may be decomposed into the following two boundary value problems:
A v = f , Υ ( v ) = 0 or A 0 v = f ,
A u = v , Υ ˜ ( u ) = 0 or A ˜ 0 u = v .
By Theorem 1, the boundary value problem (26) is correct if and only if det Υ ( z ) 0 and its unique solution is given by
v = A 0 1 f = A ^ 1 f z Υ 1 ( z ) Υ ( A ^ 1 f ) .
Similarly, the boundary value problem (27) is correct if and only if det Υ ˜ ( z ) 0 and its solution is
u = A ˜ 0 1 v = A ^ 1 v z Υ ˜ 1 ( z ) Υ ˜ ( A ^ 1 v ) .
Substitution of (28) into (29) yields
u = A ^ 1 A ^ 1 f z Υ 1 ( z ) Υ ( A ^ 1 f ) z Υ ˜ 1 ( z ) Υ ˜ A ^ 1 A ^ 1 f z Υ 1 ( z ) Υ ( A ^ 1 f ) = A ^ 2 f A ^ 1 z Υ 1 ( z ) Υ ( A ^ 1 f ) z Υ ˜ 1 ( z ) Υ ˜ ( A ^ 2 f ) + z Υ ˜ 1 ( z ) Υ ˜ ( A ^ 1 z ) Υ 1 ( z ) Υ ( A ^ 1 f ) = A ^ 2 f z Υ ˜ 1 ( z ) Υ ˜ ( A ^ 2 f ) A ^ 1 z z Υ ˜ 1 ( z ) Υ ˜ ( A ^ 1 z ) Υ 1 ( z ) Υ ( A ^ 1 f ) ,
which is (25). Thus, the operator A 0 A ˜ 0 is correct if and only if det Υ ( z ) 0 and det Υ ˜ ( z ) 0 , and the unique solution of A 0 A ˜ 0 u = f is given explicitly by (25). □

5. Examples

To explain the implementation of the results presented in the previous section and to show the efficiency of the proposed solution routine, we solve two example problems.
Example 1.
Consider the differential Equation [29]
u ( x ) + u ( x ) = 0 , 0 < x < π 2 ,
with the constraints
0 π / 2 u ( x ) d x = 1 , 0 π / 2 u ( x ) s i n x d x = 1 .
Comparing with (12), it is natural to take
A u ( x ) = u ( x ) + u ( x ) , D ( A ) = C 2 [ 0 , π 2 ] , f ( x ) = 0 , Υ 1 ( u ( x ) ) = 0 π / 2 u ( x ) d x , Υ 2 ( u ( x ) ) = 0 π / 2 u ( x ) s i n x d x , β 1 = β 2 = 1 ,
and A ^ and A 1 defined on
D ( A ^ ) = { u : u D ( A ) , u ( 0 ) = u ( 0 ) = 0 } , D ( A 1 ) = { u : u D ( A ) , Υ ( u ) = b } ,
respectively. Observe that the only solution of A ^ u = 0 is u 0 , z 1 = c o s x and z 2 = s i n x are two linearly independent solutions of A u = 0 , and the matrix
Υ ( z ) = Υ 1 ( z 1 ) Υ 1 ( z 2 ) Υ 2 ( z 1 ) Υ 2 ( z 2 )
is non-singular. Thus, by applying Theorem 2, we get the unique solution
u ( x ) = z Υ 1 ( z ) b = 2 s i n x + ( π 4 ) c o s x π 2 .
Example 2.
Let the second order ordinary differential equation
u ( x ) 6 x u ( x ) + 12 x 2 u ( x ) = 2 x 4 , x ( 1 , 2 ) ,
subjected to non-local boundary conditions
8 u ( 3 2 ) 3 4 u ( 2 ) = 177 22 1 2 1 t 3 u ( t ) d t , u ( 5 4 ) 12 5 u ( 5 4 ) = 625 768 1 2 1 t 2 u ( t ) 3 t 3 u ( t ) d t .
Observe that this problem can be written as follows:
d d x 3 x 2 u ( x ) = 2 x 4 , x ( 1 , 2 ) , 8 u ( 3 2 ) 3 4 u ( 2 ) 177 22 1 2 1 t 3 u ( t ) d t = 0 , d d x 3 x u ( x ) x = 5 4 625 768 1 2 1 t 2 d d t 3 t u ( t ) d t = 0 .
Comparing now with (22), we take
A u ( x ) = d d x 3 x u ( x ) , D ( A ) = C 1 [ 1 , 2 ] , f ( x ) = 2 x 4 , Υ ˜ ( u ) = 8 u ( 3 2 ) 3 4 u ( 2 ) 177 22 1 2 1 t 3 u ( t ) d t , Υ ( A u ) = A u ( x ) x = 5 4 625 768 1 2 1 t 2 A u ( t ) d t ,
and we set
A ˜ 0 u = A u , D ( A ˜ 0 ) = { u : u D ( A ) , Υ ˜ ( u ) = 0 } , A 0 v = A v , D ( A 0 ) = { v : v D ( A ) , Υ ( v ) = 0 } .
Further, let the correct operator A ^ defined by
A ^ u = A u = f , D ( A ^ ) = { u : u D ( A ) , u ( 1 ) = 0 } ,
and its inverse given by
A ^ 1 f ( x ) = e 1 x 3 s d s 1 x e 1 t 3 s d s f ( t ) d t = x 3 1 x 1 t 3 f ( t ) d t .
Finally, note that z ( x ) = x 3 is a fundamental solution of the homogeneous equation A u = 0 and that
Υ ( z ) 0 , Υ ˜ ( z ) 0 .
Hence, from Theorem 4, it follows that the non-local boundary value problem (30), (31) has a unique solution, which after substituting into the formula (25), is
u ( x ) = x 3 ( x 3 1 ) 3 .

