1. Introduction
In real-life phenomena, numerous physical processes are used to present fractional-order sets that may change with space and time. The operations of differentiation and integration of fractional order are authorized by fractional calculus. The fractional order may be taken on imaginary and real values [
1,
2,
3]. The theory of fuzzy sets is continuously drawing the attention of researchers. This is mainly due to its extended adaptability in various fields including mechanics, engineering, electrical, processing signals, thermal system, robotics, control, signal processing, and in several other areas [
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10]. Therefore, it has been a topic of increasing concern for researchers during the past few years.
Fuzzy fractional differential equations appeared for the first time in 2010 when an idea of the solution was initially proposed by Agarwal et al. [
11]. However, the Riemann–Liouville H derivative based on the strongly generalizing Hukuhara differentiability [
12,
13] was defined by Allahviranloo and Salahshour [
14,
15]. They worked on solutions to Cauchy problems under this kind of derivative.
In the above,
, through using Laplace transforms [
13] and Mittag–Leffler functions [
12]. By using fractional hyperbolic functions and the properties of these functions, Chehlabi et al. obtain some new results [
16]. More latest studies on fuzzy fractional differential equations can be found through references [
17,
18,
19,
20,
21,
22].
In 1940, Ulam promoted the Ulam stability. Lately, Hyers and Rassias used this concept of stability. Since then, in mathematical analysis and differential equations, the Ulam-type stability has had great significance. In fractional differential equations,
–Ulam-type stabilities were promoted by Wang in 2014 [
23].
In the above equation,
and
. Shen studied the Ulam stability under the generalization of Hukuhara differentiability of a first-order linear fuzzy differential equation in 2015 [
24]. Later, Shen et al. investigated the Ulam stability of a nonlinear fuzzy fractional equation with the help of fixed-point techniques in 2016 [
25],
by focusing on the initial condition
where
denoted Riemann–Liouville H derivative with respect to order
, and
.
More results can be observed that are related to Ulam-type stability in [
26,
27,
28]. Motivated by the above-cited papers, we aim to deal with fuzzy fractional differential equations of the form,
with initial conditions
Here, denotes the Caputo derivative of order and .
This paper focuses on facilitating, with as few conditions as possible, to assure the uniqueness and existence of a solution to Cauchy problems (
1) and (
2). It establishes a link between fuzzy fractional differential equations and the Ulam-type stability, which enhances and generalizes some familiar outputs in the existing literature.
2. Basic Concepts
Assume that
denotes the collection of all nonempty convex and compact subsets of
and define sums and scalar products in
in the usual manner. Let
A and
B be two nonempty bounded subsets in
. The distance between
A and
B is defined through the Hausdorff metric,
In the above equality,
stands for the usual Euclidean norm in
. Now it is well known that the metric
D turns the space
into a complete and separable metric space [
26].
Denote
where (1)–(4) stands for the following properties of the function
u:
- (1)
u is normal in the sense that there exists an such that ;
- (2)
u is fuzzy convex, that is for any and ;
- (3)
u is an upper semicontinuous function on ;
- (4)
The set defined by is compact.
For , denote . Now, from (1)–(4), it follows that the q-level set .
Define as the lower branch and as the upper branch of the fuzzy number . The set is known as the q-level set of fuzzy number u, where . The length of q-level set is calculated as diam .
Lemma 1 ([
29,
30])
. If , then- (i)
is a complete metric space;
- (ii)
;
- (iii)
;
- (iv)
;
- (v)
.
Let
and
be spaces for all continuous and Lebesgue integrable fuzzy-valued functions on
, respectively. Moreover,
stands for the complete metric space, where
Remark 1. On , we can define the subtraction ⊖, called the H difference as follows: makes sense if there exists such that . Then, by definition, .
