Open AccessArticle

β–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias Stability of Semilinear Nonautonomous Impulsive System

Xiaoming Wang

^1,†,

Muhammad Arif

^2,† and

Akbar Zada

^2,*

School of Mathematics & Computer Science, Shangrao Normal University, Shangrao 334001, China

Department of Mathematics, University of Peshawar, Peshawar 25000, Pakistan

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

^†

These authors contributed equally to this work.

Symmetry 2019, 11(2), 231; https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11020231

Submission received: 5 January 2019 / Revised: 7 February 2019 / Accepted: 9 February 2019 / Published: 15 February 2019

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Nonlinear, Convex, Nonsmooth, Functional Analysis in Symmetry)

Download Versions Notes

Abstract

In this paper, we study a system governed by impulsive semilinear nonautonomous differential equations. We present the

β

–Ulam stability,

β

–Hyers–Ulam stability and

β

–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias stability for the said system on a compact interval and then extended it to an unbounded interval. We use Grönwall type inequality and evolution family as a basic tool for our results. We present an example to demonstrate the application of the main result.

Keywords:

semilinear nonautonomous system; instantaneous impulses; mild solution; β–Hyers–Ulam– Rassias stability

1. Introduction

Differential equations are the key tools for modeling the physical problems in nature. To understand the sudden changes in physical problems, differential equations are the best option for use. Examples of these sudden changes are Plague deforestation, volcano eruption and rivers overflow [1]. Physical problems which have rapid changes are blood flows, biological systems such as heart beats, theoretical physics, engineering, control theory, population dynamics, mechanical systems with impact, pharmacokinetics, biotechnology processes, mathematical economy, chemistry, medicine and many more. These problems can be modeled by systems of differential equations with impulses. One can obtain the impulsive conditions by taking the short-term perturbation parameters and the initial value problem. For the details of the impulsive differential equations see the results by Ahmad et al. [2], Bainov et al. [3], Benchohra et al. [4], Berger et al. [5], Bianca et al. [6], Gala et al. [7], Hernandez et al. [8], Pierri et al. [9], Samoilenko et al. [10,11], Tang et al. [12] and Wang et al. [13,14].

Ulam stability problem was put forward for the first time at Wisconsin University in 1940. The problem was to discuss the relationship between approximate solution of homomorphism from a group

H_{1}

to a metric group

H_{2}

[15]. Considering

H_{1}

and

H_{2}

as Banach spaces, Hyers solved the above problem with the help of direct method [16]. The extension of the famous work of Hyers and Ulam can be seen in Aoki [17] and Rassias [18] work. In this work they found the bound for the norm of difference, Cauchy difference,

f (t + s) - f (t) - f (s)

. Answers to this problem, its inductions and attractions for different categories of equations, is a vast region of research and has well elaborated of what is now called Ulam’s type stability.

In 2012, Ulam type stability of impulsive differential equations were discussed by Wang et al. [19]. They used the concept of bounded interval with finite impulses and proved the Ulam type stability for first order nonlinear impulsive differential equations. In 2014, Wang et al. proved the Hyers–Ulam–Rassias stability and generalized Hyers–Ulam–Rassias stability for impulsive evolution equations on a closed and bounded interval [20]. In 2015, Zada et al. proved the Hyers–Ulam stability of differential system in terms of dichotomy [21]. For more details about Hyers–Ulam stability, see [16,18,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35].

Recently, Yu et al. [36] studied

β

–Hyers–Ulam stability of the system

\{\begin{matrix} Θ^{'} (t) - H (t) Θ (t) = f (t, Θ (t)), t \in I, t \neq t_{k} \\ Θ (t_{k}^{+}) - Θ (t_{k}^{-}) = J_{k} (t_{k}, Θ (t_{k})), k = 1, 2, \dots, m . \end{matrix}

(1)

Motivated from the above work, we investigate the

β

–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias stability of the system:

\{\begin{matrix} Θ^{'} (t) = H (t) Θ (t) + B (t) ζ (t) + f (t, Θ (t), ζ (t)), t \in [0, τ], t \neq t_{k} \\ Θ (0) = Θ_{0}, \\ Θ (t_{k}^{+}) = Θ (t_{k}^{-}) + I_{k} (t, Θ (t_{k}^{-}), ζ (t_{k}^{-})),, k = 1, 2, \dots, m, \end{matrix}

(2)

where

0 = t_{0} < t_{1} < t_{2} < \dots < t_{m} < t_{m + 1} = τ

Θ (t) \in R^{n}

H (t)

B (t)

are continuous matrices of dimension

n \times n

and

n \times m

respectively,

ζ \in C ([0, τ]; R^{m})

is the control function and f,

I_{k} \in C ([0, τ] \times R^{n} \times R^{m}; R^{n})

k = 1, 2, 3, \dots, m

are suitable functions.

In this article, we present four different types of

β

–Ulam type stability for the system of semilinear nonautonomous impulsive differential equations. Our main objective of this work is to discuss the uniqueness of solution for the given system and analyze the

β

–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias stability of semilinear nonautonomous system (2) with the help of evolution family. Evolution family has its great importance in every field of research. Different researchers are working to discuss stability analysis of different systems using evolution family. For more details of evolution family we prefer [20,28,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44].

2. Results

2.1. Basic

Here we present basic concepts and definitions. For any interval

I = [0, τ] \subseteq R

and

S \subseteq R^{k}

1 \leq k \leq n

, we define the Banach space

C (I, S)

the space of all continuous functions from

I

S

with the norm

{| | Θ | |}_{C} = {sup_{t \in I} | | Θ (t) | |, for all Θ \in C (I, S)}

. Denote

C^{'} (I, S) = {Θ \in C (I, S) : Θ^{'} \in C (I, S)}

. We also introduce the Banach space

PC (I, S) : = {Θ : I \to S, Θ \in C ((t_{k}, t_{k + 1}), S), k = 0, 1, \dots, m}

and there exist

Θ (t_{k}^{+})

Θ (t_{k}^{-})

such that

Θ (t_{k}^{+}) = Θ (t_{k}^{-})

k = 1, 2, \dots, m,

with the norm

{| | Θ | |}_{PC} = {sup | | Θ (t) | |, for all t \in I} .

Definition 1.

Consider

V

to be a vector space over some field K. A function

{| | . | |}_{β} : V \to [0, \infty)

is called β-norm if: (i)

{| | Θ | |}_{β} = 0

if and only if

Θ = 0

, (ii)

{| | η Θ | |}_{β} = {| η |}^{β} {| | Θ | |}_{β}

for each

η \in K

and

Θ \in V

, (iii)

| | Θ + {z | |}_{β} \leq {| | Θ | |}_{β} + {| | z | |}_{β}

. Then (

V

{| | . | |}_{β}

) is known as β–normed space.

Our space will be

P β

-Banach space with norm

{| | Θ | |}_{P β} = {sup {| | Θ (t) | |}^{β}}

, where

t \in I = [0, τ]

and

0 < β < 1 .

