Down syndrome (DS) refers to a genetic condition due to the triplication of human chromosome 21. It is the most frequent autosomal trisomy. In recent years, experimental work has been conducted with the aim of removing or silencing the extra chromosome 21 (C21) in cells and normalizing genetic expression. This paper examines the feasibility of the move from laboratory studies to biologically treating “bone and flesh” people with DS. A chromosome or a gene therapy for humans is fraught with practical and ethical difficulties. To prevent DS completely, genome editing would have to be performed early on embryos in the womb. New in vitro findings point toward the possibility of epigenetic silencing the extra C21 in later embryonic or fetal life, or even postnatally for some aspects of neurogenesis. These possibilities are far beyond what is possible or allowed today. Another approach is through epigenetic regulation of the overexpression of particular genes in C21. Research with mouse modeling of DS is yielding promising results. Human applications have barely begun and are questioned on ethical grounds.
Citation: Jean A Rondal. From the lab to the people: major challenges in the biological treatment of Down syndrome[J]. AIMS Neuroscience, 2021, 8(2): 284-294. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2021015
[1] | Nihan Turan, Metin Başarır, Aynur Şahin . On the solutions of the second-order $ (p, q) $-difference equation with an application to the fixed-point theory. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 10679-10697. doi: 10.3934/math.2024521 |
[2] | Changlong Yu, Jing Li, Jufang Wang . Existence and uniqueness criteria for nonlinear quantum difference equations with $ p $-Laplacian. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(6): 10439-10453. doi: 10.3934/math.2022582 |
[3] | Jianhua Gong, Muhammad Ghaffar Khan, Hala Alaqad, Bilal Khan . Sharp inequalities for $ q $-starlike functions associated with differential subordination and $ q $-calculus. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 28421-28446. doi: 10.3934/math.20241379 |
[4] | Gul Sana, Muhmmad Aslam Noor, Dumitru Baleanu . Novel higher order iterative schemes based on the $ q- $Calculus for solving nonlinear equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(3): 3524-3553. doi: 10.3934/math.2022196 |
[5] | Qasem M. Tawhari . Advanced analytical techniques for fractional Schrödinger and Korteweg-de Vries equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(5): 11708-11731. doi: 10.3934/math.2025530 |
[6] | Zhuo Wang, Weichuan Lin . The uniqueness of meromorphic function shared values with meromorphic solutions of a class of q-difference equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(3): 5501-5522. doi: 10.3934/math.2024267 |
[7] | Yasir Nawaz, Muhammad Shoaib Arif, Kamaleldin Abodayeh, Mairaj Bibi . Finite difference schemes for time-dependent convection q-diffusion problem. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(9): 16407-16421. doi: 10.3934/math.2022897 |
[8] | Abdullah Mohammed Alomair, Ali Muhib . Some new oscillation results for second-order differential equations with neutral term. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(1): 694-704. doi: 10.3934/math.2025031 |
[9] | Fawaz Khaled Alarfaj, Ali Muhib . Second-order differential equations with mixed neutral terms: new oscillation theorems. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(2): 3381-3391. doi: 10.3934/math.2025156 |
[10] | Samy E. Affan, Elmetwally M. Elabbasy, Bassant M. El-Matary, Taher S. Hassan, Ahmed M. Hassan . Second-order advanced dynamic equations on time scales: Oscillation analysis via monotonicity properties. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(2): 4473-4491. doi: 10.3934/math.2025206 |
Down syndrome (DS) refers to a genetic condition due to the triplication of human chromosome 21. It is the most frequent autosomal trisomy. In recent years, experimental work has been conducted with the aim of removing or silencing the extra chromosome 21 (C21) in cells and normalizing genetic expression. This paper examines the feasibility of the move from laboratory studies to biologically treating “bone and flesh” people with DS. A chromosome or a gene therapy for humans is fraught with practical and ethical difficulties. To prevent DS completely, genome editing would have to be performed early on embryos in the womb. New in vitro findings point toward the possibility of epigenetic silencing the extra C21 in later embryonic or fetal life, or even postnatally for some aspects of neurogenesis. These possibilities are far beyond what is possible or allowed today. Another approach is through epigenetic regulation of the overexpression of particular genes in C21. Research with mouse modeling of DS is yielding promising results. Human applications have barely begun and are questioned on ethical grounds.
Fractional calculus has proven in recent years to be a helpful method of tackling the complexity of complex systems from various scientific and engineering branches. It involves the generalization of the integer order differentiation and integration of a function to non-integer order, see [1]. In recent years, there has been considerable interest in fractional differential equations, with numerous works dedicated to the topic. Notable examples include the books by Benchohra et al. [2,3]. The authors of [4,5] investigated the qualitative theorems of solutions to diverse fractional differential equations and inclusions about memory effects and predictive behavior arguments.
In a recent publication [6], Diaz introduced novel definitions for the special functions k-gamma and k-beta. Interested readers can refer to additional sources such as [7,8] to delve deeper into this topic. Furthermore, in another work [9], Sousa et al. presented the φ-Hilfer derivative of fractional order and elucidated some crucial properties related to this type of fractional operator. Drawing inspiration from the various papers cited earlier, we have introduced a new extension of the renowned Hilfer fractional derivative [10,11,12].
On the other hand, delay differential equations are a type of functional differential equation that arise in various biological and physical applications and often require consideration of variable or state-dependent delays. The study of functional differential equations with delay has garnered significant attention in recent years due to their crucial applications in mathematical models of real-world phenomena. For examples, see [4,5] and the references therein.
In [13], Krim et al. studied the problem
{(ρDϑ20++ϑ1)(ϱ)=g(ϱ,ϑ1(ϱ),(ρDϑ20++ϑ1)(ϱ)),ϱ∈I:=[0,T],ϑ1(T)=ϑ1T∈R, |
where ρDϑ20+ is the Katugampola derivative of fractional order ϑ2∈(0,1], and
g:I×R×R→R |
is a continuous function.
Using the Picard operator method, Krasnoselskii fixed point approach, and Gronwall's inequality lemma, Almalahi et al. [14] established the existence and stability theories for the problem:
{HDϑ1,ϑ2;φ0+y(ϱ)=g(ϱ,y(ϱ),y(ˆg(ϱ)), ϱ∈(0,a2],I1−ϑ3;φ0+y(0+)=k∑ȷ=1cȷy(kȷ),kȷ∈(0,a2),y(ϱ)=δ(ϱ),ϱ∈[−ϑ2,0], |
where HDϑ1,ϑ2;φ0+(⋅) is the φ-Hilfer derivative of fractional order ϑ1∈(0,1) and type ϑ2∈[0,1],I1−ϑ3,φ0+(⋅) is the φ-Riemann-Liouville integral of fractional order (1−ϑ3),
ϑ3=ϑ1+ϑ2(1−ϑ1),0<ϑ3<1,kȷ,ȷ=1,2,…,k |
are prefixed points satisfying 0<k1≤k2≤…≤kȷ<a2, and cȷ∈R,δ∈C[−ϑ2,0], the function
g:(0,a2]×R×R→R |
is continuous, and
ˆg∈C(0,a2]→[−ϑ2,a2] |
with ˆg(ϱ)≤ϱ,ϑ2>0.
