Alternative solutions of inhomogeneous second–order linear dynamic equations on time scales

Let u(t)=\|y(t)\|_2^2, where y is a solution to (?). For all t\in I_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}^\kappa we have

Now, apply Young’s inequality 2ab \le a^2 + b^2 to the first term and replace y^{\Delta\Delta} with -py^\Delta-qy to obtain

Above, \oplus is known as the “circle plus” operator, z \oplus w := z + w + \mu zw, see [bp1, p.54].

Thus, the conditions of Lemma 2.1 hold with v=u and \ell=k\oplus k. Consequently,

and therefore

Assume there are two solutions x and y. Let z(t):=x(t)-y(t) for t\in I_\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}, and note that z must satisfy the homogeneous equation (?) together with the homogeneous initial conditions z(t_0)=0, z^\Delta(t_0)=0. Now, by Theorem 2.2 we have

and thus z(t)=0 for all t\ge t_0, t\in I_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}. It follows that x=y.

Our proof follows similar lines as that of the proof of Theorem 2.2, and thus we just sketch the details. Letting u(t)=\|y(t)\|_2^2, we obtain

Thus, applying Lemma 2.1 we obtain

and therefore

Assume there are two solutions x and y, and let z(t)=x(t)-y(t) for t\ge t_0 with t\in I_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}. Note that z satisfies (?) and the initial homogeneous initial conditions z(t_0)=0, z^\Delta(t_0)=0. Since I_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}} may be unbounded, the coefficient functions p and q may not be bounded on I_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}, and so Theorem 2.4 may not be directly applied to z. We let t be any point in I_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}} such that t>t_0, and let J_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}} be any closed, bounded interval of I_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}} such that J_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}} has t_0 as a left endpoint and J_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}} contains t. On J_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}, p and q are both bounded, say by p_1 and q_1, respectively. We can now apply Theorem 2.4 to z on J_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}, and so z(t)=0 for all t\in J_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}. Now since t was chosen to be any point in I_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}} with t>t_0, we have shown that x(t)=y(t) for all t\in I_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}} with t\ge t_0.

Clearly (3.1) and (3.1) are of the expected form y=c_1y_1+c_2y_2+y_d. One could easily verify that a function of the form

is a particular solution of (?) using the time scale calculus, but that would not give any insight into where (Proof) comes from. Thus, to derive (Proof), assume we have a particular solution to the inhomogeneous equation (?) of the form y_d(t)=y_i(t)v(t), where y_i solves the homogeneous equation (3.1) and v is a function to be determined. Then, using the product rule (fg)^\Delta = gf^\Delta + f^\sigma g^\Delta, we have

and using the product rule again with the quotient rule \left(\frac{f}{g}\right)^\Delta=\frac{gf^\Delta-fg^\Delta}{gg^\sigma} we see that

Since we are assuming y_d is a particular solution of the inhomogeneous equation (?), we must have

Now y_i is a solution of the homogeneous equation (3.1), so after simplifying we multiply by y_i^\sigma to get

Make the substitution u=y_iy_i^\sigma v^\Delta, then use the simple formula f^\sigma-f=\mu f^\Delta to get

Using the simple formula f^\sigma-f=\mu f^\Delta again and rearranging, we see that

Focusing on the coefficient of u, we note that

Consequently we have that

Solving while recalling that u=y_iy_i^\sigma v^\Delta, we arrive at

so that via y_d=y_iv we obtain (Proof).

We will prove (3.3), since the proof of (3.3) is similar. Thus, assume y_1 is a solution of (?). Since r(t)\equiv 0 in this case, and general antiderivatives are used in Theorem 3.1, we may choose the constant of integration in (Proof) in such a way that

so that (Proof) becomes

in other words a particular solution of (?). One could also verify (3.3) directly using the delta derivative rules. To show linear independence, we calculate the Wronskian of y_1 and y_2, namely

for all t\in\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}} by the regressivity assumption (3.3); see [bp1, Theorem 2.48].

Rewriting (3.5) using the simple formula f^\sigma=f+\mu f^\Delta, we see that we arrive at an equation of the form (?), where

Then we see that the term -p+\mu q in Theorem 3.1 above is given by

and this corollary follows.