To define

P β

-Banach space we consider the space

PC (I, S)

. Choose another interval

t \in I^{'} = [0, τ], t \neq t_{k}, k = 1, 2, \dots, m .

Definition 2.

PC (I, S) : = {Θ : Θ \in C ((t_{k}, t_{k + 1}), S)},

there exist

Θ (t_{k}^{-})

and

Θ (t_{k}^{+})

such that

Θ (t_{k}^{+}) = Θ (t_{k}^{-})

for (any)

k \in M_{0} = {0} \cup M

, where

M = {1, 2, \dots, m}

with norm

{| | Θ | |}_{P β} = {sup {| | Θ (t) | |}^{β}},

where

t \in I

and

1 > β > 0 .

(PC (I, S), | | . | |_{P β})

P β

-Banach space.

Definition 3.

The family

W : = {Q (t, s) : t \geq s \geq 0}

of bounded linear operators is called bounded evolution family from the Banach space

X

to itself, if:

$Q (t, t) = I,$ for all $t \geq 0$ .
$Q (t, s) Q (s, r) = Q (t, r)$ , for all $t \geq s \geq r$ , $t, s, r \geq 0$ .
$Q (t + q, s + q) = Q (t, s)$ , for all $t \geq s$ , $t, s \geq 0$ for some $q \in {2, 3, \dots}$ .
$| | Q (t, s) | | \leq M e^{κ (t - s)}$ ∃ $M \geq 1$ , $κ \in R$ not depends on $s, t \geq 0$ .

Definition 4

([45]). The semilinear nonautonomous system of differential equations with impulses

\begin{matrix} \{\begin{matrix} Θ^{'} (t) = H (t) Θ (t) + B (t) u (t) + f (t, Θ (t), u (t)), t \in [0, τ], t \neq t_{k} \\ Θ (0) = ϱ_{0}, \\ Θ (t_{k}^{+}) = Θ (t_{k}^{-}) + I_{k} (t, Θ (t_{k}^{-}), u (t_{k}^{-})),, k = 1, 2, \dots, m, \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

gives the solution in the form

\begin{matrix} Θ (t) & = & Q (t, 0) ρ_{0} + \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) B (s) u (s) d s \\ + \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) f (s, Θ (s), u (s)) d s + \sum_{0 < t_{k} < t} Q (t, t_{k}) I_{k} (t_{k}, Θ (t_{k}), u (t_{k})), \end{matrix}

where

Q (t, s) = Υ (t) Υ^{- 1} (s)

and is known as evolution family and

Υ (t)

is the fundamental matrix of

Θ^{'} (t) = H (t) Θ (t) + B (t) u (t) .

Definition 5.

Υ (t)

is the fundamental matrix of

\begin{matrix} Θ^{'} (t) & = & H (t) Θ (t) + B (t) u (t), Θ \in S \\ w (0) & = & ϱ_{0} . \end{matrix}

The above system is exponentially bounded if we can find some constants

M > 0

and

κ < 0

such that

| | Q (t, s) | | \leq M e^{κ (t - s)}, 0 \leq s \leq t \leq τ .

(3)

Choose

ϵ > 0

ψ \geq 0

and

φ

from

PC (I, S)

. Take the inequality

\{\begin{matrix} | | Θ^{'} (t) - H (t) Θ (t) - B (t) u (t) - f (t, Θ (t), u (t)) | | \leq ϵ φ (t), t \in [0, τ], t \neq t_{k} \\ | | Θ (0) - ϱ_{0} | | \leq ϵ ψ, \\ | | Θ (t_{k}^{+}) - Θ (t_{k}^{-}) - I_{k} (t_{k}, Θ (t_{k}), u (t_{k})) | | \leq ϵ ψ, k = 1, 2, \dots, m . \end{matrix}

(4)

With the help of inequality (4) we will define

β

–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias stability for the system (2).

Definition 6.

(2) is said to be β–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias stable with respect to

(ψ^{β}, φ^{β})

if ∃ positive

K_{f, M, φ, β}

such that for any

ϵ > 0

and for any solution

Θ \in PC (I^{'}, S) ⋂ C (I^{'}, S)

of (4) ∃ a solution y of (2) in

PC (I^{'}, S)

satisfying

| | y (t) - {Θ (t) | |}^{β} \leq K_{f, M, φ, β} ϵ^{β} (φ^{β} (t) + ψ^{β}), t \in I .

Remark 1.

It is direct consequence of inequality (4) that a function

y \in PC (I^{'}, S) ⋂ C (I^{'}, S)

is the solution for the inequality (4) if and only if we can find

h \in C (I^{'})

ψ \geq 0

and a sequence

h_{k}

k \in M

satisfying

\{\begin{matrix} | | h (t) | | \leq ϵ φ (t) a n d | | h_{k} | | \leq ϵ ψ, t \in I^{'} a n d k \in M, \\ y^{'} (t) = H (t) y (t) + B (t) u (t) + f (t, y (t), u (t)) + h (t), t \in I^{'}, \\ y (0) = Θ_{0} + h (t), \\ y (t_{k}^{+}) = y (t_{k}^{-}) + I_{k} (t_{k}, y (t_{k}), u (t_{k})) + h (t_{k}), k = 1, 2, 3, \dots m . \end{matrix}

Assume that

M = sup_{0 \leq s \leq t \leq τ} | | Q (t, s) | | .

(5)

On the basis of Remak 1 we can say that the solution of the system

\{\begin{matrix} Θ^{'} (t) = H (t) Θ (t) + B (t) u (t) + f (t, Θ (t), u (t)) + h (t), t \in [0, τ], t \neq t_{k} \\ Θ (0) = ϱ_{0} + h (t), \\ Θ (t_{k}^{+}) = Θ (t_{k}^{-}) + I_{k} (t, Θ (t_{k}^{-}), u (t_{k}^{-})) + h (t_{k}), k = 1, 2, \dots, m, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} Θ (t) & = & Q (t, 0) (Θ_{0} + h (t)) + \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) B (s) u (s) d s \\ + \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) (f (s, Θ (s), u (s)) + h (s)) d s \\ + \sum_{0 < k < m} Q (t, t_{k}) (I_{k} (t_{k}, Θ (t_{k}), u (t_{k})) + h (t_{k})), t \in [0, τ] . \end{matrix}

For the inequality (4) we obtain

\begin{matrix} | | Θ (t) - Q (t, 0) Θ_{0} - \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) B (s) u (s) d s \\ - \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) f (s, Θ (s), u (s)) d s - \sum_{0 < k < m} Q (t, t_{k}) I_{k} (t_{k}, Θ (t_{k}), u (t_{k})) | | \\ = & | | Q (t, 0) h (t) + \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) h (s) d s + \sum_{0 < k < m} Q (t, t_{k}) h (t_{k}) | | \\ \leq & M | | h (t) | | + \int_{0}^{t} M | | h (s) | | d s + \sum_{0 < k < m} M | | h (t_{k}) | | \\ \leq & ϵ M ψ + \int_{0}^{t} ϵ M φ (s) d s + \sum_{0 < k < m} ϵ M ψ \\ \leq & \sum_{0 \leq k < m} ϵ M ψ + \int_{0}^{t} ϵ M φ (s) d s \\ \leq & ϵ M (m ψ + \int_{0}^{t} φ (s) d s), w h e r e t \in (t_{k}, t_{k + 1}] . \end{matrix}

Now we state an important lemma known as Grönwall lemma, which is used in our main result.