In light of the above studies, we focus on a terminal-valued hybrid problem governed by a nonlinear implicit (k,φ)-Hilfer fractional differential equation with mixed-type arguments (retarded and advanced):
(HkDϑ1,ϑ2;φa1+ψy)(ϱ)=g(ϱ,yϱ(⋅),(HkDϑ1,ϑ2;φa1+ψy)(ϱ)), ϱ∈(a1,a2], | (1.1) |
y(a2)=˜n∑ȷ=1αȷy(ϵȷ), | (1.2) |
y(ϱ)=χ(ϱ), ϱ∈[a1−d,a1], d>0, | (1.3) |
y(ϱ)=˜χ(ϱ), ϱ∈[a2,a2+˜d], ˜d>0, | (1.4) |
where HkDϑ1,ϑ2;φa1+ is the (k,φ)-Hilfer derivative of fractional order ϑ1∈(0,k) and type ϑ2∈[0,1] defined in Section 2. Furthermore,
ϑ3=1k(ϑ2(k−ϑ1)+ϑ1),k>0,g:[a1,a2]×C([−d,˜d],R)×R⟶R,ψ∈C([a1,a2],R∖{0}),ϵȷ,ȷ=1,…,˜n |
are pre-fixed points satisfying a1<ϵ1≤…≤ϵ˜n<a2, and αȷ,ȷ=1,…,˜n are real numbers. For each function y defined on [a1−d,a2+˜d] and for any ϱ∈(a1,a2], we denote by yϱ the element defined by
yϱ(s)=y(ϱ+s), s∈[−d,˜d]. |
The following are the primary novelties of the current paper:
● Given the diverse conditions imposed on problems (1.1)–(1.4), our study can be seen as both a continuation and a generalization of the studies mentioned above, such as the papers [13,14].
● The introduced (k,φ)-Hilfer operator serves as an extension, encompassing previously established fractional derivatives such as the Caputo, Hadamard, and Hilfer fractional derivatives already present in the existing literature.
● The number of papers addressing a nonlocal condition combined with retarded and advanced arguments is very limited. Therefore, our work aims to fill this gap in the literature.
● The introduced (k,φ)-Hilfer operator serves as an extension, encompassing previously established fractional derivatives such as the Caputo, Hadamard, and Hilfer fractional derivatives already present in the existing literature.
The structure of this paper is as follows: Section 2 presents certain notations and preliminaries about the φ-Hilfer fractional derivative, the functions k-gamma and k-beta, and some auxiliary results. Further, we give the definition of the (k,φ)-Hilfer type fractional derivative and some essential theorems and lemmas. In Section 3, we present three existence and uniqueness results for the problems (1.1)–(1.4) that are founded on the Banach contraction principle, the Schauder and Krasnoselskii fixed point theorems. In the last section, illustrative examples are provided in support of the results obtained.
First, we present the weighted spaces, notations, definitions, and preliminary facts that are used in this article. Please refer to [3] for all details on these spaces and notations.
Let
0<a1<a2<∞,T=[a1,a2],ϑ1∈(0,k),ϑ2∈[0,1],k>0 |
and
ϑ3=1k(ϑ2(k−ϑ1)+ϑ1). |
The Banach space of continuous functions is denoted by C(T,R) with the norm
‖y‖∞=sup{|y(ϱ)|:ϱ∈T}. |
Let ACn(T,R), Cn(T,R) be the spaces of continuous functions, n-times absolutely continuous, and n-times continuously differentiable functions on T, respectively.
Let
C([−d,˜d],R),C=C([a1−d,a1],R) |
and
˜C=C([a2,a2+˜d],R) |
be the spaces gifted, respectively, with the norms
‖y‖[−d,˜d]=sup{|y(ϱ)|:ϱ∈[−d,˜d]},‖y‖C=sup{|y(ϱ)|:ϱ∈[a1−d,a1]},‖y‖˜C=sup{|y(ϱ)|:ϱ∈[a2,a2+˜d]}. |
Let φ∈C([a1,a2],R) be an increasing function such that φ′(ϱ)≠0, for all ϱ∈T.
Now, let the weighted Banach space be defined as
Cϑ3,k;φ(T)={y:(a1,a2]→R:ϱ→Ψφϑ3(ϱ,a1)y(ϱ)∈C(T,R)}, |
where
Ψφϑ3(ϱ,a1)=(φ(ϱ)−φ(a1))1−ϑ3 |
with the norm
‖y‖Cϑ3,k;φ=supϱ∈T|Ψφϑ3(ϱ,a1)y(ϱ)|, |
and
Cnϑ3,k;φ(T)={y∈Cn−1(T):y(n)∈Cϑ3,k;φ(T)},n∈N,C0ϑ3,k;φ(T)=Cϑ3,k;φ(T) |
with the norm
‖y‖Cnϑ3,k;φ=n−1∑ȷ=0‖y(ȷ)‖∞+‖y(n)‖Cϑ3,k;φ. |
Next, let us define the Banach space
F={y:[a1−d,a2+˜d]→R:y|[a1−d,a1]∈C,y|[a2,a2+˜d]∈˜C and y|(a1,a2]∈Cϑ3,k;φ(T)} |
with the norm
‖y‖F=max{‖y‖C,‖y‖˜C,‖y‖Cϑ3,k;φ}. |
Denote Xpφ(a1,a2), (1≤p≤∞) to the space of each real-valued Lebesgue measurable functions ˆg on [a1,a2] such that ‖ˆg‖Xpφ<∞, with the norm given as
‖ˆg‖Xpφ=(∫a2a1φ′(ϱ)|ˆg(ϱ)|pdϱ)1p, |
where φ is a non-deceasing and non-negative function on [a1,a2], such that φ′ is continuous on [a1,a2] with φ(0)=0.
Definition 2.1. [6] The k-gamma function is given as
Γk(α)=∫∞0ϱα−1e−ϱkkdϱ, α>0, |
where
Γk(α+k)=αΓk(α),Γk(α)=kαk−1Γ(αk),Γk(k)=Γ(1)=1, |
and for k→1, then
Γ(α)=Γk(α). |
Furthermore the k-beta function is defined as follows:
Bk(α,a)=1k∫10ϱαk−1(1−ϱ)ak−1dϱ, |
so that
Bk(α,a)=1kB(αk,ak) |
and
Bk(α,a)=Γk(α)Γk(a)Γk(α+a). |
Definition 2.2. [15] Let
ˆg∈Xpφ(a1,a2), φ(ϱ)>0 |
be a non-decreasing function on (a1,a2] and φ′(ϱ)>0 be continuous on (a1,a2) and ϑ1>0. The generalized k-fractional integral operators of a function ˆg of order ϑ1 are defined by
Jϑ1,k;φa1+ˆg(ϱ)=∫ϱa1ˉΨk,φϑ1(ϱ,s)φ′(s)ˆg(s)ds,Jϑ1,k;φa2−ˆg(ϱ)=∫a2ϱˉΨk,φϑ1(s,ϱ)φ′(s)ˆg(s)ds |
with k>0 and
ˉΨk,φϑ1(ϱ,s)=(φ(ϱ)−φ(s))ϑ1k−1kΓk(ϑ1). |
Additionally, the authors of the work [16] extended these operators and defined the generalized fractional integrals by
Jϑ1,k;φG,a1+ˆg(ϱ)=1kΓk(ϑ1)∫ϱa1φ′(s)ˆg(s)dsG(φ(ϱ)−φ(s),ϑ1k),Jϑ1,k;φG,a2−ˆg(ϱ)=1kΓk(ϑ1)∫a2ϱφ′(s)ˆg(s)dsG(φ(s)−φ(ϱ),ϑ1k), |
where G(z,ϑ1)∈AC[a1,a2].
Theorem 2.3. [16] Let ϑ1>0, k>0, and consider the integrable function ˆg: [a1,a2]→R. Then Jϑ1,k;φG,a1+ˆg exists for all ϱ∈[a1,a2].
Theorem 2.4. [16] Let ˆg∈Xpφ(a1,a2) and take ϑ1>0 and k>0. Then Jϑ1,k;φG,a1+ˆg∈C([a1,a2],R).
Lemma 2.5. [10,11] Consider ϑ1>0, ϑ2>0, and k>0. Then, one has
Jϑ1,k;φa1+Jϑ2,k;φa1+g(ϱ)=Jϑ1+ϑ2,k;φa1+g(ϱ)=Jϑ2,k;φa1+Jϑ1,k;φa1+g(ϱ) |
and
Jϑ1,k;φa2−Jϑ2,k;φa2−g(ϱ)=Jϑ1+ϑ2,k;φa2−g(ϱ)=Jϑ2,k;φa2−Jϑ1,k;φa2−g(ϱ). |
Lemma 2.6. [10,11] Let ϑ1,ϑ2>0 and k>0. Then, we have
Jϑ1,k;φa1+ˉΨk,φϑ2(ϱ,a1)=ˉΨk,φϑ1+ϑ2(ϱ,a1) |
and
Jϑ1,k;φa2−ˉΨk,φϑ2(a2,ϱ)=ˉΨk,φϑ1+ϑ2(a2,ϱ). |
Theorem 2.7. [10,11] Let 0<a1<a2<∞,ϑ1>0,0≤ϑ3<1, k>0, and y∈Cϑ3,k;φ(T). If
ϑ1k>1−ϑ3, |
then
(Jϑ1,k;φa1+y)(a1)=limϱ→a1+(Jϑ1,k;φa1+y)(ϱ)=0. |
Definition 2.8. ((k,φ)-Hilfer derivative [10,11]) Let
n−1<ϑ1k≤n |
with n∈N, T=[a1,a2] an interval such that
−∞≤a1<a2≤∞ |
and
ˆg,φ∈Cn([a1,a2],R) |
are two functions such that φ is increasing and φ′(ϱ)≠0, for all ϱ∈T. The (k,φ)-Hilfer fractional derivative HkDϑ1,ϑ2;φa1+(⋅) and HkDϑ1,ϑ2;φa2−(⋅) of a function ˆg of order ϑ1 and type 0≤ϑ2≤1, with k>0 is defined by
HkDϑ1,ϑ2;φa1+ˆg(ϱ)=(Jϑ2(kn−ϑ1),k;φa1+(1φ′(ϱ)ddϱ)n(knJ(1−ϑ2)(kn−ϑ1),k;φa1+ˆg))(ϱ)=(Jϑ2(kn−ϑ1),k;φa1+δnφ(knJ(1−ϑ2)(kn−ϑ1),k;φa1+ˆg))(ϱ), |
where
δnφ=(1φ′(ϱ)ddϱ)n. |
Lemma 2.9. [10,11] Let ϱ>a1, ϑ1>0,0≤ϑ2≤1, and k>0. Thus, for
0<ϑ3<1,ϑ3=1k(ϑ2(k−ϑ1)+ϑ1), |
and one has
[HkDϑ1,ϑ2;φa1+(Ψφϑ3(s,a1))−1](ϱ)=0. |
g∈Cnϑ3,k;φ[a1,a2],n−1<ϑ1k<n,0≤ϑ2≤1, |
where n∈N and k>0, then
(Jϑ1,k;φa1+ HkDϑ1,ϑ2;φa1+g)(ϱ)=g(ϱ)−n∑ȷ=1(φ(ϱ)−φ(a1))ϑ3−ȷkȷ−nΓk(k(ϑ3−ȷ+1)){δn−ȷφ(Jk(n−ϑ3),k;φa1+g(a1))}, |
where
ϑ3=1k(ϑ2(kn−ϑ1)+ϑ1). |
Particularly, for n=1, one gets
(Jϑ1,k;φa1+ HkDϑ1,ϑ2;φa1+g)(ϱ)=g(ϱ)−(φ(ϱ)−φ(a1))ϑ3−1Γk(ϑ2(k−ϑ1)+ϑ1)J(1−ϑ2)(k−ϑ1),k;φa1+g(a1). |
Lemma 2.11. [10,11] Let ϑ1>0,0≤ϑ2≤1, and y∈C1ϑ3,k;φ(T), where k>0, then for ϱ∈(a1,a2], we have
(HkDϑ1,ϑ2;φa1+ Jϑ1,k;φa1+y)(ϱ)=y(ϱ). |
We start this section by taking the next fractional differential problem:
(HkDϑ1,ϑ2;φa1+ψy)(ϱ)=δ(ϱ), ϱ∈(a1,a2], | (3.1) |
such that 0<ϑ1<k,0≤ϑ2≤1, subjected to the conditions
y(a2)=˜n∑ȷ=1αȷy(ϵȷ), | (3.2) |
y(ϱ)=χ(ϱ), ϱ∈[a1−d,a1], d>0, | (3.3) |
y(ϱ)=˜χ(ϱ), ϱ∈[a2,a2+˜d], ˜d>0, | (3.4) |
where
ϑ3=ϑ2(k−ϑ1)+ϑ1k, |
k>0, αȷ,ȷ=1,…,˜n, belong to R, α˜n+1=−1 and ϵȷ,ȷ=1,…,˜n+1, are pre-fixed points verifying
a1<ϵ1≤…≤ϵ˜n<a2=ϵ˜n+1, |
such that
˜n+1∑ȷ=1αȷΨφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)≠0, |
and where δ(⋅)∈C(T,R), χ(⋅)∈C, ψ∈C([a1,a2],R∖{0}), and ˜χ(⋅)∈˜C.
Theorem 3.1. The function y verifies (3.1)–(3.4) if and only if
y(ϱ)={1ψ(ϱ)[−˜n+1∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϵȷ)˜n+1∑ȷ=1αȷΨφϑ3(ϱ,a1)ψ(ϵȷ)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)+(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϱ)],ϱ∈(a1,a2],χ(ϱ), ϱ∈[a1−d,a1],˜χ(ϱ), ϱ∈[a2,a2+˜d]. | (3.5) |
Proof. Assume that y satisfies Eqs (3.1)–(3.4), and by implementing the integral operator Jϑ1,k;φa1+(⋅) of fractional order ϑ1 on both sides of (3.1), we have
(Jϑ1,k;φa1+ HkDϑ1,ϑ2;φa1+ψy)(ϱ)=(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϱ). |
Using Theorem 2.10, we get
y(ϱ)=1ψ(ϱ)[Jk(1−ϑ3),k;φa1+y(a1)Ψφϑ3(ϱ,a1)Γk(kϑ3)+(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϱ)]. | (3.6) |
In what follows, by putting ϱ=ϵȷ into (3.6), and applying αȷ to both sides, one gets
αȷy(ϵȷ)=1ψ(ϵȷ)[αȷJk(1−ϑ3),k;φa1+y(a1)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)Γk(kϑ3)+αȷ(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϵȷ)]. |
By (3.2) and (3.6) with ϱ=a2, we have
Jk(1−ϑ3),k;φa1+y(a1)˜n∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)Γk(kϑ3)+˜n∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϵȷ)=1ψ(a2)[Jk(1−ϑ3),k;φa1+y(a1)Ψφϑ3(a2,a1)Γk(kϑ3)+(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(a2)], |
which implies
Jk(1−ϑ3),k;φa1+y(a1)=−(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(a2)ψ(a2)+˜n∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϵȷ)1ψ(a2)Ψφϑ3(a2,a1)Γk(kϑ3)−˜n∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)Γk(kϑ3)=−˜n+1∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϵȷ)˜n+1∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)Γk(kϑ3). | (3.7) |
Substituting (3.7) into (3.6), we obtain (3.5).
