
In this paper, we investigate the existence-uniqueness, and Ulam Hyers stability (UHS) of solutions to a fractional-order pantograph differential equation (FOPDE) with two Caputo operators. Banach's fixed point (BFP) and Leray-alternative Schauder's are used to prove the existence- uniqueness of solutions. In addition, we discuss and demonstrate various types of Ulam-stability for our problem. Finally, an example is provided for clarity.
Citation: Abdelkader Moumen, Ramsha Shafqat, Zakia Hammouch, Azmat Ullah Khan Niazi, Mdi Begum Jeelani. Stability results for fractional integral pantograph differential equations involving two Caputo operators[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(3): 6009-6025. doi: 10.3934/math.2023303
[1] | Songkran Pleumpreedaporn, Chanidaporn Pleumpreedaporn, Weerawat Sudsutad, Jutarat Kongson, Chatthai Thaiprayoon, Jehad Alzabut . On a novel impulsive boundary value pantograph problem under Caputo proportional fractional derivative operator with respect to another function. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 7817-7846. doi: 10.3934/math.2022438 |
[2] | Saeed M. Ali, Mohammed S. Abdo, Bhausaheb Sontakke, Kamal Shah, Thabet Abdeljawad . New results on a coupled system for second-order pantograph equations with ABC fractional derivatives. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(10): 19520-19538. doi: 10.3934/math.20221071 |
[3] | Ahmed M. A. El-Sayed, Wagdy G. El-Sayed, Kheria M. O. Msaik, Hanaa R. Ebead . Riemann-Liouville fractional-order pantograph differential equation constrained by nonlocal and weighted pantograph integral equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(3): 4970-4991. doi: 10.3934/math.2025228 |
[4] | Sabri T. M. Thabet, Miguel Vivas-Cortez, Imed Kedim . Analytical study of ABC-fractional pantograph implicit differential equation with respect to another function. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(10): 23635-23654. doi: 10.3934/math.20231202 |
[5] | Wedad Albalawi, Muhammad Imran Liaqat, Fahim Ud Din, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Abdel-Haleem Abdel-Aty . Well-posedness and Ulam-Hyers stability results of solutions to pantograph fractional stochastic differential equations in the sense of conformable derivatives. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 12375-12398. doi: 10.3934/math.2024605 |
[6] | Qun Dai, Shidong Liu . Stability of the mixed Caputo fractional integro-differential equation by means of weighted space method. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(2): 2498-2511. doi: 10.3934/math.2022140 |
[7] | Sabri T. M. Thabet, Sa'ud Al-Sa'di, Imed Kedim, Ava Sh. Rafeeq, Shahram Rezapour . Analysis study on multi-order ϱ-Hilfer fractional pantograph implicit differential equation on unbounded domains. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(8): 18455-18473. doi: 10.3934/math.2023938 |
[8] | Arjumand Seemab, Mujeeb ur Rehman, Jehad Alzabut, Yassine Adjabi, Mohammed S. Abdo . Langevin equation with nonlocal boundary conditions involving a ψ-Caputo fractional operators of different orders. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(7): 6749-6780. doi: 10.3934/math.2021397 |
[9] | Souad Ayadi, Ozgur Ege, Manuel De la Sen . On a coupled system of generalized hybrid pantograph equations involving fractional deformable derivatives. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(5): 10978-10996. doi: 10.3934/math.2023556 |
[10] | Mohamed Houas, Kirti Kaushik, Anoop Kumar, Aziz Khan, Thabet Abdeljawad . Existence and stability results of pantograph equation with three sequential fractional derivatives. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(3): 5216-5232. doi: 10.3934/math.2023262 |
In this paper, we investigate the existence-uniqueness, and Ulam Hyers stability (UHS) of solutions to a fractional-order pantograph differential equation (FOPDE) with two Caputo operators. Banach's fixed point (BFP) and Leray-alternative Schauder's are used to prove the existence- uniqueness of solutions. In addition, we discuss and demonstrate various types of Ulam-stability for our problem. Finally, an example is provided for clarity.
In reality to show fractional order demeanor which can change with time and space in case of large number of physical processes. 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. The theory of fuzzy sets is continuously drawing the attention of researchers towards itself due to its rich application in many fields including mechanics, electrical, engineering, processing signals, thermal system, robotics and control, signal processing and many other fields. Therefore, it has been notice that it is the centre of increasing interest of researcher during past few years.
Differential equations are effective tools for describing a wide range of phenomena in modern-world problems. There has been meaningful progress in the study of different classes of differential equations. Traditional integer-order derivatives have recently lost popularity in recent decades in favor of fractional-order derivatives. This is because a variety of mathematical models for current issues involving fractional-order derivatives have been investigated, and their findings have been considerable. In contrast to integer-order derivatives, which are local operators, noninteger-order derivatives have the advantage of being global operators that yield precise and consistent results. Numerous classes of differential equations have been reorganized and constructed in terms of fractional-order derivatives as a result of these great benefits. We discuss some issues where fractional-order derivatives are excellent resources, such as models of global population growth, issues involving blood alcohol content, video tape models, etc. Similarly, fractional-order derivatives [3,4] are used in fields such as electrodynamics, fluid dynamics, fluid mechanics, and so on, see [1,2].
One of the major classes of differential equations is the class of implicit differential equations. These equations are useful in the management and economic sciences. The differential equations in the equilibrium state are typical of the implicit type in economic difficulties. Related to this, we can use implicit functions to explore important aspects of most real-world graphs or surface geometry.
Differential equations with impulsive conditions, on the other hand, are important in almost every branch of science. Dynamical systems with impulsive phenomena are used in physics, biology, economics, engineering, and other fields. See [5,6,7] for more information on how to model procedures with discontinuous jumps and disruptions using differential equations with impulsive conditions. Although impulsive differential equations have received considerable attention, it is worth noting that many aspects of these equations remain to be studied and explored. Delay differential equations can take many different forms. Pantograph differential equations, also known as proportional delay differential equations, are one type. These equations are significant because they can be used to simulate a wide range of issues in fields like population studies, physics, chemistry, economics, infectious diseases, biology, medicine, physiological and pharmaceutical kinetics, chemical kinetics, light absorption by interstellar matter, navigational control of ships and airplanes, electronic systems, electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, and more.
The pantograph equation is the most effective form of delay differential equations; these equations have gotten a lot of attention because of the numerous applications in which they appear [8,9,10]. Recently many of the existence-uniqueness of solutions for different classes of fractional pantograph equations, see, for instance, [11,12,13]. Also, we refer to the articles [14,15] and the references therein for a rigorous inspection of the Ulam-stability of fractional pantograph differential equations [16,17]. Balachandran et al. [18], Hashemi et al. [19] and Alzabut et al. [20] worked on the fractional pantograph equations. Abbas et al. [21,22] solve ordinary differential equations. Niazi et al.[23], Iqbal et al. [24], Shafqat et al. [25,26], Alnahdi [27], Khan et al. [28], Boulares et al. [29] and Abuasbeh et al. [30,31,32] existence-uniqueness of the fuzzy fractional evolution equations were investigated. M. Houas [33] worked on the existence and Ulam stability of solution for FPDEs with two Caputo-hadamard type derivatives:
cHDα(cHDβ+γ)u(ω))=f(ω,u(ω),u(λω)),ω∈[1,ℑ],γ∈Rm,0<λ<1,xu(1)=θ,u(ℑ)=ϑ,θ,ϑ∈Rm, |
where 0<α,β≤1,cHDα,cHDβ are Caputo-Hadamard fractional derivatives and f:[1,ℑ]×Rm×Rm→Rm, is given continuous function.
We discuss the existence-uniqueness and Ulam-stability of solutions for the FOPDEs with Caputo fractional derivatives in light of the mentioned research:
cDϖ(cDϱx(ω))=Aψ(ω,x(ω),x(μω))+Iϖ−1f(ω,x(ω),x(λω)),ℑ∈[0,1],x(0)=0,Dϖ−1x(1)=b∫υ0x(s)ds,ϱ∈Rm, | (1.1) |
where 1<ϖ,ϱ≤2,cDϖ,cDϱ denote the Caputo fractional derivatives, ϖ−1>0,A is real constant, ψ,f:[1,2]×Rm×Rm×Rm→Rm, x:C(0,1)∩L1(0,1) and ‖x‖=supω∈ℑ|x(ω)| are given continuous functions. The goal of this work is to investigate the existence, uniqueness and Ulam-Hyers-Rassias stability of results to fractional integral pantograph differential equations. Some scholars discovered FDE results in the literature, although the vast majority of them were differential equations of the first order. We discovered the results for Caputo derivatives of order (1,2) in our research. Stability, as a part of differential equation theory, is vital in both theory and application. As a result, stability is a key subject of study for researchers, and research papers on stability for FDE have been published in the last two decades, for example, essential conditions for solution stability and asymptotic stability of FDEs. We use fractional integral pantograph differential equations and apply them on various kinds of fractional derivatives and studied the existence and stability of Ulam-Hyers. Pantograph equations also play a pivotal role in pure and applied mathematics and physics. Motivated by their significance, a ton of scientists generalized these equations into different types and presented the solvability aspect of such problems both numerically and theoretically; for additional subtleties. The remaining of this paper is as below. In Section 2, we discuss and outline that are the most important features. The existence-uniqueness of the solution is demonstrated in Section 3. Section 4 investigates the Ulam-Hyers-Rassias stability (UHRS) of the solution. In addition, an example is presented in Section 5 and applications in Section 6. Finally, in Section 6, a conclusion is given.
The operator cDϖ is the fractional derivative in the sense of Caputo [34,35], defined by
cDϖφ(ω)=1Γ(n−ϖ)∫ω0(ω−s)n−ϖ−1φ(n)(s)ds,ϖ>0,n=[ϖ]+1, |
and the RL fractional integral [34,35] of order ϖ>0, denoted by
Iϖφ(ω)=1Γ(α)∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ−1φ(s)ds,ω>0. |
The following lemmas are required.
Lemma 2.1. [35,36] Assume ϖ>ϱ>0 and φ∈L1([a,b]). Then DςIϖφ(ω=Iϖ−ϱφ(ω),ω∈[ℓ,ℏ].
Lemma 2.2. [35,36] For ϖ>0 and σ>−1, we have
Iϖ[(ω−x)ϱ]=Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)(ω−x)ϖ+ϱ. |
In particular, for x=0 and σ>−1, we have
Iϖ[1]=1Γ(ϖ+1)ωϖ. |
We also require the below lemmas.
Lemma 2.3. [36] Suppose ϱ>0 and x∈C(0,1)∩L1(0,1). Then the fractional differential equation RLDϱu(ω)=0 has a unique solution
x(ω)=n∑ȷ=1ciωϱ−ȷ, |
where cȷ∈Rm,ȷ=1,2,...,n,n=[ϱ]+1.
Lemma 2.4. [36] Let ϱ>0. Then for x∈C(0,1)∩L1(0,1) and RLDϱx∈C(0,1)∩L1(0,1), we have
Iϱ[RLDϱx(ω)]=x(ω)+n∑ȷ=1ciωϱ−i, |
where cȷ∈Rm,ȷ=1,2,...,n and n−1<ϱ<n.
Lemma 2.5. [36] For ϑ>0, the general solution of the fractional differential equation cDϑu(ω)=0 is given by
u(ω)=n−1∑ȷ=0cȷωȷ, |
where cȷ∈Rm,ȷ=0,1,2,...,n−1,n=[ϑ]+1.
Lemma 2.6. [36] Assume ϖ>0. Then
Iϖ[cDϖu(ω)]=u(ω)+n−1∑ȷ=0cȷωȷ, |
for some cȷ∈Rm,ȷ=0,1,2,...,n−1,n−1<ϖ<n.
Lemma 2.7. [37] Let O:E→E be a completely continuous operator (that is, a compact map that is constrained to any bounded set in E). For some 0<ρ<1}, let Θ(O)={x∈E:x=ρO(x). The set Θ(O) is then either unbounded or has at least one fixed point.
Assume W=C([0,1],Rm) denote the Banach space of continuous functions with the norm ||u|| from [0,1] to Rm, where ||x||=supω∈[0,ℑ]|x(ω)|.
In this section, we will look at the UH and UHRS for the fractional problem 1.1. We examine the following inequalities for ω∈[0,1]:
|cDϖ[cDϱu(ω)]−Aψ(ω,u(ω),u(μω))−Iϖ−1f(ω,u(ω),u(λω))|≤ς, | (2.1) |
and
|cDϖ[cDϱu(ω)]−Aψ(ω,u(ω),u(μω))−Iϖ−1f(ω,u(ω),u(λω))|≤ςg(ω), | (2.2) |
Definition 2.1. The problem 1.1 is UHS if a real number ηφ,ϕȷ>0(ȷ=1,...,m) exists such that for each ς>0 and for each solution v∈W of the inequality 2.1, there exists a solution u∈W of the problem 1.1:
|v(ω)−u(ω)|≤ηφ,ϕiς,ω∈[0,1],ȷ=1,...,m. |
Definition 2.2. The problem 1.1 is UHRS with respect to g∈C([0,1],Rm+) if there exists a real number ηφ,ϕȷ>0(ȷ=1,...,m) such that for each ς>0 and for each solution v∈W of the inequality 2.2, there exists a solution u∈W of problem 1.1 with
|v(ω)−u(ω)|≤ηφ,ϕȷςg(ω),ω∈[0,1],ȷ=1,...,m. |
Remark 2.8. If and only if there exists a function F:[0,1]→Rm, a function v∈W is a solution of the inequality 2.1 as
|F(ω)|≤η,ω∈[0,1] |
and
cDϖ[cDϱu(ω)]−A(ω,u(ω),u(λω))−Iϖ+ϱf(ω,u(ω),u(λω))=F(ω),ω∈[0,1]. |
Lemma 3.1. Consider the fractional problem with h(ω)∈C([0,1],Rm),
Dϖ[Dϱx(ω)]=h(ω),ω∈[0,1],1<ϖ,ϱ<2, | (3.1) |
with the condition
x(0)=0,Dϖ−1x(1)=b∫υ0x(s)ds,ϖ∈Rm. | (3.2) |
Then,
x(ω)=1Γ(ϖ+ϱ)∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ+ϱ−1h(s)ds+c1Γ(ϱ)Γ(ϖ+ϱ)ωϖ+ϱ−1+c2. | (3.3) |
Proof. Using Lemma 2.4,
cDϱx(ω)=1Γ(ϖ)∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ−1h(s)ds+c1ωϖ−1, | (3.4) |
where c1∈Rm. Now, by Lemma 2.6, we have
x(ω)=1Γ(ϖ+ϱ)∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ+ϱ−1h(s)ds+c1Γ(ϱ−1+1)Γ(ϖ+ϱ−1+1)ωϖ+ϱ−1+c2=1Γ(ϖ+ϱ)∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ+ϱ−1h(s)ds+c1Γ(ϱ)Γ(ϖ+ϱ)ωϖ+ϱ−1+c2. | (3.5) |
where c2∈Rm. By using 3.2, we get
c2=x(0)=0, |
and
c1=b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]∫υ0(ω−s)ϖ+ϱ−1h(s)ds. |
Substituting the value of c1 and c2 in 3.6 yields the solution 3.4. We define
Qx(ω)=AΓ(ϖ+ϱ)∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ+ϱ−1φ(s,x(s),x(μs)ds+AΓ(ϖ+ϱ)∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ+ϱ−1f(s,x(s),x(λs))ds+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]∫υ0φ(s,x(s),x(μs))ds+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]∫υ0f(s,x(s),x(λs))ds. | (3.6) |
We require the following conditions for the detail:
(C1):φ,ϕȷ:[0,1]×Rm×Rm→Rm,ȷ=1,...,m, are continuous functions and there exist a constants κȷ>0,(ȷ=1,...,m+1) such that for all ω∈[0,1] and xı,yı∈Rm,ı=1,2.
|φ(ω,x1,x2)−φ(ω,y1,y2)|≤κ1(|x1−y1|+|x2−y2|),|ϕȷ(ω,x1,x2)−φ(ω,y1,y2)|≤κȷ+1(|x1−y1|+|x2−y2|),ȷ=1,...,m. |
(C2):ψ:C([0,1],Rm)→Rm is continuous function with ψ(0)=0 and there exists a constant ω>0,
|ψ(x)−ψ(y)|≤ω|x−y|,x,y∈C([0,1],Rm). |
Using BFPT, we will develop a special remedy for the FPE (1).
Theorem 3.2. Suppose that (C1) and (C2) hold. If
1−4ω8≥k((|A|Γ(ϖ+ϱ)+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱ Γ(ϱ+1)] )+(|A|Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+2)−bυϖ+ϱ+1 Γ(ϱ+1)] )32+(2|A|Γ(ϖ+ϱ)+2b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱ Γ(ϱ)] )+(2|A|Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)+2b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+2)−bυϖ+ϱ+1 Γ(ϱ+1)]+ ω ) ), | (3.7) |
where κ=max{κȷ,ȷ=1,2,...,m+1}, then fractional problem 1.1 has a unique solution on [1,2].
Proof. Assume that L1=max{Lȷ:ȷ=1,2,...,m+1}, where Lȷ are finite numbers given by supω∈[0,1]|φ(ω,0,0)| and Lȷ+1=supω∈[0,1]|φȷ(ω,0,0)|. Define
r≥2L[|A|Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+2)−bυϖ+ϱ+1 Γ(ϱ+1)] ]32−(2|A|Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)+2b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+2)−bυϖ+ϱ+1 Γ(ϱ+1)]+ ω ), |
we show that QBr⊂Br, where Br={u∈W:‖u‖≤r}. For u∈Br and by (C1) and (C2),
|φ(ω,x(ω),x(λω)|≤|φ(ω,x(ω),x(λω)−φ(s,0,0)|+|φ(s,0,0)|≤2κ1‖x‖+L1≤2κ1r+L1,|φi(ω,x(ω),x(λω)|≤|φi(ω,x(ω),x(λω)−φȷ(s,0,0)|+|φȷ(s,0,0)|≤2κȷ+1‖u‖+Lȷ+1≤2κȷ+1r+Lȷ+1,ȷ=1,2,...,m, | (3.8) |
and
|ψ(x)|≤ω‖x‖≤ωr. | (3.9) |
Using 3.8 and 3.9,
|Qx(ω)|≤AΓ(ϖ+ϱ)∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ+ϱ−1φ(s,x(s),x(μs))ds+AΓ(ϖ+ϱ)∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ+ϱ−1f(s,x(s),x(λs))ds+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]∫υ0φ(s,x(s),x(μs))ds+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]∫υ0f(s,x(s),x(λs))ds. |
By (C1) and (C2), we can write
|Qx(ω)|≤(2kr+L)[2|A|Γ(ϖ+ϱ)+2b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]+2|A|Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)+2b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱ+1Γ(ϱ+1)]]=2[2|A|kΓ(ϖ+ϱ)+2b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]]+2L[|A|Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)+2b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+2)−bυϖ+ϱ+1Γ(ϱ+1)]]≤r. |
Thus
‖Q(x)‖≤r. |
This implies that QBr⊂Br. Now we have u,v∈Br and all ω∈[0,ℑ],
|Qx(ω)−Qy(ω)|=|A|Γ(ϖ+ϱ)∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ+ϱ−1|φ(s,x(s),x(μs)−φ(s,y(s),y(μs)|ds+AΓ(ϖ+ϱ)∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ+ϱ−1|f(s,x(s),x(λs))−f(s,y(s),y(λs))|ds+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]∫υ0|φ(s,x(s),x(μs)−φ(s,y(s),y(μs)|ds+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]∫υ0|f(s,x(s),x(λs))−f(s,y(s),y(λs))|ds. |
So, according to (C1) and (C2), we get
‖Qx−Qy‖≤(4k[|A|Γ(ϖ+ϱ)+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱ Γ(ϱ+1)]])‖x−y‖. |
We can see from 3.7 that Q is a contractive operator. As a result the BFPT, has a fixed point that is a solution of 1.1.
By Lemma 3.1, we demonstrate the existence of solutions to the FPE 1.1 in the below result.
For the forthcoming result, we need to provide the below conditions:
(C3):φ,ϕȷ:[0,1]×Rm×Rm→Rm,ȷ=1,...,m, are continuous and there exist real constants bȷ,dȷ≥0 and aȷ>0,ȷ=1,...,m+1 such that for any x1,y1∈Rm, we have
|φ(ω,x1,y2)|≤a1+b1|x1|+d1|x2|, |
(C4):ψ:C([0,1],Rm)→Rm is continuous function with ψ(0)=0 and there exists constant ς>0 such that
|ψ(x)|≤ς‖u‖∀x∈C([0,1],Rm). |
Theorem 3.3. Suppose that the conditions (C3) and (C4) are satisfied. If the inequality
|A|b1+d1Γ(α+β)+b(α+β)Γ(β+1)(bȷ+1+dȷ+1 )Γ(β)[Γ(α+β+1)−bυα+β Γ(β+1)]<3−ϖ2, | (3.10) |
at least one solution to the 1.1 problem can be found in [1,2].
Proof. In the first step, we demonstrate the complete continuity of the operator Q:W→W. It follows that the operator Q is continuous because the functions φ,ϕȷ(ȷ=1,...,m) and ψȷ are continuous.
Assume Ω∈W be bounded. Then there exist positive constants Mȷ,(ȷ=1,...,m+1) such that |φ(ω,x,y)|≤M1,|ϕi(ω,x,y)|≤Mȷ+1, for each x,y∈Ω and constants Π such that |ψ(x)|≤Π for all x∈C([0,1],Rm). Then we have for any x∈Ω, we have
|Qx(ω)|≤AΓ(ϖ+ϱ)∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ+ϱ−1φ(s,x(s),x(μs)ds+AΓ(ϖ+ϱ)∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ+ϱ−1f(s,x(s),x(λs))ds+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]∫υ0φ(s,x(s),x(μs))ds+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]∫υ0f(s,x(s),x(λs))ds≤2|A|M1Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)+2b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Mi+1Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)], |
which assumes that
‖Q(u)‖≤2(|A|M1Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Mȷ+1Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]). |
As a result of the preceding inequality, the operator Q is uniformly bounded.
Following that, Q is an equicontinuous set of W. Assume, ω1,ω2∈(0,1] be replaced by ω1<ω2. Then,
|Qx(ω2)−Qx(ω1)|≤|A|Γ(ϖ+ϱ)∫ω10[(ω2−s)ϖ+ϱ−1−(ω1−s)ϖ+ϱ−1]|ψ(s,x(s),x(μs)|ds+|A|Γ(ϖ+ϱ)∫ω2ω1[(ω2−s)ϖ+ϱ−1]|ψ(s,x(s),x(μs)|ds+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]∫ω10[(ω2−s)ϖ+ϱ−1−(ω1−s)ϖ+ϱ−1]f(s,x(s),x(λs))ds+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]∫ω2ω1[(ω2−s)ϖ+ϱ−1]f(s,x(s),x(λs))ds+[ωϖ+ϱ−12−ωϖ+ϱ−11](|A|Γ(ϖ+ϱ)∫ω0(1−s)ϖ+ϱ−1|ψ(s,x(s),x(μs))|ds−b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]∫10(1−s)ϖ+ϱ−1|f(s,x(s),x(λs))|ds). |
Hence, we obtain
|Qx(ω2)−Qx(ω1)|≤|A|M1Γ(ϖ+ϱ)∫ω10[(ω2−s)ϖ+ϱ−1−(ωϖ+ϱ2−ωϖ+ϱ1)]+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Mȷ+1Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)][(ω2−s)ϖ+ϱ−1+(ωϖ+ϱ2−ωϖ+ϱ1)][ωϖ+ϱ−12−ωϖ+ϱ−11](|A|M1Γ(ϖ+ϱ)+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Mȷ+1Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]). |
According to the above inequality, we can state that ‖Qx(ω2)−Qx(ω1)‖→0 as ω2−ω1→0. By applying the Arzela-Ascoli theorem, Q:W→W is completely continuous.
Finally, we demonstrate that the Θ set defined by
Θ={x∈W:x=ρQ(x),1<ρ<2}, |
is bounded. Suppose x∈Θ, then x=ρQ(x). For each ω∈[0,1],
x(ω)=ρQx(ω). |
Then
|x(ω)|=|Qx(ω)|≤AΓ(ϖ+ϱ)∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ+ϱ−1φ(s,x(s),x(μs))ds+AΓ(ϖ+ϱ)∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ+ϱ−1f(s,x(s),x(λs))ds+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]∫υ0φ(s,x(s),x(μs))ds+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]∫υ0f(s,x(s),x(λs))ds. |
Hence
‖x‖≤2|A|Γ(ϖ+ϱ)[|a1+(b1+d1)‖x‖]+2b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)][aȷ+1+(bȷ+1+dȷ+1)‖x‖]=(2|A|(b1+d1)Γ(ϖ+ϱ)+2b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)(bȷ+1+dȷ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)])‖u‖+2|A|Γ(ϖ+ϱ)a1+2b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]aȷ+1, |
which implies that
‖x‖≤2|A|a1Γ(ϖ+ϱ)+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)aȷ+1Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱ Γ(ϱ+1)]32−(2|A|(bȷ+dȷ)Γ(ϖ+ϱ)+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)(bȷ+1+dȷ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱ Γ(ϱ+1)] ). |
This demonstrates that Θ is bounded. As a result, according to Lemma 2.7, operator O has at least one fixed point. As a result, there is at least one solution to the fractional pantograph problem 1.1 on [1,2]. The proof is finally completed.
In this portion, we will look at the problem's UH and UHRS 1.1.
Theorem 4.1. If conditions (C1) and (C2) are satisfied and also
b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱ Γ(ϱ+1)]<Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)2k−|A|. | (4.1) |
Then the problem 1.1 is UHS, and thus generalized UHS.
Proof. Presume that x∈W is the only solution to the issue and that y∈W is a solution to the inequality 2.1:
Dϖ(Dϱx(ω))=Aψ(ω,x(ω),x(μω))+Iϖ−1f(ω,x(ω),x(λω)),ω∈[0,1],1<ϖ,ϱ<2,x(0)=φ(0),Dϖ−1x(1)=b∫υ0x(s)ds,ϱ∈Rm. | (4.2) |
Using Eq 4.2, we can write
x(ω)=Iϖ+ϱhx(ω)+c1b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱ Γ(ϱ+1)]Iϖ+ϱhx(ω). |
The inequality 1.1 has now been integrated, and we have
|y(ω)−Iϖ+ϱhx(ω)+c1b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]Iϖ+ϱhx(ω)|≤ϖΓ(ϖ+ϱ)ωϖ+ϱ≤ϖΓ(ϖ+ϱ+1). |
For any ω∈[0,1], we have
|y(ω)−x(ω)|=|y(ω)−Iϖ+ϱhx(ω)−c1b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]Iϖ+ϱhx(ω)|≤|y(ω)−Iϖ+ϱhy(ω)+c1b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]Iϖ+ϱhy(ω)|, |
where
hx(ω)=Aψ(ω,x(ω),x(μω))+Iϖ−1f(ω,x(ω),x(λω)), |
and
hy(ω)=Aψ(ω,y(ω),y(μω))+Iϖ−1f(ω,y(ω),y(λω)), |
then
Iϖ+ϱ[hy(ω)−hx(ω)]=Iϖ+ϱ[Aψ(ω,y(ω),y(μω))−Aψ(ω,x(ω),x(μω))]+Iϖ+ϱ[f(ω,y(ω),y(λt))−f(ω,x(ω),x(λω))]=AΓ(ϖ+ϱ)∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ+ϱ−1[ψ(s,y(s),y(μω))−ψ(s,x(s),x(μω))]ds+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ+ϱ−1[f(ω,y(ω),y(λω))−f(ω,x(ω),x(λω))]ds. |
According to (C1), we get
|Iϖ+ϱ[hy(ω)−hx(ω)]|≤2κΓ(ϖ+ϱ)∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ+ϱ−1|y(ω)−x(ω)|ds+2kb(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ+ϱ−1|y(ω)−x(ω)|ds. |
This leads to
|y(ω)−x(ω)|≤|x(ω)−Iϖ+ϱhy(ω)−c1b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]Iϖ+ϱhy(ω)|+2κ[|A|Γ(ϖ+ϱ)∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ+ϱ−1|y(ω)−x(ω)|ds+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ+ϱ−1|y(ω)−x(ω)|ds], |
which indicates
|y(ω)−x(ω)|≤ςΓ(ϖ+ϱ+1)+2k[|A|Γ(ϖ+ϱ)+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]]||y(s)−x(s)||. |
Also, one can see that
||y(s)−x(s)||(1−2κ[|A|Γ(ϖ+ϱ)+b(ϖ+ϱ) Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱ Γ(ϱ+1)]])≤ςΓ(ϖ+ϱ+1). |
Thus, we obtain the inequality
|y(ω)−x(ω)|≤1Γ(ϖ+ϱ)−2κ[|A|+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱ Γ(ϱ+1)]]ς=ε. |
Problem 1.1 is UHS, we conclude.
Theorem 4.2. If conditions (C1),(C2) and 3.10 are satisfied. Suppose there exists Λg>0,
Iϖ+ϱ[g(ω)]≤Λgg(ω), | (4.3) |
for all ω∈[0,1], where g∈C([0,1],Rm+) is increasing. The problem 1.1 then becomes UHRS concerning g.
Proof. Assume y∈W be a solution to the inequality 2.2, and also presume x∈W be the unique solution to the problem:
Dϖ(Dϱx(ω))=Aψ(ω,x(ω),x(μω))+Iϖ−1f(ω,x(ω),x(λω)),ω∈[0,1],1<ϖ,ϱ<2,x(0)=φ(0),Dϖ−1x(1)=b∫υ0x(s)ds,ϱ∈Rm. | (4.4) |
We obtain by integrating the inequality 2.2:
|y(ω)−Iϖ+ϱhy(ω)+c1b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]Iϖ+ϱhy(ω)|≤ςIϖ+ϱ[g(ω)]≤ςΛgg(ω). |
In addition, we have
|y(ω)−x(ω)|≤|y(ω)−Iϖ+ϱhy(ω)+c1b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]Iϖ+ϱhy(ω)|+2k|A|Γ(α+β)∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ+ϱ−1‖y(ω)−x(ω)‖ds+2bk(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ+ϱ−1‖y(ω)−x(ω)‖ds, |
which implies that
|y(ω)−x(ω)|≤ςΛgg(ω)+2κ|A|Γ(ϖ+ϱ)∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ+ϱ−1‖y(ω)−x(ω)‖ds+2bk(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱΓ(ϱ+1)]∫ω0(ω−s)ϖ+ϱ−1‖y(ω)−x(ω)‖ds. |
Hence
|y(ω)−x(ω)|≤ςΛgg(ω)+2κ[|A|Γ(ϖ+ϱ)+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱ Γ(ϱ+1)]]‖y(ω)−x(ω)‖. |
This implies
‖y(ω)−x(ω)‖(1−2κ[|A|Γ(ϖ+ϱ)+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱ Γ(ϱ+1)]])≤ςΛgg(ω). |
Then, for each ω∈[0,1], there is
|y(ω)−x(ω)|≤Λg1−2k[|A|Γ(ϖ+ϱ)+b(ϖ+ϱ)Γ(ϱ+1)Γ(ϱ)[Γ(ϖ+ϱ+1)−bυϖ+ϱ Γ(ϱ+1)] ]ςg(ω):=ϕ(ω)g(ω). |
As a result, we conclude that problem 1.1 has UHRS.
We will use the below example to demonstrate our main points.
Example 5.1. Assume the Caputo-type fractional pantograph equation
cD52[CD32u(ω)]=35e3t+5u(ω)+35e3t+5u(32ω)+278,ω∈[0,e],u(0)=75,u(e)=√7. | (5.1) |
We have α∈52,β=32,λ=12 and ℑ=e. On the other hand,
f(ω,u,v)=35e3t+5u(ω)+35e3ω+5u(32ω)+278. |
For ω∈[0,ℑ] and (u1,v1) and (u2,v2)∈Rm,
|f(ω,u1,v1)−f(ω,u2,v2)|≤35e5(|u1−u2|+|v1−v2|). |
Hence, the condition (H1) holds with K=217e5. Thus conditions
4KΓ(ϖ+ϱ)ωα+β≃8.1035×10−2 |
are satisfied. According to Theorem 3.2, the problem 5.1 has a unique solution on [1,e], and according to Theorem 4.1, fractional problem 5.1 is UH stable.
Pantograph is a linkage constituting of five link connected with pin joints to form revolute pairs. It is connected in a manner based on parallelograms so that the movement of one point, in tracing an image, produces identical movements by second point. A pantograph is used to reproduce to an enlarged or a reduced scale and as exactly as possible the path described by a given point. Pantograph equation is one of the most prominent delay differential equation that play a significant role in mathematical physics. This equation exists in several branches of pure and applied mathematics including dynamical systems, control system, probability, number theory, quantum mechanics, electrodynamics. In particular, Taylor and Ockendon formulated such type of equation to describe how to receive electric current from the pantograph of an electric locomotive. Figure 1 displays the pantograph model.
In this work, we have explained the existence-uniqueness and Ulam-type stability of solutions for FOPDEs with fractional Caputo derivative. We have established the existence-uniqueness results applying the BFPT and Leray-Schauder's alternative. Moreover, the UHS and the UHRS have been discussed. To illustrate the theoretical results we have given an example. Future work may also involve generalizing other tasks, adding observability, and developing the concept that was introduced in this mission. This is a fertile field with numerous research initiatives that have the potential to produce a wide range of theories and applications.
The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University of funding this work through Small Groups (Project under grant number (1/350/43)).
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper
[1] |
A. A. Alderremy, K. M. Saad, P. Agarwal, S. Aly, S. Jain, Certain new models of the multi space-fractional Gardner equation, Phys. A: Stat. Mech. Appl., 545 (2020), 123806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2019.123806 doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2019.123806
![]() |
[2] | R. Caponetto, G. Dongola, L. Fortuna, I. Petráš, Fractional order systems: modeling and control applications, Vol. 72, Singapore: World Scientific, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1142/7709 |
[3] | A. A. Kilbas, H. M. Srivastava, J. J. Trujillo, Theory and applications of fractional differential equations, Vol. 204, Elsevier, 2006. |
[4] |
R. Almeida, N. R. O. Bastos, M. T. T. Monteiro, Modeling some real phenomena by fractional differential equations, Math. Methods Appl. Sci., 39 (2016), 4846–4855. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.3818 doi: 10.1002/mma.3818
![]() |
[5] |
J. Wang, Y. Yang, W. Wei, Nonlocal impulsive problems for fractional differential equations with time-varying generating operators in Banach spaces, Opusc. Math., 30 (2010), 361–381. https://doi.org/10.7494/OpMath.2010.30.3.361 doi: 10.7494/OpMath.2010.30.3.361
![]() |
[6] |
C. M. Pappalardo, M. C. De Simone, D. Guida, Multibody modeling and nonlinear control of the pantograph / catenary system, Arch. Appl. Mech., 89 (2019), 1589–1626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00419-019-01530-3 doi: 10.1007/s00419-019-01530-3
![]() |
[7] |
D. Li, C. Zhang, Long time numerical behaviors of fractional pantograph equations, Math. Comput. Simul., 172 (2020), 244–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2019.12.004 doi: 10.1016/j.matcom.2019.12.004
![]() |
[8] |
G. Derfel, A. Iserles, The pantograph equation in the complex plane, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 213 (1997), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmaa.1997.5483 doi: 10.1006/jmaa.1997.5483
![]() |
[9] |
R. L. Magin, Fractional calculus models of complex dynamics in biological tissues, Comput. Math. Appl., 59 (2010), 1586–1593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2009.08.039 doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2009.08.039
![]() |
[10] |
J. R. Ockendon, A. B. Tayler, The dynamics of a current collection system for an electric locomotive, Proc. Royal Soc. London A, Math. Phys. Sci., 322 (1971), 447–468. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1971.0078 doi: 10.1098/rspa.1971.0078
![]() |
[11] |
I. Ahmed, P. Kumam, T. Abdeljawad, F. Jarad, P. Borisut, M. A. Demba, et al., Existence and uniqueness results for φ-Caputo implicit fractional pantograph differential equation with generalized anti-periodic boundary condition, Adv. Differ. Equ., 2020 (2020), 555. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13662-020-03008-x doi: 10.1186/s13662-020-03008-x
![]() |
[12] |
M. A. Darwish, K. Sadarangani, Existence of solutions for hybrid fractional pantograph equations, Appl. Anal. Discr. Math., (2015), 150–167. https://doi.org/10.2298/AADM150126002D doi: 10.2298/AADM150126002D
![]() |
[13] | M. Houas, Existence and stability of fractional pantograph differential equations with Caputo-Hadamard type derivative, Turkish J. Ineq., 4 (2020), 29–38. |
[14] |
K. Shah, D. Vivek, K. Kanagarajan, Dynamics and stability of ψ-fractional pantograph equations with boundary conditions, Bol. Soc. Parana. Mat., 39 (2021), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.5269/bspm.41154 doi: 10.5269/bspm.41154
![]() |
[15] | I. Ahmad, J. J. Nieto, K. Shah, Existence and stability for fractional order pantograph equations with nonlocal conditions, Electron. J. Differ. Equ., 2020 (2020), 1–16. |
[16] |
I. Ahmed, P. Kumam, T. Abdeljawad, F. Jarad, P. Borisut, M. A. Demba, et al., Existence and uniqueness results for φ-Caputo implicit fractional pantograph differential equation with generalized anti-periodic boundary condition, Adv. Differ. Equ., 2020 (2020), 555. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13662-020-03008-x doi: 10.1186/s13662-020-03008-x
![]() |
[17] | D. Vivek, K. Kanagarajan, S. Sivasundaram, On the behavior of solutions of Hilfer Hadamard type fractional neutral pantograph equations with boundary conditions, Commun. Appl. Anal., 22 (2018), 211–232. |
[18] |
K. Balachandran, S. Kiruthika, J. Trujillo, Existence of solutions of nonlinear fractional pantograph equations, Acta Math. Sci., 33 (2013), 712–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0252-9602(13)60032-6 doi: 10.1016/S0252-9602(13)60032-6
![]() |
[19] |
M. S. Hashemi, E. Ashpazzadeh, M. Moharrami, M. Lakestani, Fractional order Alpert multiwavelets for discretizing delay fractional differential equation of pantograph type, Appl. Numer. Math., 170 (2021), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2021.07.015 doi: 10.1016/j.apnum.2021.07.015
![]() |
[20] |
J. Alzabut, A. G. M. Selvam, R. A. El-Nabulsi, V. Dhakshinamoorthy, M. E. Samei, Asymptotic stability of nonlinear discrete fractional pantograph equations with non-local initial conditions, Symmetry, 13 (2021), 473. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13030473 doi: 10.3390/sym13030473
![]() |
[21] |
A. Abbas, R. Shafqat, M. B. Jeelani, N. H. Alharthi, Significance of chemical reaction and Lorentz force on third-grade fluid flow and heat transfer with Darcy-Forchheimer law over an inclined exponentially stretching sheet embedded in a porous medium, Symmetry, 14 (2022), 779. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym14040779 doi: 10.3390/sym14040779
![]() |
[22] |
A. Abbas, R. Shafqat, M. B. Jeelani, N. H. Alharthi, Convective heat and mass transfer in third-grade fluid with Darcy-Forchheimer relation in the presence of thermal-diffusion and diffusion-thermo effects over an exponentially inclined stretching sheet surrounded by a porous medium: a CFD study, Processes, 10 (2022), 776. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10040776 doi: 10.3390/pr10040776
![]() |
[23] |
A. U. K. Niazi, J. He, R. Shafqat, B. Ahmed, Existence, uniqueness, and Eq-Ulam-type stability of fuzzy fractional differential equation, Fractal Fract., 5 (2021), 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract5030066 doi: 10.3390/fractalfract5030066
![]() |
[24] |
N. Iqbal, A. U. K. Niazi, R. Shafqat, S. Zaland, Existence and uniqueness of mild solution for fractional-order controlled fuzzy evolution equation, J. Funct. Spaces, 2021 (2021), 5795065. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5795065 doi: 10.1155/2021/5795065
![]() |
[25] |
R. Shafqat, A. U. K. Niazi, M. B. Jeelani, N. H. Alharthi, Existence and uniqueness of mild solution where α∈(1,2) for fuzzy fractional evolution equations with uncertainty, Fractal Fract., 6 (2022), 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract6020065 doi: 10.3390/fractalfract6020065
![]() |
[26] |
R. Shafqat, A. U. K. Niazi, M. Yavuz, M. B. Jeelani, K. Saleem, Mild solution for the time-fractional Navier-Stokes equation incorporating MHD effects, Fractal Fract., 6 (2022), 580. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract6100580 doi: 10.3390/fractalfract6100580
![]() |
[27] |
A. S. Alnahdi, R. Shafqat, A. U. K. Niazi, M. B. Jeelani, Pattern formation induced by fuzzy fractional-order model of COVID-19, Axioms, 2022 (2022), 313. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms11070313 doi: 10.3390/axioms11070313
![]() |
[28] |
A. Khan, R. Shafqat, A. U. K. Niazi, Existence results of fuzzy delay impulsive fractional differential equation by fixed point theory approach, J. Funct. Spaces, 2022 (2022), 4123949. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4123949 doi: 10.1155/2022/4123949
![]() |
[29] |
H. Boulares, A. Benchaabane, N. Pakkaranang, R. Shafqat, B. Panyanak, Qualitative properties of positive solutions of a kind for fractional pantograph problems using technique fixed point theory, Fractal Fract., 6 (2022), 593. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract6100593 doi: 10.3390/fractalfract6100593
![]() |
[30] |
K. Abuasbeh, R. Shafqat, A. U. K. Niazi, M. Awadalla, Local and global existence and uniqueness of solution for time-fractional fuzzy Navier-Stokes equations, Fractal Fract., 6 (2022), 330. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract6060330 doi: 10.3390/fractalfract6060330
![]() |
[31] |
K. Abuasbeh, R. Shafqat, Fractional Brownian motion for a system of fuzzy fractional stochastic differential equation, J. Math., 2022 (2022), 3559035. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3559035 doi: 10.1155/2022/3559035
![]() |
[32] |
K. Abuasbeh, R. Shafqat, A. U. K. Niazi, M. Awadalla, Oscillatory behavior of solution for fractional order fuzzy neutral predator-prey system, AIMS Math., 7 (2022), 20383–20400. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.20221117 doi: 10.3934/math.20221117
![]() |
[33] | M. Houas, Existence and Ulam stability of fractional pantograph differential equations with two Caputo-Hadamard derivatives, Acta Univ. Apulensis, 63 (2020), 35–49. |
[34] |
V. Lakshmikantham, A. S. Vatsala, Basic theory of fractional differential equations, Nonlinear Anal., 69 (2008), 2677–2682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2007.08.042 doi: 10.1016/j.na.2007.08.042
![]() |
[35] | I. Podlubnv, Fractional differential equations, 1 Ed., San Diego, CA: Academic press, 1999. |
[36] | A. A. Kilbas, H. M. Srivastava, J. J. Trujillo, Theory and applications of fractional differential equations, Vol. 204, Elsevier, 2006. |
[37] | A. Granas, J. Dugundji, Fixed point theory, New York: Springer, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21593-8 |
1. | Abdelkader Moumen, Ramsha Shafqat, Ammar Alsinai, Hamid Boulares, Murat Cancan, Mdi Begum Jeelani, Analysis of fractional stochastic evolution equations by using Hilfer derivative of finite approximate controllability, 2023, 8, 2473-6988, 16094, 10.3934/math.2023821 | |
2. |
Mohamed Reda Lemnaouar,
Existence and k-Mittag Leffler Ulam stabilities of implicit pantograph differential equation via (k,ϱ) -Hilfer fractional derivative,
2024,
1598-5865,
10.1007/s12190-024-02278-y
|
|
3. | Maysaa Al-Qurashi, Qurat Ul Ain Asif, Yu-Ming Chu, Saima Rashid, S.K. Elagan, Complexity analysis and discrete fractional difference implementation of the Hindmarsh–Rose neuron system, 2023, 51, 22113797, 106627, 10.1016/j.rinp.2023.106627 | |
4. | Abdelkader Moumen, Ammar Alsinai, Ramsha Shafqat, Nafisa A. Albasheir, Mohammed Alhagyan, Ameni Gargouri, Mohammed M. A. Almazah, Controllability of fractional stochastic evolution inclusion via Hilfer derivative of fixed point theory, 2023, 8, 2473-6988, 19892, 10.3934/math.20231014 | |
5. | Ahmed M. A. El-Sayed, Wagdy G. El-Sayed, Kheria M. O. Msaik, Hanaa R. Ebead, Riemann-Liouville fractional-order pantograph differential equation constrained by nonlocal and weighted pantograph integral equations, 2025, 10, 2473-6988, 4970, 10.3934/math.2025228 |