Let be such that is well defined. Then, its q- is determined by Through a generalization of the Hausdorff–Pompeiu metric on convex and compact sets, the metric D on can be defined by Definition 1 ([
13])
. Assume that . The fuzzy Riemann–Liouville integral for a fuzzy-valued function F is defined by. For we obtain , which is the classical fuzzy integral operator. Definition 2 ([
13])
. Assume that , andIt is said that F is Caputo H-differentiable of order at , if there exists an element such that the following fuzzy equalities are valid:
- (i)
- (ii)
- (iii)
- (iv)
Here, we use only the first two cases [23]. These derivatives are trivial because they reduce to crisp elements. Regarding other fuzzy cases, the reader is referred to [23]. Furthermore, regarding this simplicity, a fuzzy-valued function F is called [(i)-GH]-differentiable or [(ii)-GH]-differentiable if it is differentiable according to concept (i) or to (ii) of Definition 2, respectively. The Mittag–Leffler and fractional hyperbolic functions frequently occur in solutions to fractional systems; see, e.g., [16,23]. The Mittag–Leffler functions in the form of a single and a double parameter are defined by, respectively, Some properties of these functions can be found in [31,32,33]. Lemma 2. Let . Some properties of the functions and are listed below:
- (i)
Let . Then and ;
- (ii)
Let and . Then and are positive. If, moreover, , then and ;
- (iii)
.
Remark 2. According to the lemma given above, it can be observed that for and . Fractional hyperbolic functions that are generalizations of standard hyperbolic functions can be defined through Mittag–Leffler functions (see, e.g., [16]) as follows:for . It is noticed that cosh is an even function and that sinh, , is an odd function. For , we write and instead of cosh and sinh respectively. It is not difficult to observe that and (see, e.g., [16]). Remark 3. According to the above arguments and Remark 2, we have for any .
Lemma 3. (Gronwall lemma) [34] Let μ, . Suppose μ is increasing. If obeys the inequalitythen 3. Existence and Uniqueness Results
In this part, existence and uniqueness of solutions to the Cauchy problem in (
1) and (
2) are discussed. We can start with the lemma given below.
Lemma 4 ([
16])
. When , the [(i)-GH]-differentiable solution to problem (1) is given by when , the [(ii)-GH]-differentiable solution to problem (1) is given by when , the [(i)-GH]-differentiable solution to problem (1) is given by when , the [(ii)-GH]-differentiable solution to problem (1) is given by when , the [(i)-GH]-differentiable solution to problem (1) is given by when , the [(ii)-GH]-differentiable solution to problem (1) is given by Remark 4. If , then problem (1) reduces to By applying Lemma 4 and Remark 4 with
instead of
, it follows that the Cauchy problem in (
1) and (
2) possesses an integral version. In case
and the function
is assumed to be
[(i)-GH]-differentiable, then the function
u satisfies
In case
and the function
is supposed to be
[(ii)-GH]-differentiable, then the function
u satisfies
In case
and the function
is
[(i)-GH]-differentiable, then the function
u satisfies
In case
and the function
is
[(ii)-GH]-differentiable, then the function
u satisfies
We should formulate the basic assumptions before initiating our main work:
The function is continuous;
There exists a finite constant
such that for all
and for all
the inequality
is valid and such that
is satisfied;
.
Theorem 1. Let and suppose that the conditions are satisfied. Then, the Cauchy problem (1) and (2) has a unique [(i)-GH]-differentiable solution u in . Proof. Let the operator
be defined as
It is not difficult to see that u is a
[(i)-GH]-differentiable solution for Cauchy problem (
1) and (
2) if and only if
. Let
u and
v belong to
. From the above Lemmas 1 and 2 we infer
for
, and for all
, which means that
Thus, the Banach contraction mapping (BCM) principle shows the operator
has a unique fixed point
. It represents the unique
[(i)-GH]-differentiable solution to the Cauchy problem (
1) and (
2). □
Theorem 2. Let and suppose the conditions are satisfied. Assume that for any ,is non-decreasing in α,is non-increasing in α, and for any and Then, the Cauchy problem (1) and (2) has a unique [(ii)-GH]-differentiable solution in . Proof. Let the operator
be defined by
For condition
and [
35], we know that
is well defined on
. Moreover, it is not difficult to see that
u is a
[(ii)-GH]-differentiable solution for Cauchy problem (
1) and (
2) if and only if
. Let
u and
v belong to
. From the above Lemmas 1 and 2 and Remark 2 we infer
for
and for all
, which means that
Thus, the Banach contraction mapping (BCM) principle shows the operator
has a unique fixed point
. It represents the unique