Now, we show that y verifies Eq (3.5), it follows that it also verifies (3.1)–(3.4). Applying HkDϑ1,ϑ2;φa1+(⋅) on both sides of (3.5), we get
(HkDϑ1,ϑ2;φa1+ψy)(ϱ)= HkDϑ1,ϑ2;φa1+(−˜n+1∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϵȷ)˜n+1∑ȷ=1αȷΨφϑ3(ϱ,a1)ψ(ϵȷ)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1))+(HkDϑ1,ϑ2;φa1+Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϱ). |
In view of Lemmas 2.9 and 2.11, we find Eq (3.1). Now, taking ϱ=a2 in Eq (3.5), we have
ψ(a2)y(a2)=−˜n+1∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϵȷ)˜n+1∑ȷ=1αȷΨφϑ3(a2,a1)ψ(ϵȷ)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)+(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(a2). | (3.8) |
Substituting ϱ=ϵȷ into (3.5), we get
ψ(ϵȷ)y(ϵȷ)=−˜n+1∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϵȷ)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)˜n+1∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)+(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϵȷ). |
Then, we have
˜n∑ȷ=1αȷy(ϵȷ)=−˜n+1∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϵȷ)˜n+1∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)˜n∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)+˜n∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϵȷ), |
and thus,
˜n∑ȷ=1αȷy(ϵȷ)=(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(a2)ψ(a2)−˜n∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϵȷ)−1ψ(a2)Ψφϑ3(a2,a1)˜n∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)+1+˜n∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϵȷ)=(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(a2)ψ(a2)−˜n∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϵȷ)ψ(a2)Ψφϑ3(a2,a1)˜n∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)−1ψ(a2)Ψφϑ3(a2,a1)˜n∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)+1=((Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(a2)ψ(a2)−˜n∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϵȷ)ψ(a2)Ψφϑ3(a2,a1)˜n∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1))×(ψ(a2)Ψφϑ3(a2,a1)˜n∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)˜n+1∑ȷ=1αȷψ(a2)Ψφϑ3(a2,a1)ψ(ϵȷ)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1))=(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(a2)Ψφϑ3(a2,a1)˜n∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)−˜n∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϵȷ)˜n+1∑ȷ=1αȷψ(a2)Ψφϑ3(a2,a1)ψ(ϵȷ)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1). |
Then,
˜n∑ȷ=1αȷy(ϵȷ)=−˜n+1∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϵȷ)˜n+1∑ȷ=1αȷψ(a2)Ψφϑ3(a2,a1)ψ(ϵȷ)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)+(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(a2)ψ(a2). | (3.9) |
From (3.8) and (3.9), we find that
y(a2)=˜n∑ȷ=1αȷy(ϵȷ), |
which implies that argument (3.2) holds.
In sequel, we present the following finding as a consequence of Theorem 3.1.
Lemma 3.2. Let
ϑ3=ϑ2(k−ϑ1)+ϑ1k, |
such that 0<ϑ1<k and 0≤ϑ2≤1, and suppose that χ(⋅)∈C, ˜χ(⋅)∈˜C, and
g:T×C([−d,˜d],R)×R→R |
is a continuous function. Then, y∈F is a solution of problems (1.1)–(1.4) iff y is a fixed point of the mapping k: F→F defined by
(ky)(ϱ)={1ψ(ϱ)[−˜n+1∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϵȷ)˜n+1∑ȷ=1αȷΨφϑ3(ϱ,a1)ψ(ϵȷ)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)+(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϱ)],ϱ∈(a1,a2],χ(ϱ), ϱ∈[a1−d,a1],˜χ(ϱ), ϱ∈[a2,a2+˜d], | (3.10) |
where δ is a function verifying
δ(ϱ)=g(ϱ,yϱ(⋅),δ(ϱ)) |
and
α˜n+1=−1,ϵ˜n+1=a2. |
Next, we present the following hypotheses for using in the sequel analysis:
(Ax1)
g:T×C([−d,˜d],R)×R→R |
is a continuous function.
(Ax2) There exist real numbers ζ1>0 and 0<ζ2<1, where
|g(ϱ,y1,ˆy1)−g(ϱ,y2,ˆy2)|≤ζ1‖y1−y2‖[−d,˜d]+ζ2|ˆy1−ˆy2| |
for any
y1,y2∈C([−d,˜d],R), ˆy1,ˆy2∈R, |
and ϱ∈(a1,a2].
(Ax3) There exist functions m1,m2,m3∈C(T,R+) with
m∗1=supϱ∈Tm1(ϱ), m∗2=supϱ∈Tm2(ϱ), m∗3=supϱ∈Tm3(ϱ)<1, |
such that
|g(ϱ,y,ˆy)|≤m1(ϱ)+m2(ϱ)‖y‖[−d,˜d]+m3(ϱ)|ˆy| |
for any
y∈C([−d,˜d],R), ˆy∈R |
and ϱ∈(a1,a2].
(Ax4) The function ψ is continuous on T and there exists G>0 such that
|ψ(ϱ)|≥G. |
Now, we will study the uniqueness theorem for problems (1.1)–(1.4) by utilizing the Banach fixed point technique [17].
Theorem 3.3. Suppose that (Ax1), (Ax2), and (Ax4) are satisfied. If
L=2ζ1(φ(a2)−φ(a1))1−ϑ3+ϑ1kGΓk(ϑ1+k)(1−ζ2) <1, | (3.11) |
then, problems (1.1)–(1.4) have a unique solution in F.
Proof. In order to prove that the mapping k given in (3.10) possesses one fixed point in F. Let us take y,ˆy∈F, thus for any
ϱ∈[a1−d,a1]∪[a2,a2+˜d], |
we have
|ky(ϱ)−kˆy(ϱ)|=0. |
Thus
‖ky−kˆy‖C=‖ky−kˆy‖˜C=0. | (3.12) |
Further, for ϱ∈(a1,a2], we have
|ky(ϱ)−kˆy(ϱ)|≤1|ψ(ϱ)|[˜n+1∑ȷ=1|αȷ||ψ(ϵȷ)|(Jϑ1,k;φa1+|δ1(s)−δ2(s)|)(ϵȷ)˜n+1∑ȷ=1|αȷ|Ψφϑ3(ϱ,a1)|ψ(ϵȷ)|Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)+(Jϑ1,k;φa1+|δ1(s)−δ2(s)|)(ϱ)], |
where δ1 and δ2 are functions satisfying the functional equations
δ1(ϱ)=g(ϱ,yϱ(⋅),δ1(ϱ)),δ2(ϱ)=g(ϱ,ˆyϱ(⋅),δ2(ϱ)). |
By (Ax2), we have
|δ1(ϱ)−δ2(ϱ)|=|g(ϱ,yϱ,δ1(ϱ))−g(ϱ,ˆyϱ,δ2(ϱ))|≤ζ1‖yϱ−ˆyϱ‖[−d,˜d]+ζ2|δ1(ϱ)−δ2(ϱ)|. |
Then,
|δ1(ϱ)−δ2(ϱ)|≤ζ11−ζ2‖yϱ−ˆyϱ‖[−d,˜d]. |
Therefore, for each ϱ∈(a1,a2],
|ky(ϱ)−kˆy(ϱ)|≤ζ1˜n+1∑ȷ=1|αȷ|(Jϑ1,k;φa1+‖ys−ˆys‖[−d,˜d])(ϵȷ)G(1−ζ2)˜n+1∑ȷ=1|αȷ|Ψφϑ3(ϱ,a1)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)+ζ1G(1−ζ2)(Jϑ1,k;φa1+‖ys−ˆys‖[−d,˜d])(ϱ)≤ζ1‖y−ˆy‖FG(1−ζ2)[˜n+1∑ȷ=1|αȷ|(Jϑ1,k;φa1+(1))(ϵȷ)˜n+1∑ȷ=1|αȷ|Ψφϑ3(ϱ,a1)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)+(Jϑ1,k;φa1+(1))(ϱ)]. |
By Lemma 2.6, we have
|ky(ϱ)−kˆy(ϱ)|≤ζ1‖y−ˆy‖FG(1−ζ2)[˜n+1∑ȷ=1|αȷ|(φ(ϵȷ)−φ(a1))ϑ1kΓk(ϑ1+k)˜n+1∑ȷ=1|αȷ|Ψφϑ3(ϱ,a1)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)+(φ(ϱ)−φ(a1))ϑ1kΓk(ϑ1+k)]. |
Hence,
|Ψφϑ3(ϱ,a1)(ky(ϱ)−kˆy(ϱ))|≤ζ1‖y−ˆy‖FG(1−ζ2)[˜n+1∑ȷ=1|αȷ|(φ(ϵȷ)−φ(a1))ϑ1kΓk(ϑ1+k)˜n+1∑ȷ=1|αȷ|Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)+(φ(ϱ)−φ(a1))1−ϑ3+ϑ1kΓk(ϑ1+k)], |
which implies that
‖ky−kˆy‖Cϑ3,k;φ≤2ζ1(φ(a2)−φ(a1))1−ϑ3+ϑ1kGΓk(ϑ1+k)(1−ζ2)‖y−ˆy‖F. |
Thus,
‖ky−kˆy‖Cϑ3,k;φ≤L‖y−ˆy‖F. | (3.13) |
By (3.12) and (3.13), we obtain
‖ky−kˆy‖F≤L‖y−ˆy‖F. |
Based on (3.11), the mapping k is a contraction on F. Therefore, by the Banach fixed point technique, k owns one fixed point y∈F, which is a unique solution for problems (1.1)–(1.4).