Lemma 1

(Grönwall lemma [10]). For any

t \geq 0

with

\begin{matrix} u (t) & \leq & q (t) + \int_{0}^{t} p (s) u (s) d s + \sum_{0 < t_{k} < t} γ_{k} u (t_{k}^{-}), \end{matrix}

(6)

where

u

, q,

p \in PC (R^{+}, R^{+})

, q is nondecreasing and

γ > 0

. Then for

t \in R^{+}

we have:

\begin{matrix} u (t) & \leq & q (t) {(1 + γ_{k})}^{k} exp (\int_{0}^{t} p (s) d s), w h e r e k \in M . \end{matrix}

(7)

Remark 2.

If we replace

γ_{k}

γ_{k} (t)

then

\begin{matrix} u (t) & \leq & q (t) \prod_{0 < t_{k} < t} (1 + γ_{k} (t)) exp (\int_{0}^{t} p (s) d s), w h e r e k \in M . \end{matrix}

(8)

Definition 7.

The function f from

X

X

is called contraction if for every

Θ, z \in X

, ∃

0 \leq k < 1

such that

d (f (Θ), f (z)) \leq k d (Θ, z) .

where

(X, d)

is a metric space.

Definition 8.

The function f from

X

X

, has a unique fixed point if it is a contraction, where

(X, d)

is complete metric space.

To discuss

β

–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias stability of the given system, we need some assumptions which can be used later on. The assumptions are:

[A_{1}] :

The linear system

Θ^{'} (t) = H (t) Θ (t) + B (t) u (t)

is well posed.

[A_{2}] :

f : I \times S \to S

which satisfies Caratheodory conditions and ∃ constant

L_{f} > 0

such that

| | f (t, Θ, u) - f (t, Θ^{'}, u) | | \leq L_{f} | | Θ - Θ^{'} | |,

for every

Θ, Θ^{'} \in S

[A_{3}] :

I_{k} \in C (I, S) : S \to S

, for

k = 1, 2, \dots, m

and ∃ constants

L_{I_{k}} > 0

such that

| | I_{k} (t, Θ_{k}, u_{k}) - I_{k} (t, Θ_{k}^{'}, u_{k}) | | \leq L_{I_{k}} | | Θ_{k} - Θ_{k}^{'} | |,

for each

Θ_{k}, Θ_{k}^{'} \in S

[A_{4}] :

The inequality

M {\sum_{k = 1}^{m} L_{I_{k}} + L_{f} τ} < 1

holds.

Now we are able to prove that the nonautonomous differential system (2) has only one solution.

Theorem 1.

If the assumptions

[A_{1}] - [A_{4}]

along with (5) holds then the system (2) has only one solution

Θ \in PC (I)

with

Θ (0) = ϱ_{0}

Proof of Theorem 1.

Define an operator

F : PC (I, S) \to PC (I, S)

by:

\begin{matrix} (F Θ) (t) & = & Q (t, 0) ϱ_{0} + \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) B (s) u (s) d s \\ + \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) f (s, Θ (s), u (s)) d s + \sum_{0 < t_{k} < t} Q (t, t_{k}) I_{k} (t_{k}, Θ (t_{k}), u (t_{k})) . \end{matrix}

Now for any

Θ, Θ^{'} \in PC (I, S)

we have

\begin{matrix} | | (F Θ) (t) - (F Θ^{'}) (t) | | & \leq & M \int_{0}^{t} | | f (s, Θ (s), u (s)) - f (s, Θ^{'} (s), u (s)) | | d s \\ + \sum_{0 < t_{k} < t} M | | I_{k} (t_{k}, Θ (t_{k}), u (t_{k})) - I_{k} (t_{k}, Θ^{'} (t_{k}), u (t_{k})) | | \\ \leq & M \int_{0}^{t} L_{f} | | Θ (s) - Θ^{'} (s) | | d s \\ + \sum_{0 < t_{k} < t} M L_{I_{k}} | | Θ (t_{k}) - Θ^{'} (t_{k}) | | \\ \leq & M {\sum_{k = 1}^{m} L_{I_{k}} + L_{f} τ} | | Θ - Θ^{'} {| |}_{PC} \\ < & | | Θ - Θ^{'} {| |}_{PC} . \end{matrix}

Then,

F

is contractive with respect to

{| | . | |}_{PC}

. By using contraction mapping theorem, which shows that the mapping

F

has a unique fixed point which is the solution of the system (2). ▯

2.2. $β$ –Hyers–Ulam–Rassias Stability on a Compact Interval

To discuss

β

–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias stability of system (2) on a compact interval, we need to introduce other conditions along with

[A_{1}]

[A_{3}]

and

[A_{4}]

, which can be used to prove our required results. The assumptions are given as follows:

[A_{2}^{*}] :

f : I \times S \to S

which satisfies Caratheodory conditions and ∃ function

L_{f} \in C (I, S)

so that

| | f (t, Θ, u) - f (t, Θ^{'}, u) | | \leq L_{f} (t) | | Θ - Θ^{'} | |,

for every

t \in I

and

Θ, Θ^{'} \in S

[A_{5}] :

there exists a non decreasing function

φ \in PC (I, S)

with

φ (t) \geq 0

and a constant

η_{φ}

so that

\int_{0}^{t} φ (s) d s \leq η_{φ} φ (t), f o r e a c h t \in I .

By considering the inequality (4) and above assumptions, we present our first result as follows.

Theorem 2.

[A_{1}], [A_{2}^{*}]

and

[A_{3}] - [A_{5}]

along with (5) hold. Then the system (2) is β–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias stable with respect to

(ψ^{β}, φ^{β}) .

Proof of Theorem 2.