[(ii)-GH]-differentiable solution to the Cauchy problem (
1) and (
2). Now, the proof is completed. □
Theorem 3. Let , and suppose that the conditions – are satisfied. Then, the Cauchy problem (1) and (2) has a [(i)-GH]-differentiable solution u in . Proof. Let the operator
be defined as
. It is not difficult to see that
u is a
[(i)-GH]-differentiable solution for Cauchy problem (
1) and (
2) if and only if
. Let
u and
v belong to
. From the above Lemmas 1 and 2 and Remarks 2 and 3 we deduce
For
and for all
, which signifies as
Thus, the Banach contraction mapping (BCM) principle shows the operator
has a unique fixed point
. It represents the unique
[(i)-GH]-differentiable solution to the Cauchy problem (
1) and (
2). Now the proof is done. □
Theorem 4. Let and suppose that the conditions – are satisfied. Assume that for all the functionsis non-decreasing in α. in addition, the functionare non-increasing in α. Furthermore, assume for all , the function is non-decreasing in α. In addition, the function is non-increasing in α. In addition, the function for all is non-decreasing in α, the expressionis non-increasing in α, and for all and , Then, the Cauchy problem (1) and (2) has a unique [(ii)-GH]-differentiable solution for . Proof. Let the operator
be defined as
According to conditions
–
and [
21], it is known that
is well illustrated on
. From the above Lemmas 1, 2, and Remark 2,
for
and for all
, which means that
Thus, the Banach contraction mapping (BCM) principle shows the operator
has a unique fixed point
. It represents the unique
[(ii)-GH]-differentiable solution to the Cauchy problem (
1) and (
2). □
4. Stability Results
In various studies,
–Ulam-type stability approaches regarding fractional differential equations [
23] and Ulam-type stability approaches regarding fuzzy differential equations [
24,
25] were established. Afterward, Yupin Wang and Shurong Sun worked on
–Ulam-type stability concepts regarding fuzzy fractional differential equation where
. We offer some new
–Ulam-type stability concepts regarding fuzzy fractional differential equation where
.
Assume that
is a constant and that
is a positive continuous function. In addition, suppose that
is a continuous function that solves the equation in (
1) and consider the following related inequalities:
where
.
Definition 3. Equation (1) is called –Ulam–Hyers stable in case there exist a finite constant and a function that satisfies the equation in (1) such that for all and for all solutions of Equation (1) that satisfy the inequality in (3), the following inequality is valid: Definition 4. Equation (1) is called –Ulam–Hyers stable in case there exist a continuous function with and a function that satisfies the equation in (1) and for all solutions of Equation (1) that satisfy the inequality in (3), the following inequality is valid: Definition 5. Equation (1) is called –Ulam–Hyers–Rassias stable in case with respect to ζ, when there exist and a function that satisfies the equation in (1) such that for all and for all solutions of the equation in (1) that satisfy the inequality in (5), the following inequality is valid: Definition 6. Equation (1) is called –Ulam–Hyers–Rassias stable in case with respect to ζ if there exist and a function that satisfies the equation in (1) such that for all and for all solutions of the equation in (1) that satisfy the inequality in (4), the following inequality is valid: Lemma 5. The function with the property that exists in for all satisfies the inequality (3) if and only if there exists a function such that (i) for all ,
and the function itself satisfies
(ii) for all .
Proof. The sufficiency begins obviously, and we will only prove the necessity. From condition
, we observe that the function
defined by
belongs to
and that h(t) belongs to
for all
. Therefore, it follows that the equation in (ii) is satisfied. Additionally, we have
From the inequality (
3), it then follows that
, and therefore, (i) is satisfied. This completes the proof of Lemma 5. □
Remark 5. Similar results as in Lemma 5 can be obtained by using the inequalities in (4) and (5). Lemma 6. Let be a -GH]-differentiable function that solves the Cauchy equation in (1) and (2) and satisfies the inequality in (3) and is such that . Let the condition in be satisfied. Then, for every , the function satisfies the inequalitywhen , andwhen , and . Here, the functions and are defined by Proof. Since the function
is a solution to the Cauchy problem (
1) and (
2), we infer
Now, regarding clarity, the proof can be divided into two cases.
Case 1.
Suppose
. Then, we write
Observing that
u is a
[(i)-GH]-differentiable solution of Equation (
6), then Lemma 4 with
instead of
shows the equality
Case 2.