Our subsequent existence theorem for problems (1.1)–(1.4) will be proved by the Schauder fixed point technique [17].
Theorem 3.4. Suppose that (Ax1), (Ax3), and (Ax4) are verified. If
ℓ=2m∗2(φ(a2)−φ(a1))1−ϑ3+ϑ1kG(1−m∗3)Γk(ϑ1+k) <1, | (3.14) |
then, problems (1.1)–(1.4) have at least one solution in F.
Proof.
We will split the proof into several steps.
Step 1. The mapping k is continuous.
Consider {yn} to be a convergent sequence to y in F. For each
ϱ∈[a1−d,a1]∪[a2,a2+˜d], |
we have
|kyn(ϱ)−ky(ϱ)|=0. |
For ϱ∈(a1,a2], we have
|ky(ϱ)−kˆy(ϱ)|≤1|ψ(ϱ)|[˜n+1∑ȷ=1|αȷ||ψ(ϵȷ)|(Jϑ1,k;φa1+|δn(s)−δ(s)|)(ϵȷ)˜n+1∑ȷ=1|αȷ|Ψφϑ3(ϱ,a1)|ψ(ϵȷ)|Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)+(Jϑ1,k;φa1+|δn(s)−δ(s)|)(ϱ)], |
where δ and δn are functions satisfying the functional equations
δ(ϱ)=g(ϱ,yϱ(⋅),δ(ϱ)),δn(ϱ)=g(ϱ,ynϱ(⋅),δn(ϱ)). |
Since yn→y, then we get δn(ϱ)→δ(ϱ) as n→∞ for each ϱ∈(a1,a2], and since g is continuous, then we have
‖kyn−ky‖F→0 as n→∞. |
Step 2. We show k(BM)⊂BM.
Consider M to be a positive real number, where
M≥max{m∗1ℓm∗2(1−ℓ),‖χ‖C,‖˜χ‖˜C}. |
Now, we present the next closed bounded ball
BM={y∈F:‖y‖F≤M}. |
Then, for each ϱ∈[a1−d,a1], we have
|ky(ϱ)|≤‖χ‖C, |
and for each ϱ∈[a2,a2+˜d], we have
|ky(ϱ)|≤‖˜χ‖˜C. |
Further, for each ϱ∈(a1,a2], (3.10) implies that
|ky(ϱ)|≤1|ψ(ϱ)|[˜n+1∑ȷ=1|αȷ||ψ(ϵȷ)|(Jϑ1,k;φa1+|g(s,ys,δ(s))|)(ϵȷ)˜n+1∑ȷ=1|αȷ|Ψφϑ3(ϱ,a1)|ψ(ϵȷ)|Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)+(Jϑ1,k;φa1+|g(s,ys,δ(s))|)(ϱ)]. | (3.15) |
By hypothesis (Ax3), for ϱ∈(a1,a2], we have
|δ(ϱ)|=|g(ϱ,yϱ,δ(ϱ))|≤m1(ϱ)+m2(ϱ)‖yϱ‖[−d,˜d]+m3(ϱ)|δ(ϱ)|, |
which implies that
|δ(ϱ)|≤m∗1+m∗2M+m∗3|δ(ϱ)|, |
then
|δ(ϱ)|≤m∗1+m∗2M1−m∗3:=Δ. |
Thus for ϱ∈(a1,a2], from (3.15) we get
|Ψφϑ3(ϱ,a1)ky(ϱ)|≤Δ˜n+1∑ȷ=1|αȷ|(Jϑ1,k;φa1+(1))(ϵȷ)G˜n+1∑ȷ=1|αȷ|Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)+ΔGΨφϑ3(ϱ,a1)(Jϑ1,k;φa1+(1))(ϱ). |
By Lemma 2.6, we have
|Ψφϑ3(ϱ,a1)ky(ϱ)|≤ΔG[˜n+1∑ȷ=1|αȷ|(φ(ϵȷ)−φ(a1))ϑ1kΓk(ϑ1+k)˜n+1∑ȷ=1|αȷ|Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)+(φ(ϱ)−φ(a1))1−ϑ3+ϑ1kΓk(ϑ1+k)]. |
Thus
|Ψφϑ3(ϱ,a1)ky(ϱ)|≤2Δ(φ(a2)−φ(a1))1−ϑ3+ϑ1kGΓk(ϑ1+k)≤M. |
Then, for each
ϱ∈[a1−d,a2+˜d], |
we obtain
‖ky‖F≤M. |
Step 3. We prove that the set k(BM) is relatively compact.
Let
k1,k2∈(a1,a2], k1<k2 |
and let y∈BM. Then,
|Ψφϑ3(k1,a1)ky(k1)−Ψφϑ3(k2,a1)ky(k2)|≤|1ψ(k1)−1ψ(k2)|×[˜n+1∑ȷ=1|αȷ||ψ(ϵȷ)||(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϵȷ)|˜n+1∑ȷ=1|αȷ||ψ(ϵȷ)|Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)]+|Ψφϑ3(k1,a1)ψ(k1)(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ(s))(k1)−Ψφϑ3(k2,a1)ψ(k2)(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ(s))(k2)|≤|1ψ(k1)−1ψ(k2)|×[˜n+1∑ȷ=1|αȷ||ψ(ϵȷ)||(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϵȷ)|˜n+1∑ȷ=1|αȷ||ψ(ϵȷ)|Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)]+∫k1a1|Ψφϑ3(k1,a1)ˉΨk,φϑ1(k1,s)ψ(k1)−Ψφϑ3(k2,a1)ˉΨk,φϑ1(k2,s)ψ(k2)||φ′(s)y(s)|ds+|Ψφϑ3(k2,a1)ψ(k2)(Jϑ1,k;φk+1|y(s)|)(k2)|. |
By Lemma 2.6, we get
|Ψφϑ3(k1,a1)ky(k1)−Ψφϑ3(k2,a1)ky(k2)|≤|1ψ(k1)−1ψ(k2)|×[˜n+1∑ȷ=1|αȷ||ψ(ϵȷ)||(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϵȷ)|˜n+1∑ȷ=1|αȷ||ψ(ϵȷ)|Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1)]+Δ∫k1a1|Ψφϑ3(k1,a1)ˉΨk,φϑ1(k1,s)ψ(k1)−Ψφϑ3(k2,a1)ˉΨk,φϑ1(k2,s)ψ(k2)||φ′(s)|ds+ΔΨφϑ3(k2,a1)(φ(k2)−φ(k1))ϑ1kGΓk(ϑ1+k). |
As k1→k2, the right side of the above inequality tends to zero. From Steps 1–3, using the Arzela-Ascoli theorem, we infer that k: F→F is a continuous and compact mapping. Consequently, we deduce that k owns at least one fixed point, which is a solution for problems (1.1)–(1.4).
Our third outcome depends on the Krasnoselskii fixed point technique [17].
Theorem 3.5. Suppose that (Ax1)–(Ax4) are verified. If
ζ1(φ(a2)−φ(a1))1−ϑ3+ϑ1kGΓk(ϑ1+k)(1−ζ2)<1, | (3.16) |
then, problems (1.1)–(1.4) have a solution in F.
Proof. Let us assume that the ball
Bω={y∈F:||y||F≤ω},ω≥r1+r2 |
with
r1:=(m∗1+m∗2ω)(φ(a2)−φ(a1))1−ϑ3+ϑ1kG(1−m∗3)Γk(ϑ1+k),r2:=max{‖χ‖C,‖˜χ‖˜C,(m∗1+m∗2ω)(φ(a2)−φ(a1))1−ϑ3+ϑ1kG(1−m∗3)Γk(ϑ1+k)}. |
{Next, we introduce the mappings} ∇1 and ∇2 on Bω as follows:
∇1y(ϱ)={−˜n+1∑ȷ=1αȷψ(ϵȷ)(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϵȷ)ψ(ϱ)˜n+1∑ȷ=1αȷΨφϑ3(ϱ,a1)ψ(ϵȷ)Ψφϑ3(ϵȷ,a1),ϱ∈(a1,a2],0, ϱ∈[a1−d,a1],0, ϱ∈[a2,a2+˜d], | (3.17) |
and
∇2y(ϱ)={(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ)(ϱ)ψ(ϱ),ϱ∈(a1,a2],χ(ϱ), ϱ∈[a1−d,a1],˜χ(ϱ), ϱ∈[a2,a2+˜d], | (3.18) |
where δ is a function verifying
δ(ϱ)=g(ϱ,yϱ(⋅),δ(ϱ)). |
Then (3.10) can be written as
ky(ϱ)=∇1y(ϱ)+∇2y(ϱ), y∈F. |
Step 1. We prove that
∇1y+∇2ˆy∈Bω |
for any y,ˆy∈Bω.
By (Ax3) and from (3.10), for ϱ∈(a1,a2], we have
|δ(ϱ)|=|g(ϱ,yϱ,δ(ϱ))|≤m1(ϱ)+m2(ϱ)‖yϱ‖[−d,˜d]+m3(ϱ)|δ(ϱ)|, |
which implies that
|δ(ϱ)|≤m∗1+m∗2ω+m∗3|δ(ϱ)|, |
and then
|δ(ϱ)|≤m∗1+m∗2ω1−m∗3:=A. |
Thus, for ϱ∈(a1,a2] and by (3.17), we have
|Ψφϑ3(ϱ,a1)∇1y(ϱ)|≤A(φ(a2)−φ(a1))1−ϑ3+ϑ1kGΓk(ϑ1+k). |
Then, for each ϱ∈[a1−d,a2+˜d], we obtain
‖∇1y‖F≤A(φ(a2)−φ(a1))1−ϑ3+ϑ1kGΓk(ϑ1+k). | (3.19) |
For ϱ∈(a1,a2] and by (3.18), we have
|Ψφϑ3(ϱ,a1)∇2ˆy(ϱ)|≤A(φ(a2)−φ(a1))1−ϑ3+ϑ1kGΓk(ϑ1+k). |
For each ϱ∈[a1−d,a1], we have
|∇2ˆy(ϱ)|≤‖χ‖C, |
and for each ϱ∈[a2,a2+˜d], we have
|∇2ˆy(ϱ)|≤‖˜χ‖˜C. |
Then, for each ϱ∈[a1−d,a2+˜d], we get
‖∇2ˆy‖F≤max{‖χ‖C,‖˜χ‖˜C,A(φ(a2)−φ(a1))1−ϑ3+ϑ1kGΓk(ϑ1+k)}. | (3.20) |
From (3.19) and (3.20), for each ϱ∈[a1−d,a2+˜d], we have
‖∇1y+∇2ˆy‖F≤‖∇1y‖F+‖∇2ˆy‖F≤r1+r2≤ω, |
which infers that
∇1y+∇2ˆy∈Bω. |
Step 2. The mapping ∇1 is a contraction.
In view of the condition (3.16) and Theorem 3.3, the mapping ∇1 is a contraction on F with the norm ‖⋅‖F.
Step 3. ∇2 is continuous and compact.
Let {yn} be a sequence such that yn⟶y in F. For each
ϱ∈[a1−d,a1]∪[a2,a2+˜d], |
we have
|∇2yn(ϱ)−∇2y(ϱ)|=0. |
For ϱ∈(a1,a2], we have
|∇2yn(ϱ)−∇2y(ϱ)|≤1|ψ(ϱ)|(Jϑ1,k;φa1+|δn(s)−δ(s)|)(ϱ), |
such that δ and δn are functions verifying the functional equations
δ(ϱ)=g(ϱ,yϱ(⋅),δ(ϱ)),δn(ϱ)=g(ϱ,ynϱ(⋅),δn(ϱ)). |
Since yn→y, then we get δn(ϱ)→δ(ϱ) as n→∞ for each ϱ∈(a1,a2], and since g is continuous, then we have
‖∇2yn−∇2y‖F→0 as n→∞. |
Then ∇2 is continuous. Next we prove that ∇2 is uniformly bounded on Bω. For each
ϱ∈[a1−d,a2+˜d] |
and any ˆy∈Bω, we get
‖∇2ˆy‖F≤max{‖χ‖C,‖˜χ‖˜C,A(φ(a2)−φ(a1))1−ϑ3+ϑ1kGΓk(ϑ1+k)}. |
This implies that the mapping ∇2 is uniformly bounded on Bω. In order to show the compactness of ∇2, we take k1,k2∈(a1,a2] such that k1<k2, and y∈Bω. Then
|Ψφϑ3(k1,a1)∇2y(k1)−Ψφϑ3(k2,a1)∇2y(k2)|≤|Ψφϑ3(k1,a1)ψ(k1)(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ(s))(k1)−Ψφϑ3(k2,a1)ψ(k2)(Jϑ1,k;φa1+δ(s))(k2)|≤∫k1a1|Ψφϑ3(k1,a1)ˉΨk,φϑ1(k1,s)ψ(k1)−Ψφϑ3(k2,a1)ˉΨk,φϑ1(k2,s)ψ(k2)||φ′(s)y(s)|ds+|Ψφϑ3(k2,a1)ψ(k2)(Jϑ1,k;φk+1|y(s)|)(k2)|. |
By Lemma 2.6, we get
|Ψφϑ3(k1,a1)∇2y(k1)−Ψφϑ3(k2,a1)∇2y(k2)|≤A∫k1a1|Ψφϑ3(k1,a1)ˉΨk,φϑ1(k1,s)ψ(k1)−Ψφϑ3(k2,a1)ˉΨk,φϑ1(k2,s)ψ(k2)||φ′(s)|ds+AΨφϑ3(k2,a1)(φ(k2)−φ(k1))ϑ1kGΓk(ϑ1+k). |
Note that
|Ψφϑ3(k1,a1)∇2y(k1)−Ψφϑ3(k2,a1)∇2y(k2)|→0 as k1→k2. |
This proves that ∇2Bω is equicontinuous on (a1,a2]. Therefore, ∇2 is compact. Thus, based on the Krasnoselskii fixed point technique, we conclude that k possesses a fixed point, which satisfies problems (1.1)–(1.4).
We give various examples of (1.1)–(1.4), with
T=[1,π],ϑ3=1k(ϑ2(k−ϑ1)+ϑ1),g(ϱ,y,ˆy)=1105+125eπ−ϱ[1+ˆy3+|ˆy|−y1+y],ψ(ϱ)=313e−5(ϱ+sin(ϱ)+2), |
where ϱ∈T, y∈C([−d,˜d],R), and ˆy∈R.
Example 4.1. Taking ϑ2→12, ϑ1=12, k=1, φ(ϱ)=πϱ, α1=1, α2=2, α3=3, ϵ1=54, ϵ2=43, ϵ3=32, ˜n=3, d=˜d=13, and ϑ3=34, we have the system below:
(H1D12,12;φ1+ψy)(ϱ)=g(ϱ,yϱ(⋅),(H1D12,12;φ1+ψy)(ϱ)), ϱ∈(1,π], | (4.1) |
y(π)=y(54)+2x(43)+3x(32), | (4.2) |
y(ϱ)=χ(ϱ), ϱ∈[23,1], | (4.3) |
y(ϱ)=˜χ(ϱ), ϱ∈[π,π+13]. | (4.4) |
We have
Cϑ3,k;φ(T)=C34,1;φ(T)={y:(1,π]→R:(πϱ−π)14y∈C(T,R)}, |
and then
F={y:[23,π+13]→R:y|[23,1]∈C, y|[π,π+13]∈˜C and y|(1,π]∈C34,1;φ(T)}. |
By continuity of the function g, the hypothesis (Ax1) holds. For every
y∈C([−13,13],R),ˆy∈Randϱ∈T, |
one has
|g(ϱ,y,ˆy)|≤1105+125eπ−ϱ(1+‖y‖[−d,˜d]+|ˆy|). |
Then, the condition (Ax3) is satisfied with
m1(ϱ)=m2(ϱ)=m3(ϱ)=1105+125eπ−ϱ |
and
m∗1=m∗2=m∗3=1230. |
The condition (Ax4) is verified since we have that
|ψ(ϱ)|≥613e−5. |
We have
ℓ=52e−5(ππ−π)341374√π ≈0.001995278633 <1. |
Hence, in view of Theorem 3.4, we infer that problems (4.1)–(4.4) possess a solution in F.
Example 4.2. Considering ϑ2→0, ϑ1=12, k=1, φ(ϱ)=ϱρ, α1=1, α2=1, α3=5, ϵ1=32, ϵ2=2, ϵ3=52, ˜n=3, d=˜d=12, ρ=12, and ϑ3=12, we have the next system:
(H1D12,0;φ1+ψy)(ϱ)=(ρD12,01+y)(ϱ)=g(ϱ,yϱ(⋅),(ρD12,01+ψy)(ϱ)), ϱ∈(1,3], | (4.5) |
y(3)=y(32)+y(2)+5x(52), | (4.6) |
y(ϱ)=eϱ, ϱ∈[12,1], | (4.7) |
y(ϱ)=eϱ, ϱ∈[3,72]. | (4.8) |
We have
Cϑ3,k;φ(T)=C12,1;φ(T)={y:(1,3]→R:√(√ϱ−1)y∈C(T,R)}, |
and then
F={y:[12,72]→R:y|[12,1]∈C, y|[3,72]∈˜C and y|(1,3]∈C34,1;φ(T)}. |
Additionally, for every
y1,ˆy1∈C([−12,12],R), y2,ˆy2∈R,andϱ∈T, |
one has
|g(ϱ,y1,y2)−g(ϱ,ˆy1,ˆy2)|≤1105+125eπ−ϱ(‖y1−ˆy1‖[−d,˜d]+|y2−ˆy2|). |
Then, the condition (Ax2) holds with
ζ1=ζ2=1230. |
Since
L≈0.000105319912 <1. |
Hence, all of the hypotheses of Theorem 3.3 are verified. It follows that problems (4.5)–(4.8) possess one solution in F.
Our research considered a class of problems involving nonlinear implicit (k,φ)-Hilfer hybrid fractional differential equations with nonlocal terminal conditions. We achieved this by proving the existence and uniqueness of solutions for these equations. Our strategy hinged on powerful mathematical tools: the Banach contraction principle, Schauder's fixed point theorem, and Krasnoselskii's fixed point techniques. To showcase the practical applications of our findings and the ease of using our theorems, we presented some illustrative examples. These illustrations effectively highlight the flexibility and wide-reaching impact of the studied operator across various cases. It is noteworthy that the introduced (k,φ)-Hilfer operator operates as an extension, encompassing previously established fractional derivatives such as the Caputo, Hadamard, and Hilfer fractional derivative already present in the existing literature. This broader conceptual framework substantially contributes to the ongoing advancement of fractional calculus, thus laying the groundwork for promising directions of future exploration within this ever-evolving and dynamic domain.
A. Salim: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, writing-original draft; S. T. M. Thabet: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, methodology, writing-original draft; I. Kedim: data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, writing-review and editing; M. Vivas-Cortez: investigation, writing-review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the article.
The authors declare they have not used artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Proyecto Título: "Algunos resultados Cualitativos sobre Ecuaciones diferenciales fraccionales y desigualdades integrales" Cod UIO2022. This study is supported via funding from Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University project number (PSAU/2024/R/1446).
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
[1] |
Asim A, Kumar A, Muthuswamy S, et al. (2015) Down syndrome: an insight of the disease. J Biomed Sci 22: 41-50. doi: 10.1186/s12929-015-0138-y
![]() |
[2] |
Lyle R, Bena F, Gagos S, et al. (2009) Genotype-phenotype correlations in Down syndrome identified by array CGH in 30 cases of partial trisomy and partial monosomy chromosome 21. Eur J Hum Genet 17: 454-466. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2008.214
![]() |
[3] | Homfray T, Farndon P (2014) Fetal anomalies. The geneticist's approach. Twining's textbook of fetal abnormalities London: Churchill Livingstone, 139-160. |
[4] |
Rondal JA (2020) Down syndrome: A curative prospect? AIMS Neurosci 7: 168-193. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2020012
![]() |
[5] |
Li LB, Chang KH, Wang PR, et al. (2012) Trisomy correction in Down syndrome induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 11: 615-619. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2012.08.004
![]() |
[6] |
Takahashi K, Tanabe K, Ohnuki M, et al. (2007) Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 131: 861-872. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2007.11.019
![]() |
[7] |
Jiang J, Jing Y, Cost G, et al. (2013) Translating dosage compensation to trisomy 21. Nature 500: 296-300. doi: 10.1038/nature12394
![]() |
[8] |
Amano T, Jeffries E, Amano M, et al. (2015) Correction of Down syndrome and Edwards syndrome aneuploidies in human cell cultures. DNA Res 22: 331-342. doi: 10.1093/dnares/dsv016
![]() |
[9] |
Aziz NM, Guedj F, Pennings JLA, et al. (2018) Lifespan analysis of brain development, gene expression and behavioral phenotypes in the Ts1Cje, Ts65Dn and Dp(16)1/Yey mouse models of Down syndrome. Dis Mod Mech 11: dmm031013. doi: 10.1242/dmm.031013
![]() |
[10] |
Yu T, Li Z, Jia Z, et al. (2010) A mouse model of Down syndrome trisomic for all human chromosome 21 syntenic regions. Hum Mol Genet 19: 2780-2791. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddq179
![]() |
[11] |
Czerminsky JT, Lawrence JB (2020) Silencing trisomy 21 with XIST in neural stem cells promotes neuronal differentiation. Dev Cell 52: 294-308. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2019.12.015
![]() |
[12] | Dumont M (2008) Qualité et sélection des embryons (embryo quality and selection). J Gynécol Obstét Biol Reprod 17: S9-S13. |
[13] |
Braude P, Bolton V, Moore S (1988) Human gene expression first occurs between the four- and eight-cell stages of preimplantation development. Nature 332: 459-461. doi: 10.1038/332459a0
![]() |
[14] |
Cimadomo D, Capalbo A, Ubaldi FM, et al. (2016) The impact of biopsy on human embryo developmental potential during preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Biomed Res Int 2016: 7193075. doi: 10.1155/2016/7193075
![]() |
[15] |
Ait Yahya-Graison E, Aubert J, Dauphinot L, et al. (2007) Classification of human chromosome21 gene-expression variations in Down syndrome: Impact on disease phenotypes. Am J Hum Genet 81: 475-491. doi: 10.1086/520000
![]() |
[16] |
Thomazeau A, Lasalle O, Lafrati J, et al. (2014) Prefrontal deficits in a murine model overexpressing the Down syndrome candidate gene dyrk1a. J Neurosci 34: 1138-1147. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2852-13.2014
![]() |
[17] |
