Interval oscillation of a general class of second-order nonlinear differential equations with nonlinear damping (Q703408): Difference between revisions

The authors are concerned with the oscillatory behavior of the second-order nonlinear differential equation with a nonlinear damping term \[ \left[ r(t)k_{1}(x,x^{\prime})\right] ^{\prime}+p(t)k_{2}(x,x^{\prime })x^{\prime}+q(t)f(x)=0,\qquad t\geq t_{0}\geq0,\tag{b} \] with \(p,q:[t_{0},\infty)\to\mathbb{R},\) \(r:[t_{0},\infty )\to(0,\infty),\) \(f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R},\) \(k_{1} ,k_{2}:\mathbb{R}^{2}\to\mathbb{R}.\) It is also assumed that \[ k_{1}^{2}(u,v)\leq\alpha_{1}k_{1}(u,v), \] for some \(\alpha_{1}>0\) and for all \((u,v)\in\mathbb{R}^{2}.\) Two cases are considered: (a) \(f(x)\) is differentiable, \(xf(x)\neq0\) and \(f^{\prime} (x)\geq\mu_{1}\) for some \(\mu_{1}>0\) and all \(x\neq0,\) and \[ vf(u)k_{2}(u,v)\geq\alpha_{2}k_{1}^{2}(u,v)\tag{b1} \] for some \(\alpha_{2}>0\) and for all \((u,v)\in\mathbb{R}^{2};\) (b) \(f(x)\) is not necessarily differentiable, \(f(x)/x\geq\mu_{2}\) for some \(\mu_{2}>0\) and all \(x\neq0,\) and \[ vuk_{2}(u,v)\geq\alpha_{3}k_{1}^{2}(u,v)\tag{b2} \] for some \(\alpha_{1}>0\) and for all \((u,v)\in\mathbb{R}^{2}.\) Using standard integral averaging technique, several interval oscillation criteria are obtained which require information on the behavior of the coefficients in equation ({b}) on a sequence of intervals \((a_{n},b_{n})\) such that \(a_{n}\to\infty\) as \(n\to\infty\). Unfortunately, rather specific assumptions ({b1}) and ({b2}) significantly restrict possible the applicability of the theorems. The statement of the fundamental Lemma 1.1 should be corrected as follows: ``If there exists an interval \((a,b)\subset[ t_{0},\infty)\) such that (1.2) holds, then, for all \(c\in(a,b),\) (1.3) is satisfied for every \(H\in\mathcal{P}\)'' instead of the incorrect formulation ``If there exist an interval \((a,b)\subset[ t_{0},\infty)\) and a \(c\in(a,b)\) such that (1.2) holds, then (1.3) is satisfied for every \(H\in\mathcal{P}.\)'' The statement of Theorem 3.1 should be corrected by adding the phrase ``and there exists a \(c\in(a,b)\) such that (3.1) holds''.