It should be observed that
is a
[(ii)-GH]-differentiable solution of Equation (
6) that obeys the inequality in (
3). An application of Lemma 5 then yields
Now, the proof is completed. □
Lemma 7. Let be a [(ii)-GH]-differentiable function that solves the Cauchy equation in (1) and (2) and satisfies the inequality (3) and is such that . Let the condition in be satisfied. Then, for every the function satisfies the integral inequalitywhen , andwhen and . Here, the functions and are defined by Proof. Now, regarding clarity, the proof can be divided into two cases.
Case 1.
When
, observe that
u is a
[(ii)-GH]-differentiable solution of Equation (
5), then the Lemma 5 with
instead of
shows the equality
Case 2.
Suppose
. Then, we denote
Observing that
is a
[(ii)-GH]-differentiable solution of Equation (
5), then Lemma 5 with
instead of
shows the equality
Now, the proof is completed. □
Remark 6. We can obtain similar results to those in Lemmas 6 and 7 for inequalities (3) and (4). Theorem 5. Suppose , condition – are satisfied, and the following condition holds ; there exists a positive, increasing, and continuous function ζ such that Assume further that -GH]-differentiable function u satisfied the inequality (5) with the function ζ in and that u satisfies condition . Then, Equation (1) is –Ulam–Hyers–Rassias stable. Proof. According to Theorem 1,
u is a
[(i)-GH]-differentiable solution to Cauchy problem (
1) and (
2). Let
u be a
[(i)-GH]-differentiable solution to Equation (
1), which satisfies inequality (
5) with
. From Lemma 6, we obtain
. According to condition
, it follows that
By the generalized Gronwall inequality [
36], we obtain
Thus, Equation (
1) is
–Ulam–Hyers–Rassias stable in view of Definition 5. □
Theorem 6. Let and let the condition –, and hold for a [(ii)-GH]-differentiable function u satisfy inequality (5). Then, Equation (1) is –Ulam–Hyers–Rassias stable. Proof. According to Theorem 2,
u is a
-GH]-differentiable solution to Cauchy problem (
1) and (
2). Let
u be a
[(ii)-GH]-differentiable solution to Equation (
1), which satisfies inequality (
5) with
. From Lemma 7, we obtain
. According to condition
it follows that
By the generalized Gronwall inequality, we obtain
Thus, Equation (
1) is
–Ulam–Hyers–Rassias stable in view of Definition 5. □
Theorem 7. Let , and let the condition –, and hold for a [(i)-GH]-differentiable function u satisfies inequality (5). Then Equation (1) is –Ulam–Hyers–Rassias stable. Proof. According to Theorem 3,
u is a
[(i)-GH]-differentiable solution to Cauchy problem (
1) and (
2). Let
u be a
[(i)-GH]-differentiable solution to Equation (
1), which satisfies inequality (
5) with
. From Lemma 6, we obtain
. According to condition
, it follows that
By the generalized Gronwall inequality, we obtain
Thus, Equation (
1) is
–Ulam–Hyers–Rassias stable in view of Definition 5. □
Theorem 8. Let , let the condition – as well as –, – hold for a [(ii)-GH]-differentiable function u, which satisfies inequality (5). Then, Equation (1) is –Ulam–Hyers–Rassias stable. Proof. According to Theorem 4, set
u is a
[(ii)-GH]-differentiable solution to Cauchy problem (
1) and (
2). let
u be a
[(ii)-GH]-differentiable solution to Equation (
1), which satisfies the inequality (
5) with
. from Lemma 7, we obtain
. According to condition
, it follows that
By the generalized Gronwall inequality, we obtain
Thus, Equation (
1) is
–Ulam–Hyers–Rassias stable in view of Definition 5. Now, the proof is completed. □
Remark 7. In view of Definition 6 can be verified as according to the assumption in Theorems 5–8, we assume Equation (1) and inequality (4). It can be verified that Equation (1) is generalized –Ulam–Hyers–Rassias stable with respect to Definition 6. Remark 8. Condition weakens when we assume . This means that certain theorems in [25] are special cases of Theorem 5 and 6 in the present paper. Remark 9. According to the assumptions excluding in Theorems 5–8, we consider the equation in (1) and inequality in (3). It can be proved that in terms of Definitions 3 and 4, Equation (1) is –Ulam–Hyers.