Chakrabarti L, Best TK, Cramer NP, et al. (2010) Olig1 and Olig2 triplication causes developmental brain defects in Down syndrome. Nat Neurosci 13: 927-934. doi: 10.1038/nn.2600
![]() |
[18] |
Manley W, Anderson S (2019) Dosage counts: Correcting trisomy-21-related phenotypes in human organoids and xenografts. Cell Stem Cell 24: 835-836. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2019.05.009
![]() |
[19] |
Ishihara K, Shimizu R, Takata K, et al. (2019) Perturbation of the immune cells and prenatal neurogenesis by the triplication of the Erg-gene in mouse models of Down syndrome. Brain Pathol 30: 75-91. doi: 10.1111/bpa.12758
![]() |
[20] |
Liu ET, Bolcun-Filas E, Grass D, et al. (2017) Of mice and CRISPR: The post-CRISPR future of the mouse as a model system for the human condition. EMBO Rep 18: 187-193. doi: 10.15252/embr.201643717
![]() |
[21] |
Fillat C, Bofill-De Ros X, Santos M, et al. (2014) Identification de genes clave implicados en el sindrome de Down mediante terapia genetica (Identification of key genes implicated in Down syndrome through genetic therapy). Rev Med Int Sindrome Down 18: 21-28. doi: 10.1016/S2171-9748(14)70049-2
![]() |
[22] |
Guedj F, Sébrié C, Rivals I, et al. (2009) Green tea polyphenols rescue brain defects induced by overexpression of DYRK1A. PLoS One 4: e4606. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004606
![]() |
[23] |
Stagni F, Giacomini A, Emili M, et al. (2016) Short- and long-term effects of neonatal pharmacotherapy with epigallocatechin-3-gallate on hippocampal development in the Ts65Dn mouse model of Down syndrome. Neuroscience 333: 277-301. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.07.031
![]() |
[24] |
Stagni F, Giacomini A, Emili M, et al. (2017) Epigallocatechin gallate: A useful therapy for cognitive disability in Down syndrome? Neurogen 4: e1270383. doi: 10.1080/23262133.2016.1270383
![]() |
[25] |
De la Torre R, De Sola S, Pons M, et al. (2014) Epigallocatechin-3-gallate, a DYRK1A inhibitor, rescues cognitive deficits in Down syndrome mouse models and in humans. Mol Nut Food Res 58: 278-288. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.201300325
![]() |
[26] |
De la Torre R, De Sola S, Hernandez G, et al. (2016) Safety and efficacy of cognitive training plus epigallocatechin-3-gallate in young adults with Down's syndrome (TESDAD): A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol 15: 801-810. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(16)30034-5
![]() |
[27] |
Isbrucker RA, Edwards JA, Wolz E, et al. (2006) Safety studies on epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) preparations. Part 3: teratogenicity and reproductive toxicity studies in rats. Food Chem Toxicol 44: 651-661. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2005.11.002
![]() |
[28] |
Doran E, Keator D, Head E, et al. (2017) Down syndrome, partial trisomy, and absence of Alzheimer's disease: The role of APP. J Alzheim Dis 56: 459-470. doi: 10.3233/JAD-160836
![]() |
[29] |
Rafii MS, Donohue MC, Matthews DC, et al. (2019) Plasma neurofilament light and Alzheimer's disease biomarkers in Down syndrome: Results from the Down Syndrome Biomarker Initiative (DSBI). J Alzheim Dis 70: 131-138. doi: 10.3233/JAD-190322
![]() |
[30] | Snow AD, Mar H, Nochlin D, et al. (1990) Early accumulation of heparan sulfate in neurons and in the beta-amyloid protein-containing lesions of Alzheimer's disease and Down's syndrome. Am J Pathol 137: 1253-1270. |
[31] |
Belichenko P, Madani R, Rey-Bellet L, et al. (2016) An anti-beta-amyloid vaccine for treating cognitive deficits in a mouse model of Down syndrome. PLoS One 11: e152451. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152471
![]() |
[32] |
Guidi S, Stagni F, Bartesaghi R (2017) Targetting APP/AICD in Down syndrome. Oncotarget 8: 50333-50334. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.18860
![]() |
[33] |
Kimura R, Kamino K, Yamamoto M, et al. (2006) The DYRK1A gene, encoded in chromosome 21 Down syndrome critical region, bridges between beta-amyloid production and tau phosphorylation in Alzheimer disease. Hum Mol Genet 16: 15-23. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddl437
![]() |
[34] |
Ryoo SR, Jeong HK, Radnaabazar C, et al. (2007) DYRK1A-mediated hyperphosphorylation of Tau: A functional link between Down syndrome and Alzheimer disease. J Biol Chem 282: 34850-34857. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M707358200
![]() |
[35] |
Garcia-Cerro S, Rueda N, Vidal V, et al. (2017) Normalizing the gene dosage of DYRK1A in a mouse model of Down syndrome rescues several Alzheimer's disease phenotypes. Neurobiol Dis 106: 76-88. doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2017.06.010
![]() |
[36] |
Kawakubo T, Mori R, Shirotani N, et al. (2017) Neprilysin is suppressed by dual-specificity tyrosine-phosphorylation regulated kinase 1A (DYRK1A) in Down syndrome derived fibroblasts. Biol Pharm Bull 40: 327-333. doi: 10.1248/bpb.b16-00825
![]() |
[37] |
Inglis A, Lohn Z, Austin JC, et al. (2014) A “cure” for Down syndrome: what do parents want? Clin Genet 86: 310-317. doi: 10.1111/cge.12364
![]() |
[38] |
Long R, Drawbaugh ML, Davis CM, et al. (2019) Usage and attitudes about green tea extract and epigallocathechin-3-gallate (EGCG) as a therapy in individuals with Down syndrome. Complement Ther Med 45: 234-241. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2019.07.002
![]() |
[39] |
Riggan KA, Niquist C, Michie M, et al. (2020) Evaluating the risks and benefits of genetic and pharmacologic interventions for Down Syndrome: Views of parents. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil 125: 1-13. doi: 10.1352/1944-7558-125.1.1
![]() |
[40] | Carlson L (2013) Research ethics and intellectual disability: Broadening the debates. Yale J Biol Med 86: 303-314. |
1. | HuiYan Cheng, Akbar Zada, Ioan-Lucian Popa, Afef Kallekh, $(\mathtt{k},\varphi )$-Hilfer fractional Langevin differential equation having multipoint boundary conditions, 2024, 2024, 1687-2770, 10.1186/s13661-024-01918-3 | |
2. | Abdelkrim Salim, Sabri T.M. Thabet, Ava Sh. Rafeeq, Mohammad Esmael Samei, Imed Kedim, Miguel Vivas-Cortez, Exploring the solutions of tempered (κ,ϖ)-Hilfer hybrid implicit boundary value problem, 2025, 119, 11100168, 138, 10.1016/j.aej.2025.01.069 | |
3. | Mian Zhou, Yong Zhou, Existence of Hilfer Fractional Evolution Inclusions with Almost Sectorial Operators, 2025, 13, 2227-7390, 1370, 10.3390/math13091370 | |
4. | Natasha Irshad, Rahim Shah, Kinza Liaquat, Emad E. Mahmoud, Stability Analysis of Solutions to the Time–Fractional Nonlinear Schrödinger Equations, 2025, 64, 1572-9575, 10.1007/s10773-025-05998-4 | |
5. | Hicham Saber, Mohammed Almalahi, Mohamed Bouye, Khaled Aldwoah, Abdelkader Moumen, Blgys Muflh, Solutions behavior of mechanical oscillator equations with impulsive effects under Power Caputo fractional operator and its symmetric cases, 2025, 15, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-025-01301-x |