Unique solution of the impulsive Cauchy problem

\{\begin{matrix} Θ^{'} (t) = H (t) Θ (t) + B (t) u (t) + f (t, Θ (t), u (t)), t \in [0, τ], t \neq t_{k} \\ Θ (0) = y (0), \\ Θ (t_{k}^{+}) = Θ (t_{k}^{-}) + I_{k} (t_{k}, Θ (t_{k}), u (t_{k})), k = 1, 2, \dots, m, \end{matrix}

can be written as

Θ (t) = \{\begin{matrix} Q (t, 0) Θ (0) + \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) B (s) u (s) d s + \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) f (s, Θ (s), u (s)) d s, & for t \in [0, t_{1}], \\ Q (t, 0) Θ (0) + Q (t, t_{1}) I_{1} (t_{1}, Θ (t_{1}), u (t_{1})) + \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) B (s) u (s) d s \\ + \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) f (s, Θ (s), u (s)) d s, & for t \in (t_{1}, t_{2}], \\ ⋮ \\ Q (t, 0) Θ (0) + \sum_{k = 1}^{m} Q (t, t_{k}) I_{k} (t_{k}, Θ (t_{k}), u (t_{k})) + \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) B (s) u (s) d s \\ + \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) f (s, Θ (s), u (s)) d s, & for t \in (t_{m}, τ] . \end{matrix}

Let y be the solution of the inequality (4). Then for every

t \in (t_{k}, t_{k + 1}]

, we can obtain that,

\begin{matrix} | | y (t) - Q (t, 0) y (0) - \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) B (s) u (s) d s - \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) f (s, y (s), u (s)) d s \\ - & \sum_{0 < k < m} Q (t, t_{k}) I_{k} (t_{k}, y (t_{k}), u (t_{k})) | | \\ \leq & m ϵ M ψ + \int_{0}^{t} ϵ M φ (s) d s \\ \leq & ϵ M (m ψ + \int_{0}^{t} φ (s) d s) \\ \leq & ϵ M (m + η_{φ}) (φ (t) + ψ) . \end{matrix}

Therefore for every

t \in (t_{k}, t_{k + 1}]

, we get

\begin{matrix} | | y (t) - {Θ (t) | |}^{β} & = & | | y (t) - Q (t, 0) Θ (0) - \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) B (s) u (s) d s - \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) f (s, Θ (s), u (s)) d s \\ - \sum_{0 < k < m} Q (t, t_{k}) I_{k} (t_{k}, Θ (t_{k}), u (t_{k})) {| |}^{β} \\ = & | | y (t) - Q (t, 0) y (0) - \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) B (s) u (s) d s - \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) f (s, Θ (s), u (s)) d s \\ + \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) f (s, y (s), u (s)) d s - \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) f (s, y (s), u (s)) d s \\ - \sum_{0 < k < m} Q (t, t_{k}) I_{k} (t_{k}, Θ (t_{k}), u (t_{k})) \\ + \sum_{0 < k < m} Q (t, t_{k}) I_{k} (t_{k}, y (t_{k}), u (t_{k})) - \sum_{0 < k < m} Q (t, t_{k}) I_{k} (t_{k}, y (t_{k}), u (t_{k})) {| |}^{β} \\ \leq & (| | y (t) - Q (t, 0) y (0) - \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) B (s) u (s) d s - \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) f (s, y (s), u (s)) d s \\ - \sum_{0 < k < m} Q (t, t_{k}) I_{k} (t_{k}, y (t_{k}), u (t_{k})) | |)^{β} \\ + {(\int_{0}^{t} | | Q (t, s) f (s, y (s), u (s)) - Q (t, s) f (s, Θ (s), u (s)) | |)}^{β} d s \\ + {(\sum_{0 < k < m} | | Q (t, t_{k}) I_{k} (t_{k}, y (t_{k}), u (t_{k})) - Q (t, t_{k}) I_{k} (t_{k}, Θ (t_{k}), u (t_{k})) | |)}^{β} \\ \leq & {(ϵ M (m + η_{φ}) (φ (t) + ψ))}^{β} + {(M \int_{0}^{t} L_{f} (s) | | y (s) - Θ (s) | | d s)}^{β} \\ + {(M \sum_{k = 1}^{m} L_{I_{k}} | | y (t_{k}) - Θ (t_{k}) | |)}^{β}, \end{matrix}

where

\int_{0}^{t} | | Q (t, s) f (s, y (s), u (s)) - Q (t, s) f (s, Θ (s), u (s)) | | d s \leq M \int_{0}^{t} L_{f} (s) | | y (s) - Θ (s) | | d s

and

\sum_{k = 1}^{m} | | Q (t, t_{k}) I_{k} (t_{k}, y (t_{k}), u (t_{k})) - Q (t, t_{k}) I_{k} (t_{k}, Θ (t_{k}), u (t_{k})) | | \leq M \sum_{k = 1}^{m} L_{I_{k}} | | y (t_{k}) - Θ (t_{k}) | | .

Thus,

\begin{matrix} | | y (t) - Θ (t) | | & \leq & 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} [(ϵ M (m + η_{φ}) (φ (t) + ψ)) + (M \int_{0}^{t} L_{f} (s) | | y (s) - Θ (s) | | d s) \\ + M \sum_{k = 1}^{m} L_{I_{k}} | | y (t_{k}) - Θ (t_{k}) | |], \end{matrix}

by using relation

{(x + y + z)}^{γ} \leq 3^{γ - 1} (x^{γ} + y^{γ} + z^{γ}), where x, y, z \geq 0, and γ > 1 .

Consider

L_{I} = max {L_{I_{1}}, L_{I_{2}}, \dots, L_{I_{m}}}

. Using Grönwall Lemma 1 we get that

\begin{matrix} | | y (t) - Θ (t) | | & \leq & 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} (ϵ M ((m + η_{φ}) (φ (t) + ψ))) {(1 + 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M L_{I})}^{k} exp (3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M \int_{0}^{t} L_{f} (s) d s) . \end{matrix}

Hence

\begin{matrix} | | y (t) - {Θ (t) | |}^{β} & \leq & 3^{1 - β} {(ϵ M (m + η_{φ}) (φ (t) + ψ))}^{β} \\ {(1 + 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M L_{I})}^{k β} exp {(3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M \int_{0}^{t} L_{f} (s) d s)}^{β} \\ \leq & 3^{1 - β} {(ϵ M (m + η_{φ}))}^{β} {(φ (t) + ψ)}^{β} \\ {(1 + 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M L_{I})}^{k β} exp (3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} β M \int_{0}^{t} L_{f} (s) d s) \\ \leq & K_{f, M, φ, ψ} ϵ^{β} (φ^{β} (t) + ψ^{β}), \end{matrix}

using the fact that

{(x + y)}^{r} \leq (x^{r} + y^{r}), x, y \geq 0, for any r \in (0, 1] .

Where,

K_{f, M, φ, ψ} = 3^{1 - β} {(M (m + η_{φ}))}^{β} {(1 + 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M L_{I})}^{m β} exp (3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} β M \int_{0}^{τ} L_{f} (s) d s) .

Hence the system (2) is

β

–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias stable on compact interval with respect to

(ψ^{β}, φ^{β})

. ▯

2.3. $β$ –Hyers–Ulam–Rassias Stability on an Unbounded Interval

Here we study

β

–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias stability on an unbounded interval. For the desired proof we need the following assumptions which can be used in our later work.

[A_{0}]

: The operators family

{Q (t, s) : t \geq s \geq 0}

is exponentially stable, that is we can find

M \geq 1

and

κ < 0

so that

| | Q (t, s) | | \leq M e^{κ (t - s)}, t > s \geq 0 .

[A_{6}]

f \in C (R^{+} \times S, S)

and ∃ a function

L_{f} \in C (R^{+}, S)

satisfying

| | f (t, Θ, u) - f (t, Θ^{'}, u) | | \leq L_{f} (t) | | Θ - Θ^{'} | |,

for every

t \in R^{+}

and

Θ, Θ^{'} \in S

. Also we assume that

\int_{0}^{t} L_{f} (s) d s \leq κ_{f} t + ζ_{f},

for each

t \geq 0

κ_{f}, ζ_{f} \geq 0

and

3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M κ_{f} + κ < 0

for some

β \in (0, 1)

[A_{7}]

I_{k} : S \to S

and there exists a constant

L_{I_{k}} > 0

so that

| | I_{k} (t, Θ, u) - I_{k} (t, Θ^{'}, u) | | \leq L_{I_{k}} | | Θ - Θ^{'} | |,

for every

t \in R^{+}

and

Θ, Θ^{'} \in S

. Furthermore, we assume that

L_{I} : = 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M sup_{k \in M} \sum_{i = 1}^{k} L_{I_{i}} < \infty .

[A_{8}]

: A function

φ \in PC (R^{+}, S)

and a constant

η_{φ} > 0

so that

\int_{0}^{t} e^{κ (t - s) + 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M κ_{f} t} φ (s) d s \leq η_{φ} φ (t), for each t \in R^{+} .

[A_{9}]

: Put

M_{1} : = sup_{k \in M} \sum_{i = 1}^{k} e^{κ (t_{k} - t_{i}) + 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M κ_{f} t_{k}} + e^{κ t_{k} + 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M κ_{f} t_{k}},

moreover for the case

M = N

we assume that

M_{1} < \infty

By considering the inequality (4) and above assumptions we state our second result as follows.

Theorem 3.

Suppose that

[A_{0}]

[A_{1}]

and

[A_{6}] - [A_{9}]

are fulfilled. Then the system (2) is β–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias stable with respect to

(ψ^{β}, φ^{β})

on unbounded interval.

Proof of Theorem 3.

Unique solution of the semilinear nonautonomous impulsive differential system:

\{\begin{matrix} Θ^{'} (t) = H (t) Θ (t) + B (t) u (t) + f (t, Θ (t), u (t)), t \in I^{'} \\ Θ (0) = y (0), \\ Θ (t_{k}^{+}) = Θ (t_{k}^{-}) + I_{k} (t_{k}, Θ (t_{k}), u (t_{k})), k = M, \end{matrix}

is given by

\{\begin{matrix} Θ (t) = Q (t, 0) Q (0) + \sum_{i = 1}^{k} Q (t, t_{i}) I_{i} (t_{i}, Θ (t_{i}), u (t_{i})) + \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) B (s) u (s) d s \\ + \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) f (s, Θ (s), u (s)) d s, t \in I^{'}, k \in M . \end{matrix}

(9)

Let y satisfy (4). Then for every

t \in (t_{k}, t_{k + 1}], k \in M_{0}

, we obtain that,

| | y (t) - Q (t, 0) y (0) - \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) B (s) u (s) d s - \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) f (s, y (s), u (s)) d s - \sum_{i = 1}^{k} Q (t, t_{i}) I_{i} (t_{i}, y (t_{i}), u (t_{i})) | |

\leq \sum_{i = 1}^{k} | | Q (t, t_{i}) | | | | h_{i} | | + \int_{0}^{t} | | Q (t, s) | | | | h (s) | | d s,

\leq M (\sum_{i = 1}^{k} e^{κ (t - t_{i})} ϵ ψ + \int_{0}^{t} e^{κ (t - s)} ϵ φ (s) d s) .

Thus for each and every

t \in (t_{k}, t_{k + 1}]

we get that,

\begin{matrix} | | y (t) - {Θ (t) | |}^{β} \\ = & | | y (t) - Q (t, 0) Θ (0) - \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) B (s) u (s) d s - \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) f (s, Θ (s), u (s)) d s \\ - \sum_{i = 0}^{k} Q (t, t_{i}) I_{i} (t_{i}, Θ (t_{i}), u (t_{i})) {| |}^{β} \\ = & | | y (t) - Q (t, 0) Q (0) - \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) B (s) u (s) d s - \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) f (s, Θ (s), u (s)) d s \\ + \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) f (s, y (s), u (s)) d s - \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) f (s, y (s), u (s)) d s - \sum_{i = 0}^{k} Q (t, t_{i}) I_{i} (t_{i}, Θ (t_{i}), u (t_{i})) \\ + \sum_{i = 0}^{k} Q (t, t_{i}) I_{i} (t_{i}, y (t_{i}), u (t_{i})) - \sum_{i = 0}^{k} Q (t, t_{i}) I_{i} (t_{i}, y (t_{i}), u (t_{i})) {| |}^{β} \\ \leq & (| | y (t) - Q (t, 0) y (0) - \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) B (s) u (s) d s \\ - \int_{0}^{t} Q (t, s) f (s, y (s), u (s)) d s - \sum_{i = 0}^{k} Q (t, t_{i}) I_{i} (t_{i}, y (t_{i}), u (t_{i})) | |)^{β} \\ + {(\int_{0}^{t} | | Q (t, s) f (s, y (s), u (s)) - Q (t, s) f (s, Θ (s), u (s)) | |)}^{β} d s \\ + {(\sum_{i = 0}^{k} | | Q (t, t_{i}) I_{i} (t_{i}, y (t_{i}), u (t_{i})) - Q (t, t_{i}) I_{i} (t_{i}, Θ (t_{i}), u (t_{i})) | |)}^{β} \\ \leq & M {(\sum_{i = 1}^{k} e^{κ (t - t_{i})} ϵ ψ + \int_{0}^{t} e^{κ (t - s)} ϵ φ (s) d s)}^{β} \\ + M {(\int_{0}^{t} e^{κ (t - s)} L_{f} (s) | | y (s) - Θ (s) | | d s)}^{β} + {(\sum_{i = 1}^{k} L_{I_{i}} M e^{κ (t - t_{i})} | | y (t_{i}) - Θ (t_{i}) | |)}^{β} . \end{matrix}

If we set

\bar{y} (t) : = e^{- κ t} y (t)

\bar{Θ} (t) : = e^{- κ t} Θ (t)

, we have

\begin{matrix} | | \bar{y} (t) - \bar{Θ} (t) {| |}^{β} & \leq & M ϵ {(\sum_{i = 1}^{k} e^{- κ t_{i}} ψ + \int_{0}^{t} e^{- κ s} φ (s) d s)}^{β} + {(\int_{0}^{t} M L_{f} (s) | | \bar{y} (s) - \bar{Θ} (s) | | d s)}^{β} \\ + {(\sum_{i = 1}^{k} L_{I_{i}} M | | \bar{y} (t_{i}) - \bar{Θ} (t_{i}) | |)}^{β}, \end{matrix}

with the help of

{(x + y + z)}^{γ} \leq 3^{γ - 1} (x^{γ} + y^{γ} + z^{γ}), where x, y, z \geq 0, and γ > 1,

we get that

\begin{matrix} | | \bar{y} (t) - \bar{Θ} (t) | | & \leq & 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M ϵ (\sum_{i = 1}^{k} e^{- κ t_{i}} ψ + \int_{0}^{t} e^{- κ s} φ (s) d s + 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} \int_{0}^{t} M L_{f} (s) | | \bar{y} (s) - \bar{Θ} (s) | | d s \\ + 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} \sum_{i = 1}^{k} L_{J_{i}} M | | \bar{y} (t_{i}) - \bar{Θ} (t_{i}) | | . \end{matrix}

Using Lemma 1, we obtain

\begin{matrix} | | \bar{y} (t) - \bar{Θ} (t) | | & \leq & 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M ϵ (\sum_{i = 1}^{k} e^{- κ t_{i}} ψ + \int_{0}^{t} e^{- κ s} φ (s) d s) L_{J} exp (3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M \int_{0}^{t} L_{f} (s) d s), \end{matrix}

resubmitting some values we have

\begin{matrix} | | y (t) - Θ (t) | | & \leq & 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M ϵ (\sum_{i = 1}^{k} e^{κ (t - t_{i})} ψ + \int_{0}^{t} e^{κ (t - s)} φ (s) d s) L_{J} exp (3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M \int_{0}^{t} L_{f} (s) d s) \\ \leq & 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M L_{J} ϵ (\sum_{i = 1}^{k} e^{κ (t - t_{i}) + 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M (κ_{f} t + ζ_{f})} ψ \\ + e^{κ t + 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M (κ_{f} t + ζ_{f})} + \int_{0}^{t} e^{κ (t - s) + 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M (κ_{f} t + ζ_{f})} φ (s) d s) \\ \leq & 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M L_{I} ϵ e^{3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M ζ_{f}} (M_{1} + η_{φ}) (φ (t) + ψ), \end{matrix}

which implies,

\begin{matrix} | | y (t) - {Θ (t) | |}^{β} & \leq & K_{f, M, φ, β} ϵ^{β} (φ^{β} (t) + ψ^{β}), \end{matrix}

where

K_{f, M, φ, β} : = 3^{1 - β} {(M L_{I})}^{β} {(e^{3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M ζ_{f}} (M_{1} + η_{φ}))}^{β} > 0 .

Hence the system (2) is

β

–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias stable on unbounded interval with respect to

(ψ^{β}, φ^{β})

. ▯

2.4. $β$ –Hyers–Ulam–Rassias Stability with Infinite Impulses

Now to discuss

β

–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias stability for the system (2) with infinite impulses, that is when

M = N

. For this case inequality (4) will become

\{\begin{matrix} | | Θ^{'} (t) - H (t) Θ (t) - B (t) u (t) - f (t, Θ (t), u (t)) | | \leq ϵ φ (t), t \in I^{'} \\ | | Θ (0) - ϱ_{0} | | \leq ϵ ψ_{k}, \\ | | Θ (t_{k}^{+}) - Q (t_{k}^{-}) - I_{k} (t_{k}, Θ (t_{k}), u (t_{k})) | | \leq ϵ ψ_{k}, k \in N, \end{matrix}

(10)

where

φ (.)

has the same definition and

ψ : = {ψ_{k}}_{k \in N}

is a nonconstant sequence of nonnegative entries

ψ_{k} \geq 0

, for each

k \in N

. Then definition (6) can be written as

| | y (t) - {Θ (t) | |}^{β} \leq K_{f, M, φ, β} ϵ^{β} (φ^{β} (t) + ψ_{k + 1}^{β}), t \in I^{'} and k \in N .

We call it as extended

β

–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias stability. To prove

β

–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias stability with infinite impulses, we consider:

[A_{10}] :

f \in C (R^{+} \times S, S)

and ∃ a function

L_{f} \in C (R^{+}, R^{+})

so that

| | f (t, Θ, u) - f (t, Θ^{'}, u) | | \leq L_{f} (t) | | Θ - Θ^{'} | |,

for every

t \in R^{+}

and

Θ, Θ^{'} \in S

[A_{11}] :

I_{k} : S \to S

and there exists a constant

L_{I_{k}} > 0

so that

| | I_{k} (t, Θ, u) - I_{k} (t, Θ^{'}, u) | | \leq L_{I_{k}} | | Θ - Θ^{'} | |,

for every

k \in N, t \in R^{+}

and

Θ, Θ^{'} \in S

[A_{12}] :

\prod_{i = 1}^{k} (1 + 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M L_{I_{i}}) max (\sum_{i = 1}^{k} e^{κ (t_{k} - t_{i}) + 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M \int_{0}^{t_{k}} L_{f} (s) d s}) ψ_{i} \leq η_{ψ} ψ_{k + 1}, for each k \geq 0,

and

[A_{13}] :

\prod_{i = 1}^{k} (1 + 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M L_{I_{i}}) e^{3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M \int_{0}^{t} L_{f} (s) d s} \int_{0}^{t} e^{κ (t - s)} φ (s) d s \leq η_{φ} φ (t), for each k \geq 0 .

Theorem 4.

Suppose that the assumptions

[A_{0}]

[A_{1}]

and

[A_{10}] - [A_{13}]

are fulfilled. Then the system (2) with

I = R^{+}

and

M = N

is extended β–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias stable.

Proof of Theorem 4.

Consider

Θ

is the mild solution of the semilinear nonautonomous impulsive differential system:

\{\begin{matrix} Θ^{'} (t) = H (t) Θ (t) + B (t) u (t) + f (t, Θ (t), u (t)), t \in R^{'}, \\ Θ (0) = y (0), \\ Θ (t_{k}^{+}) = Θ (t_{k}^{-}) + I_{k} (t_{k}, Θ (t_{k}), u (t_{k})), k = N . \end{matrix}

Let y be the solution of the inequality (10). To prove the required result we follow the method of Theorem 3, for any

t \in (t_{k}, t_{k + 1}]

, we obtain that

\begin{matrix} | | y (t) - {Θ (t) | |}^{β} & \leq & (M {(\sum_{i = 1}^{k} e^{κ (t - t_{i})} ϵ ψ_{i} + \int_{0}^{t} e^{κ (t - s)} ϵ φ (s) d s)}^{β} + {(\int_{0}^{t} M e^{κ (t - s)} L_{f} (s) | | y (s) - Θ (s) | | d s)}^{β} \\ + {(\sum_{i = 1}^{k} L_{I_{i}} M e^{κ (t - t_{i})} | | y (t_{i}) - Θ (t_{i}) | |)}^{β}, \end{matrix}

which gives that

\begin{matrix} | | y (t) - Θ (t) | | & \leq & 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M ϵ (\sum_{i = 1}^{k} e^{κ (t - t_{i})} ψ_{i} + \int_{0}^{t} e^{κ (t - s)} φ (s) d s) \\ + 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} \int_{0}^{t} e^{κ (t - s)} M L_{f} (s) | | y (s) - Θ (s) | | d s \\ + 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} \sum_{i = 1}^{k} e^{κ (t - t_{i})} L_{I_{i}} M | | y (t_{i}) - Θ (t_{i}) | | . \end{matrix}

Thus,

\begin{matrix} | | y (t) - Θ (t) | | & \leq & 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M ϵ \prod_{i = 1}^{k} (1 + 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M L_{I_{i}}) (\sum_{i = 1}^{k} e^{κ (t - t_{i})} ψ_{i} \\ + \int_{0}^{t} e^{κ (t - s)} φ (s) d s) exp (3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M \int_{0}^{t} L_{f} (s) d s) \\ \leq & 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M ϵ (η_{ψ} ψ_{k + 1} + η_{φ} φ (t)) . \end{matrix}

At last, we obtain that

\begin{matrix} | | y (t) - {Θ (t) | |}^{β} & \leq & 3^{1 - β} M^{β} ϵ^{β} {(η_{ψ} ψ_{k + 1} + η_{φ} φ (t))}^{β} \\ \leq & K_{f, M, φ, β} ϵ^{β} (φ^{β} (t) + ψ_{k + 1}^{β}), \end{matrix}

where

K_{f, M, φ, β} : = 3^{1 - β} M^{β} (η_{ψ}^{β} + η_{φ}^{β}) > 0 .

The proof is complete. ▯

3. Example

Consider the following semilinear impulsive heat equation

\{\begin{matrix} Θ_{t} = △ Θ + 1_{ω} u (t, y) + f (t, Θ, u (t, y)), for all t [0, τ] \times Ω, t \neq t_{k}, \\ Θ (0, y) = Θ_{0} (y), y \in Ω, \\ Δ Θ (k, y) = \frac{1}{3 k^{2}} Θ (k^{-}, y), k \in M, y \in Ω, \end{matrix}

(11)

where

Ω

is the bounded domain in

R^{N} (N \geq 1)

Θ_{0} \in L^{2} (Ω)

ω

is an open nonempty subset of

Ω

1_{ω}

denotes the characteristic function of the set

ω

, the control function u belongs to

C ([0, τ]; L^{2} (Ω))

f \in C ([0, τ] \times R \times R; R)

and

I_{k} \in C (R \times R; R)

k \in M

, so that the assumptions

[A_{0}]

and

[A_{1}]

holds with

M = 1

κ = - 2 < 0

. Obviously

[A_{6}]

and

[A_{7}]

hold with

κ_{f} = 0

and

\begin{matrix} L_{I} & = & sup_{k \in M} \prod_{i = 1}^{k} (1 + 3^{\frac{1}{β} - 1} M L_{J_{i}}) \\ = & sup_{k \in M} \prod_{i = 1}^{k} (1 + \frac{1}{k^{2}}) \\ \leq & e^{sup_{k \in M} \sum_{i = 1}^{k} \frac{1}{k^{2}}} \\ \leq & e^{\frac{π^{2}}{6}} . \end{matrix}

Also

ζ_{f} = 0

. Put

φ (t) = e^{t}

and

ψ = 1

, then assumption

[A_{8}]

holds if

η_{φ} = \frac{1}{2}

. Similarly,

[A_{9}]

holds with

M_{1} = \frac{e^{2}}{e^{2} - 1}

. Thus by using Theorem 3, we can say that the equation (5.2) is

\frac{1}{2}

–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias stable with respect to

(\sqrt{e^{t}}, 1)

R^{+}

with

K_{f, M, φ, β} = \sqrt{3} e^{\frac{π^{2}}{12}} {(\frac{1}{2} + \frac{e^{2}}{e^{2} - 1})}^{\frac{1}{2}} .

4. Conclusions

In the last few decades, many mathematicians showed their interests in the qualitative theory of impulsive differential equations. In particular, to discuss

β

–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias stability of differential equations, different types of conditions were used in the form of integral inequalities. For the case of semilinear nonautonomous differential system a strong Lipschitz condition of functions were common among them and mostly results were obtained via Grönwall integral inequality. In this article, we present

β

–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias stability of the semilinear nonautonomous impulsive differential system with the help of evolution family and Grönwall integral inequality.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed equally to this article.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11861053) and the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province (Grant No.20132BAB211008).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Friedman, A. Partial Differential Equations; Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.: New York, NY, USA; Montreal, QC, Canada; London, UK, 1969. [Google Scholar]
Ahmed, N.U. Existence of optimal controls for a general class of impulsive systems on Banach spaces. SIAM J. Control Optim. 2003, 42, 669–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bainov, D.D.; Lakshmikantham, V.; Simeonov, P.S. Theory of Impulsive Differential Equations; Series in Modern Applied Mathematics; World Scientific: Singapore, 1989; Volume 6. [Google Scholar]
Benchohra, M.; Henderson, J.; Ntouyas, S. Impulsive differential equations and inclusions. In Contemporary Mathematics and Its Applications; Hindawi: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
Berger, T.; Ilchmanna, A. On Stability of Time-Varying Linear Differential-Algebraic Equations. Int. J. Control. 2013, 86, 1060–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bianca, C.; Pappalardo, F.; Motta, S.; Ragusa, M.A. Persistence analysis in a Kolmogorov-type model for cancer-immune system competition. JAIP Conf. Proc. 2013, 1558, 1797–1800. [Google Scholar]
Gala, S.; Liu, Q.; Ragusa, M.A. Logarithmically improved regularity criterion for the nematic liquid crystal flows in $B_{\infty, \infty}^{- 1}$ space. Comput. Math. Appl. 2013, 65, 1738–1745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hernandez, E.; O’Regan, D. On the new class of abstruct impulsive differential equations. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 2013, 141, 1641–1649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pierri, M.; O’Regan, D.; Rolink, V. Existance of solutions for semi-linear abstract differential equations with not instantaneous impulses. Appl. Math. Comput. 2013, 219, 6743–6749. [Google Scholar]
Samoilenko, A.M.; Perestyuk, N.A. Impulsive Differential Equations; World Scientific Series on Nonlinear Science. Series A: Monographs and Treatises; World Scientific: Singapore, 1995; Volume 14. [Google Scholar]
Samoilenko, A.M.; Perestyuk, N.A. Stability of solutions of differential equations with impulse effect. Differ. Equ. 1995, 13, 1981–1992. [Google Scholar]
Tang, S.; Zada, A.; Fasial, S.; El-Sheikh, M.M.A.; Li, T. Stability of higher order nonlinear impulsive differential equations. J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl. 2015, 9, 4713–4721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wang, J.; Fečkan, M.; Zhou, Y. On the stability of first order impulsive evolution equations. Opusc. Math. 2014, 34, 639–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wang, J.; Ibrahim, A.G.; O’Regan, D. Topological structure of the solution set for fractional non-instantaneous impulsive evolution inclusions. J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2018, 20, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ulam, S.M. A Collection of Mathematical Problems; Interscience Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 1960. [Google Scholar]
Hyers, D.H. On the stability of the linear functional equation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1941, 27, 222–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Aoki, T. On the stability of the linear transformation in Banach spaces. J. Math. Soc. Jpn. 2003, 2, 64–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Rassias, T.M. On the stability of the linear mapping in Banach spaces. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1978, 72, 297–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wang, J.; Fečkan, M.; Zhou, Y. Ulam’s type stability of impulsive diffiential equations. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2012, 395, 258–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wang, J.; Zhou, Y.; Lin, Z. On a new class of impulsive fractional differential equations. Appl. Math. Comput. 2014, 242, 649–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zada, A.; Shah, O.; Shah, R. Hyers Ulam stability of non-autonomous systems in terms of boundedness of Cauchy problems. Appl. Math. Comput. 2015, 271, 512–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hyers, D.H.; Isac, G.; Rassias, T.M. Stability of Functional Equations in Several Variables; Birkhauser: Basel, Switzerland, 1998. [Google Scholar]
Shah, S.O.; Zada, A.; Hamza, A.E. Stability analysis of the first order non-linear impulsive time varying delay dynamic system on time scales. Qual. Theory Dyn. Syst. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wang, J. Stability of noninstantaneous impulsive evolution equations. Appl. Math. Lett. 2017, 73, 157–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wang, J.; Li, X. Ulam–Hyers stability of fractional Langevin equations. Appl. Math. Comput. 2015, 258, 72–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wang, J.; Li, X. A uniformed method to Ulam-Hyers stability for some linear fractional equations. Mediterr. J. Math. 2016, 13, 625–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wang, J.; Fečkan, M.; Tian, Y. Stability analysis for a general class of non-instantaneous impulsive differential equations. Mediterr. J. Math. 2017, 14, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wang, J.; Zada, A.; Ali, W. Ulam’s-type stability of first-order impulsive differential equations with variable delay in quasi–Banach spaces. Int. J. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. 2018, 19, 553–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zada, A.; Ali, W.; Park, C. Ulam’s type stability of higher order nonlinear delay differential equations via integral inequality of Grönwall–Bellman–Bihari’s type. Appl. Math. Comput. 2019, 350, 60–65. [Google Scholar]
Zada, A.; Ali, W.; Farina, S. Hyers–Ulam stability of nonlinear differential equations with fractional integrable impulses. Math. Meth. Appl. Sci. 2017, 40, 5502–5514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zada, A.; Ali, S. Stability analysis of multi-point boundary value problem for sequential fractional differential equations with non-instantaneous impulses. Int. J. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 2018, 19, 763–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zada, A.; Ali, S.; Li, Y. Ulam-type stability for a class of implicit fractional differential equations with non-instantaneous integral impulses and boundary condition. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2017, 2017, 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zada, A.; Shah, S.O. Hyers–Ulam stability of first-order non-linear delay differential equations with fractional integrable impulses. Hacet. J. Math. Stat. 2018, 47, 1196–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zada, A.; Shaleena, S.; Li, T. Stability analysis of higher order nonlinear differential equations in β–normed spaces. Math. Meth. Appl. Sci. 2019, 42, 1151–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Shah, R.; Zada, A. A fixed point approach to the stability of a nonlinear volterra integrodiferential equation with delay. Hacet. J. Math. Stat. 2018, 47, 615–623. [Google Scholar]
Yu, X.; Wang, J.; Zhang, Y. On the β–Ulam–Rassias stability of nonautnonomous impulsive evolution equations. J. Appl. Math. Comput. 2015, 48, 461–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dragan, V.; Aberkane, S.; Popa, I.-L. Optimal filtering for a class of linear Itô stochastic systems: The dichotomic case. Automatica 2018, 90, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Li, T.; Zada, A. Connections between Hyers-Ulam stability and uniform exponential stability of discrete evolution families of bounded linear operators over Banach spaces. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2016, 2016, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Megan, M.; Popa, I.-L. Exponential splitting for nonautonomous linear discrete-time systems in Banach spaces. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2017, 312, 181–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Wang, J.; Ibrahim, A.G.; O’Regan, D.; Zhou, Y. Controllability for noninstantaneous impulsive semilinear functional differential inclusions without compactness. Indag. Math. 2018, 29, 1362–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zada, A.; Arif, M.; Khalid, H. Asymptotic behavior of linear and almost periodic discrete evolution systems on Banach space AA $P_{0}^{r}$ (Z,X). Qual. Theory Dyn. Syst. 2016, 15, 597–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zada, A.; Li, T.; Arif, M.; Lassoued, D. Criteria for the exponential stability of linear evolution difference equations. IMA J. Math. Control Inf. 2018, 35, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zada, A.; Zada, B. On uniform exponential stability of linear switching system. Math. Meth. Appl. Sci. 2018, 42, 717–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wang, J.; Fečkan, M. A general class of impulsive evolution equations. Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 2015, 64, 915–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Leiva, H.; Rojas, R.A. Controllability of semilinear nonautonomous system with impulses and nonlocal conditions. Rev. Decienc. Nat. 2016, 1, 23–38. [Google Scholar]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, X.; Arif, M.; Zada, A. β–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias Stability of Semilinear Nonautonomous Impulsive System. Symmetry 2019, 11, 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11020231

AMA Style

Wang X, Arif M, Zada A. β–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias Stability of Semilinear Nonautonomous Impulsive System. Symmetry. 2019; 11(2):231. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11020231

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Xiaoming, Muhammad Arif, and Akbar Zada. 2019. "β–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias Stability of Semilinear Nonautonomous Impulsive System" Symmetry 11, no. 2: 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11020231

APA Style

Wang, X., Arif, M., & Zada, A. (2019). β–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias Stability of Semilinear Nonautonomous Impulsive System. Symmetry, 11(2), 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11020231

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

Article Menu

β–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias Stability of Semilinear Nonautonomous Impulsive System

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Results

2.1. Basic

2.2. $β$ –Hyers–Ulam–Rassias Stability on a Compact Interval

2.3. $β$ –Hyers–Ulam–Rassias Stability on an Unbounded Interval

2.4. $β$ –Hyers–Ulam–Rassias Stability with Infinite Impulses

3. Example

4. Conclusions

Author Contributions

Funding

Conflicts of Interest

References

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI

Article Menu

β–Hyers–Ulam–Rassias Stability of Semilinear Nonautonomous Impulsive System

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Results

2.1. Basic

2.2. β –Hyers–Ulam–Rassias Stability on a Compact Interval

2.3. β –Hyers–Ulam–Rassias Stability on an Unbounded Interval

2.4. β –Hyers–Ulam–Rassias Stability with Infinite Impulses

3. Example

4. Conclusions

Author Contributions

Funding

Conflicts of Interest

References

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI

2.2. $β$ –Hyers–Ulam–Rassias Stability on a Compact Interval

2.3. $β$ –Hyers–Ulam–Rassias Stability on an Unbounded Interval

2.4. $β$ –Hyers–Ulam–Rassias Stability with Infinite Impulses