6. Discussion

A method for constructing closed-form solutions to boundary value problems for ordinary differential equations with general multipoint and integral boundary conditions has been presented. Ready to use solution formulae in a symbolic form have been derived for some classes of boundary value problems. Specifically, we considered the following boundary value problems:
A 0 u = f , D ( A 0 ) = { u : u D ( A ) , Υ ( u ) = 0 } , A 1 u = f , D ( A 1 ) = { u : u D ( A ) , Υ ( u ) = b } , A 0 k u = f , D ( A 0 k ) = { u : u D ( A k ) , Υ ( u ) = 0 , Υ ( A u ) = 0 , , Υ ( A k 1 u ) = 0 } , A 0 A ˜ 0 u = f , D ( A 0 A ˜ 0 ) = { u : u D ( A 2 ) , Υ ˜ ( u ) = 0 , Υ ( A u ) = 0 } ,
where the operators A 0 , A 1 , A ˜ 0 are restrictions of the n-th order linear differential operator A in (1) and Υ , Υ ˜ are vectors of linear bounded functionals as in (4) and (23), respectively, describing general non-local boundary conditions.
The proposed methodology can be specialized to other categories of boundary value problems and extended to some classes of partial differential equations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.P., S.Z. and I.F.; validation, S.Z. and I.F.; formal analysis, E.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and comments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Busenberg, S.; Cooke, K.L. The effect of integral conditions in certain equations modelling epidemics and population growth. J. Math. Biol. 1980, 10, 13–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Picone, M. Sui valori eccezionali di un parametro da cui dipende un’equazione dif- ferenziale lineare del secondo ordine. Annali Della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa-Classe di Scienze 1910, 11, 1–141. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
  3. Sommerfeld, A. Ein Beitrag zur hydrodynamischen Erklärung der turbulenten Flüssigkeitsbewegung. Proc. Int. Math. Congr. 1909, 3, 116–124. [Google Scholar]
  4. Tamarkin, J. Some general problems of the theory of ordinary linear differential equations and expansion of an arbitrary function in series of fundamental functions. Math. Z. 1928, 27, 1–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Il’in, V.A.; Moiseev, E.I. An a priori estimate for the solution of a problem associated with a nonlocal boundary value problem of the first kind. Differ. Equ. 1988, 24, 519–526. [Google Scholar]
  6. Dezin, A.A. On the general theory of boundary value problems. Math. USSR-Sb. 1976, 100, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Grubb, G. A characterization of the nonlocal boundary value problems associated with an elliptic operator. Annali Della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa-Classe di Scienze 1968, 22, 425–513. [Google Scholar]
  8. Vishik, M.I. On general boundary problems for elliptic differential equations. Am. Math. Soc. Transl. 1952, 1, 187–246. [Google Scholar]
  9. Gorbachuk, M.L. Boundary Value Problems for Operator Differential Equations; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Krein, S.G. Linear Equations in Banach Spaces; Birkhäuser: Basel, Switzerland, 1982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lions, J.L.; Magenes, E. Non-Homogeneous Boundary Value Problems and Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1972; Volume 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Skubachevskii, A.L. Nonclassical boundary-value problems. Int. J. Math. Sci. 2008, 155, 199–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Krall, A.M. The development of general differential and general differential-boundary systems. Rocky Mt. J. Math. 1975, 5, 493–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ma, R. A survey on nonlocal boundary value problems. Appl. Math. E-Notes 2007, 7, 257–279. [Google Scholar]
  15. Štikonas, A. A survey on stationary problems, Green’s functions and spectrum of Sturm–Liouville problem with nonlocal boundary conditions. Nonlinear Anal-Model. Control 2014, 19, 301–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Whyburn, W.M. Differential equations with general boundary conditions. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 1942, 48, 692–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Denche, M.; Kourta, A. Boundary value problem for second-order differential operators with nonregular integral boundary conditions. Rocky Mt. J. Math. 2006, 36, 893–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gallardo, J.M. Second-Order differential operators with integral boundary conditions and generation of analytic semigroups. Rocky Mt. J. Math. 2000, 30, 1265–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jankowski, T. Differential equations with integral boundary conditions. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2002, 147, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Jones, W.R. Differential systems with integral boundary conditions. J. Differ. Equ. 1967, 3, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Kalenyuk, P.I.; Kuduk, G.; Kohut, I.V.; Nytrebych, Z.M. Problem with integral conditions for differential-operator equation. J. Math. Sci. 2015, 208, 267–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Liu, L.; Hao, X.; Wu, Y. Positive solutions for singular second order differential equations with integral boundary conditions. Math. Comput. Model. 2013, 57, 836–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhang, L.; Xuan, Z. Multiple positive solutions for a second-order boundary value problem with integral boundary conditions. Bound. Value Probl. 2016, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Zhang, X.; Ge, W. Positive solutions for a class of boundary-value problems with integral boundary conditions. Comput. Math. Appl. 2009, 58, 203–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Adomian, G. Integral Boundary Conditions. In Solving Frontier Problems of Physics: The Decomposition Method. Fundamental Theories of Physics (An International Book Series on the Fundamental Theories of Physics: Their Clarification, Development and Application); Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1994; Volume 60, pp. 196–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chen, S.; Ni, W.; Wang, C. Positive solution of fourth order ordinary differential equation with four-point boundary conditions. Appl. Math. Lett. 2006, 19, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Dovletov, D.M. On a nonlocal boundary value problem of the second kind for the Sturm- Liouville operator in the differential and difference statements. E-J. Anal. Appl. Math. 2018, 1, 37–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Krall, A.M. Differential operators and their adjoints under integral and multiple point boundary conditions. J. Differ. Equ. 1968, 4, 327–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Ojika, T.; Welsh, W. A numerical method for the solution of multi-point problems for ordinary differential equations with integral constraints. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1979, 72, 500–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Parasidis, I.N.; Providas, E. Exact solutions to problems with perturbed differential and boundary operators. In Analysis and Operator Theory; Springer Optimization and Its Applications; Rassias, T., Zagrebnov, V., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; Volume 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sadybekov, M.A.; Imanbaev, N.S. A regular differential operator with perturbed boundary condition. Math. Notes 2017, 101, 878–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Aida-Zade, K.R.; Abdullaev, V.M. On the solution of boundary value problems with nonseparated multipoint and integral conditions. Differ. Equ. 2013, 49, 1114–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Biyarov, B.N. Normal extensions of linear operators. Eurasian Math. J. 2016, 7, 17–32. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kokebaev, B.K.; Otelbaev, M.; Shynibekov, A.N. About Restrictions and Extensions of operators. DAN SSSR 1983, 271, 1307–1310. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  35. Oinarov, R.O.; Parasidis, I.N. Correct extensions of operators with finite defect in Banach spaces. Izv. Akad. Kaz. SSR 1988, 5, 42–46. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  36. Parasidis, I.N.; Tsekrekos, P. Some quadratic correct extensions of minimal operators in Banach spaces. Oper. Matrices 2010, 4, 225–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Parasidis, I.N.; Providas, E.; Zaoutsos, S. On the Solution of Boundary Value Problems for Ordinary Differential Equations of Order n and 2n with General Boundary Conditions. In Computational Mathematics and Variational Analysis; Springer Optimization and Its Applications; Daras, N., Rassias, T., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 159, pp. 299–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Providas, E.; Zaoutsos, S.; Faraslis, I. Closed-Form Solutions of Linear Ordinary Differential Equations with General Boundary Conditions. Axioms 2021, 10, 226. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms10030226

AMA Style

Providas E, Zaoutsos S, Faraslis I. Closed-Form Solutions of Linear Ordinary Differential Equations with General Boundary Conditions. Axioms. 2021; 10(3):226. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms10030226

Chicago/Turabian Style

Providas, Efthimios, Stefanos Zaoutsos, and Ioannis Faraslis. 2021. "Closed-Form Solutions of Linear Ordinary Differential Equations with General Boundary Conditions" Axioms 10, no. 3: 226. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms10030226

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop