\documentclass[reqno]{amsart}
\usepackage{hyperref}

\AtBeginDocument{{\noindent\small
\emph{Electronic Journal of Differential Equations},
Vol. 2009(2009), No. 89, pp. 1--12.\newline
ISSN: 1072-6691. URL: http://ejde.math.txstate.edu or http://ejde.math.unt.edu
\newline ftp ejde.math.txstate.edu}
\thanks{\copyright 2009 Texas State University - San Marcos.}
\vspace{9mm}}

\begin{document}
\title[\hfilneg EJDE-2009/89\hfil Existence of multiple positive solutions]
{Existence of multiple positive solutions for third-order
 boundary-value problem on the half-line with dependence on
 the first order derivative}

\author[S. Liang, J. Zhang \hfil EJDE-2009/89\hfilneg]
{Sihua Liang, Jihui Zhang}  % in alphabetical order

\address{Sihua Liang \newline
Institute of Mathematics, School of Mathematical Sciences, 
Nanjing Normal University,  210097, Jiangsu,  China \hfill\break
College of Mathematics, Changchun Normal University, Changchun 130032,
Jilin,  China}
\email{liangsihua@163.com}

\address{Jihui Zhang  \newline
Institute of Mathematics, School of Mathematical Sciences, 
Nanjing Normal University,  210097, Jiangsu,  China }
\email{jihuiz@jlonline.com}

\thanks{Submitted March 26, 2009. Published July 27, 2009.}
\subjclass[2000]{34B18, 34B40}
\keywords{Third-order boundary-value problems;
positive solutions; half-line; \hfill\break\indent
fixed-point index theory}

\begin{abstract}
 By using  fixed-point theorem for operators on a cone,
 sufficient conditions for the existence of multiple positive
 solutions  for a third-order boundary-value problem on the half-line
 are established. In the case of the $p$-Laplace operator our results for
 $p > 1$ generalize previous known results. The interesting
 point lies in the fact that the nonlinear term is allowed to depend
 on the first order derivative $u'$.
\end{abstract}

\maketitle
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}
\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
\allowdisplaybreaks

\section{Introduction}

Boundary value problems on the half-line arise naturally in the
study of radially symmetric solutions of nonlinear elliptic
equations, see \cite{b1}, and various physical phenomena
\cite{a2,i1}, such as an unsteady flow of gas through a
semi-infinite porous media, the theory of drain flows, plasma
physics, in determining the electrical potential in an isolated
neutral atom. In recently years, the boundary-value problems on the
half-line have received a great deal of attention in literature (see
\cite{a1,l2,l5,l6,y1,z1} and references therein). However, in
\cite{l1,s1,w1} the authors only studied multi-point boundary-value
problems on the finite interval. They showed that there exist
multiple  positive solutions by using  fixed-point theorems for
operators on a cone. But so far, very few results are obtained for a
third-order multi-point boundary-value problems on the half-line. To
the author's knowledge, there are no results about third order
multi-point boundary-value problems, whose non- linear term does not
depend on the first derivative $u'$. The goal of this paper is to
fill the gap in this area. In this paper, by  using  fixed-point
theorem for operators on a cone, some sufficient conditions for the
existence of multiple positive solutions for third-order
boundary-value problem on the half-line are established, which are
the complement of previously known results. In the case of the
$p$-Laplace operator our results for some $p > 1$ generalize
previous known results.

In this paper, we study the existence of multiple positive solutions
for the following third-order boundary-value problem with dependence
on the first order derivative on the half-line
\begin{equation}\label{e1.1}
\begin{gathered}
(\varphi(-u{''})(t))' =  a(t)f(t, u, u'), \quad  0 < t < +\infty, \\
u(0) - \beta u'(0) = 0,   \\
u'(\infty) =  0,\quad u''(0) = 0,
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where $\varphi: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ is an increasing
homeomorphism and
positive homomorphism with $\varphi(0) = 0$ and
$f \in C([0,+\infty)^3, [0, +\infty))$ and
$\beta \in (0, +\infty)$. $a(t)$ is
a nonnegative measurable function defined in $(0, +\infty)$ and
$a(t)$ does not identically  vanish on any subinterval of
$(0,+\infty)$.

 A projection $\varphi: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ is called an
increasing homeomorphism and positive homomorphism (see \cite{l3}),
if the following conditions are satisfied:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] if $x \leq y$, then $\varphi(x) \leq \varphi(y)$, for all
$x, y \in \mathbb{R}$;

\item[(ii)] $\varphi$ is a continuous bijection and its inverse mapping
is also continuous;

\item[(iii)] $\varphi(xy) = \varphi(x)\varphi(y)$, for all $x,y \in
[0, +\infty)$.

\end{itemize}
In above definition,  we can replace the condition (iii)
by the following stronger condition:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(iv)] $\varphi(xy) = \varphi(x)\varphi(y)$, for all $x, y \in \mathbb{R}$,
where $\mathbb{R} = (-\infty, +\infty)$.
\end{itemize}

\begin{remark} \label{rmk1.1} \rm
 (1) If conditions (i), (ii) and (iv) hold, then it
implies that $\varphi$ is homogenous generating a $p$-Laplace
operator;
i.e., $\varphi(x) = |x|^{p - 2}x$, for some $p > 1$.

% \label{rmk1.2}
(2) It is well known that a $p$-Laplacian operator is
odd. However, the operator which we defined above is not necessary
odd, see \eqref{e5.2}. We emphasize that the results of the papers
\cite{l5,r1,s1,w1} cannot be applied if $\varphi$ is defined as
above.

% \label{rmk1.3}\rm
(3)  The nonlinear term is allowed to depend on the
first order derivative $u'$ which  is the complement
of previously known results \cite{l1,l2,s1,w1}.
\end{remark}


 In this article,  the following hypotheses are needed:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(C1)] $f\in C([0, +\infty)^3,  [0, +\infty))$,
$f(t, 0, 0) \not\equiv 0$ on any subinterval of $(0, + \infty)$
and when $u$ is bounded $f(t, (1 + t)u, u')$ is bounded on
$[0, +\infty)$;

\item[(C2)]   $a(t)$ satisfies the following relations:
\[
\int_0^{+\infty}\varphi^{- 1}
\Big(\int_0^{s}a(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds < +\infty, \indent
\int_0^{+\infty}s\varphi^{- 1} \Big(\int_0^{s}a(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds
< +\infty.
\]
\end{itemize}

 The plan of the article is as follows. In Section 2 for the
convenience of the reader we give some background and definitions.
In Section 3 we present some lemmas in order to prove our main
results. Section 4 is devoted to presenting and proving our main
results. Some examples are presented in Section 5 to demonstrate the
application of our main results.

\section{Some definitions and fixed point theorems}

In this section, we provide  background definitions
 from the cone theory in Banach spaces.

\begin{definition} \label{def2.1}\rm
Let $(E, \|\cdot\|)$ be a real
Banach space. A nonempty, closed, convex set $P \subset E$ is said
to be a cone
provided the following are satisfied:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] if $y \in P$ and $\lambda \geq 0$, then $\lambda y \in P$;
\item[(b)] if $y \in P$ and $-y \in P$, then $y = 0$.
\end{itemize}
If $P \subset E$ is a cone, we denote the order induced by
$P$ on $E$ by $\leq$, that is, $x \leq y$  if and only if  $y - x
\in P$.
\end{definition}

\begin{definition} \label{def2.2}\rm A map
$\alpha$ is said to be a nonnegative, continuous, concave functional
on a cone $P$ of a real Banach space $E$, if
$\alpha: P \to  [0,\infty)$
is continuous, and
\[
\alpha(tx + (1-t)y) \geq t\alpha(x) + (1-t)\alpha(y)
\]
for all $x$, $y \in P$ and $t \in [0,1]$.
\end{definition}

\begin{definition} \label{def2.3}\rm
An operator is called completely
continuous if it is continuous and maps bounded sets into precompact
sets.
\end{definition}

The following fixed point theorems are fundamental and important
to the proofs of our main results.

\begin{theorem}\cite{d1} \label{thm2.4}
Let $E$ be a Banach space and $P \subset E$ be a cone in $E$.
Let $r > 0$ define $\Omega_r = \{ x \in P : \|x\| < r \}$.
Assume that $T : P \bigcap \overline{\Omega}_r \to P$ is completely
continuous operator such that $Tx \neq x$ for
$x \in \partial \Omega_r $.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]  If $\|Tx\| \leq \|x\|$ for $x \in \partial
\Omega_r$, then
$i(T, \Omega_r,\ P)=1$.
\item[(ii)] If $\|Tx\| \geq \|x\|$ for $x \in \partial
\Omega_r$, then
$i(T, \Omega_r,\ P)=0$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}

\begin{theorem}\cite{l1} \label{thm2.5}
Let $K$ be a cone in a Banach space $X$.
Let $D$ be an open bounded set with $D_k = D \cap K \neq \emptyset$
and $\overline{D}_k \neq K$. Let $T: \overline{D}_k \to K$
be a compact map such that $x \neq Tx$ for $x \in \partial D_k$.
Then the following results hold:
\begin{itemize}

\item[(1)]  If $\|Tx\| \leq \|x\|$ for $x \in \partial D_k$, then
$i_k(T, D_k) = 1$.

\item[(2)]  Suppose there is $e \in K$, $e \neq 0$ such that
$x \neq Tx + \lambda e$ for all $x \in \partial D_k$ and all
$\lambda > 0$, then $i_k(T, D_k) = 0$.

\item[(3)] Let $D^1$ be open in $X$ such that $\overline{D^1} \subset D_k$.
If $i_k(T, D_k) = 1$ and $i_k(T, D_k^1) = 0$, then $T$ has a fixed
point in $D_k \setminus \overline{D_k^1}$. Then same result holds if
$i_k(T, D_k) = 0$ and $i_k(T, D_k^1) = 1$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}

\section{Preliminaries and Lemmas}

Let  $E$  be the set defined as
\[
 E = \big\{u \in C^1[0, +\infty) :  \sup_{0 \leq t <
+\infty}\frac{|u(t)|}{1 + t} < +
 \infty,\;  \lim_{t\to+\infty}u'(t) = 0.\big\}
\]
Then $E$ is a Banach space, equipped with the norm
$\|u\| = \|u\|_1 + \|u\|_2$, where
$\|u\|_1 = \sup_{0 \leq t < +\infty}\frac{|u(t)|}{1 + t} < +
 \infty$,
$\|u\|_2 = \sup_{0\leq t < +\infty}|u'(t)|$.

 Also, define the cone $K \subset E$ by
\begin{align*}
 K = \big\{&u \in E :  u(t) \geq 0, t \in [0, +\infty),\;
  u(0) - \beta u'(0) = 0,\\
  &u(t)\text{ is concave on } [0, +\infty). \big\}
\end{align*}

 To prove the main results in this paper, we will employ
several lemmas.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem3.1}
For any $p \in C[0, +\infty)$, the problem
\begin{gather}\label{e3.1}
(\varphi(-u''(t)))' =  p(t), \quad 0 < t < +\infty,\\
\label{e3.2}
u(0) - \beta u'(0) = 0, \quad  u'(\infty) = 0,\quad u''(0) = 0
\end{gather}
has a unique solution
\begin{equation} \label{e3.3}
\begin{aligned}
u(t) &= \int_t^{+\infty}(t - s)\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
p(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds +  \int_0^{+\infty}
s\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
p(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds\\
&\quad + \beta \int_0^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
p(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
 Necessity. By taking the integral of the equation \eqref{e3.1}
on $[0, t]$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{e3.4}
\varphi(-u''(t)) - \varphi(-u''(0)) = \int_0^t p(\tau)d\tau.
\end{equation}
By the boundary condition and  $\varphi(0) = 0$, we
have
\begin{equation}\label{e3.5}
u''(t) = -\varphi^{-1}\left(\int_0^t p(\tau)d\tau\right).
\end{equation}
By taking the integral of  \eqref{e3.5} on $[t, +\infty)$, we
obtain
\begin{equation}\label{e3.6}
u'(\infty) - u'(t) = -\int_t^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
p(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds.
\end{equation}
By the boundary  condition  $u'(\infty) = 0$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{e3.7}
u'(t) =  \int_t^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
p(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds.
\end{equation}
By taking the integral of  \eqref{e3.7} on $[t, +\infty)$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{e3.8}
u(t)  = \int_{t}^{+\infty}
\int_s^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^\tau
p(\eta)d\eta\Big)d\tau ds + u(0).
\end{equation}
Substituting $u(0) = \beta u'(0)$ and integrating by parts, we
obtain
\begin{align*}
u(t) &= \int_t^{+\infty}(t - s)\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
p(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds +  \int_0^{+\infty}
s\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
p(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds\\
&\quad + \beta \int_0^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
p(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds.
\end{align*}
Sufficiency: Let $u$ be as in \eqref{e3.3}. Taking the derivative of
\eqref{e3.3}, it implies that
\[
u'(t) = \int_t^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
p(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds.
\]
Furthermore, we obtain
\begin{gather*}
u''(t) = -\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^t p(\tau)d\tau\Big),\\
\varphi(-u''(t)) = \int_0^t p(\tau)d\tau,
\end{gather*}
taking the derivative of this expression yields
$(\varphi(-u''(t)))' = p(t)$. Routine calculation verifies that $u$
 satisfies the
boundary value conditions, so that $u$ given in \eqref{e3.3} is a
solution of \eqref{e3.1}-\eqref{e3.2}.

 It is easy to see that the problem
$$
(\varphi(-u''(t)))' = 0, \quad
u(0) - \beta u'(0) = 0, \quad u'(\infty) = 0, \quad u''(0) = 0,
$$
has only the trivial solution. Thus $u$ in \eqref{e3.3} is the unique
solution of \eqref{e3.1}-\eqref{e3.2}. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{lem3.2}
For any $p(t) \in C[0, +\infty)$ and $p(t) \geq 0$, the  unique
solution $u$ of \eqref{e3.1}-\eqref{e3.2} satisfies
\[
u(t) \geq 0,\quad\text{for }t\in [0, +\infty).
\]
\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}\label{lem3.3}
 For any $u \in K$, it holds that $\beta\|u\|_2 \leq \|u\|_1 \leq
\mu \|u\|_2$, where  $\mu = \max\{\beta, 1\}$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
 Since $u(t)$ is concave and nondecreasing, together
with $u'(\infty) = 0$, we have $\|u\|_2 = u'(0)$ and
$$
\frac{u(t)}{1+t} \leq \frac{1}{1+t}
\Big(\int_0^t u'(s)ds + \beta u'(0)\Big)
\leq \frac{t+\beta}{1+t}u'(0) \leq \mu \|u\|_2.
$$
On the other hand,
$$
\|u\|_1 = \sup_{0 \leq t < +\infty} \frac{|u(t)|}{1+t}
\geq \frac{u(0)}{1+0} = \beta u'(0) = \beta\|u\|_2.
$$
So we can obtain the desired result.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{lem3.4}
 Let $u \in K$.  Then $\min_{t\in [1/a, a]}u(t) \geq \delta(t)\|u\|$,
where $a > 1$,
$\delta(t) = \frac{1}{2}\min\{\lambda(t), \beta/a\}$,
\[
\lambda(t) = \begin{cases} \sigma, & t \geq \sigma,   \\
t, & t \leq \sigma, \end {cases}
\]
and $\sigma = \inf\{\xi \in [0, +\infty): \sup _{t \in [0,
+\infty)}\frac{|u(t)|}{1 + t} = \frac{u(\xi)}{1 + \xi}\}$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
From  \cite[Lemma 3.2]{l2}, we know that
\begin{equation} \label{e3.9}
\min_{t\in [\frac{1}{a}, a]}u(t) \geq \lambda(t)\|u\|_1.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, since $u \in K$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{e3.10}
\min_{t\in [\frac{1}{a}, a]}u(t) = u(\frac{1}{a}) \geq
\frac{\beta}{a} u'(0) = \frac{\beta}{a} \|u\|_2.
\end{equation}
So \eqref{e3.9} and \eqref{e3.10} imply that the result of Lemma
\ref{lem3.4} holds.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}\label{rem3.5} \rm
From the definition of $\lambda(t)$, we
know that $0 < \delta(t) < 1$, for $t \in (0, 1)$.
\end{remark}

 Define $T: K \to E$ by
\begin{equation} \label{e3.11}
\begin{aligned}
(Tu)(t)
&= \int_t^{+\infty}(t-s)\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
a(\tau)f(\tau, u(\tau), u'(\tau))d\tau\Big)ds\\
&\quad +  \int_0^{+\infty} s\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
a(\tau)f(\tau, u(\tau), u'(\tau))d\tau\Big)ds\\
&\quad + \beta \int_0^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
a(\tau)f(\tau, u(\tau), u'(\tau))d\tau\Big)ds.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Obviously, we have $(Tu)(t) \geq 0$, for $ t \in (0, +\infty)$, and
$$
(Tu)'(t) = \int_t^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
a(\tau)f(\tau, u(\tau), u'(\tau))d\tau\Big)ds \geq 0.
$$
Furthermore,
$$
(Tu)''(t) = - \varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^ta(s)f(s, u(s),
u'(s))ds\Big) \leq 0,
$$
 and $(Tu)(0)-\beta(Tu)'(0) = 0$.
This shows $(TK) \subset K$.

 To obtain the complete continuity of $T$, the following
lemma is needed.

\begin{lemma}[\cite{l4}] \label{lem3.6}
Let $W$ be a bounded subset of $K$. Then $W$ is relatively compact
in $E$ if $\{\frac{v(t)}{ 1 + t}, v \in W\}$ and
$\{v'(t), v \in W\}$ are equicontinuous on any finite subinterval of
$[0, +\infty)$ and for any
$\varepsilon > 0$, there exists $T = T(\varepsilon) > 0$ such that
$$
\big|\frac{v(t_1)}{1 + t_1}- \frac{v(t_2)}{1 + t_2}\big| < \varepsilon,
\quad |v'(t_1) - v'(t_2)|  < \varepsilon
$$
uniformly with respect to $v\in W$ as $t_1, t_2 \geq T$.
\end{lemma}


\begin{lemma}  \label{lem3.7}
Let {\rm (C1), (C2)} hold. Then $T : K \to K$ is
completely continuous.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
 Firstly, it is easy to check that $T: K \to K$ is well
defined. Let $u_n \to u$ in $K$,  then from the definition
of $E$, we can choose $ r_0$ such that
$\sup_{n\in N\backslash\{0\}}\|u_n\| < r_0$. Let
$A_{r_0} = \sup\{f(t, (1+t)u,
v), (t, u, v) \in [0, +\infty) \times [0, r_0]^2\}$ and we have
\begin{align*}
& \int_t^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s a(\tau)|f(\tau, u_n,
u_n') - f(\tau, u, u')|d\tau\Big)ds \\
& \leq 2
\varphi^{-1}(A_{r_0})\int_0^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
a(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds.
\end{align*}
Therefore, by the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem,
\begin{align*}
|(Tu_n)'(t) -(Tu)'(t)|
&= \Big|\int_t^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s a(\tau)(f(\tau,
u_n, u_n') - f(\tau, u, u'))d\tau \Big)ds\Big|\\
&\leq  \int_t^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s a(\tau)|f(\tau,
u_n, u_n') - f(\tau, u, u')|d\tau\Big)ds\\
&\to  0, \quad \mbox{as } n \to +\infty.
\end{align*}
 From Lemma \ref{lem3.3}, we have
$$
\|Tu_n - Tu\| \leq (1 + \mu) \|Tu_n - Tu\|_2\to 0, \quad
 \mbox{as } n \to +\infty.
$$
Thus $T$ is continuous.

 Let $\Omega$ be any bounded subset of $K$. Then there exists
$r > 0$ such that $\|u\| \leq r$ for all $ u \in \Omega$ and we have
\begin{align*}
\|Tu\|_2 &=  \int_0^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
a(\tau)f(\tau, u, u')d\tau \Big)ds\\
&\leq  \varphi^{-1}(A_r)\int_0^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
a(\tau)d\tau \Big)ds
< +\infty.
\end{align*}
 From Lemma \ref{lem3.3}, we have
$\|Tu\| \leq (1+\mu)\|Tu\|_2 < +\infty$.  So $T\Omega$ is bounded.
Moreover for any $S \in (0, +\infty)$ and $t_1, t_2 \in [0, S]$.
Without loss of generality, let
$t_1 \geq t_2$. Then we have
\begin{align*}
 \big|\frac{(Tu)(t_1)}{1 + t_1} - \frac{(Tu)(t_2)}{1 +
t_2}\big|
& \leq \Big[\int_{0}^{+\infty}s \varphi^{-
 1}\Big(\int_0^{s}a(\tau)f(\tau, u, u')d\tau\Big)ds \\
&\quad + \beta\int_{0}^{+\infty} \varphi^{-
 1}\Big(\int_0^{s}a(\tau)f(\tau, u, u')d\tau\Big)ds\Big]
 \big|\frac{1}{1+t_1} -  \frac{1}{1+t_2}\big|\\
& \quad +  \int_{t_2}^{+\infty}\varphi^{-
 1}\Big(\int_0^{s}a(\tau)f(\tau, u, u')d\tau\Big)ds
 \big|\frac{t_1}{1+t_1} -  \frac{t_2}{1+t_2}\big|\\
 & \quad + \int_{t_1}^{+\infty}s \varphi^{-
 1}\Big(\int_0^{s}a(\tau)f(\tau, u, u')d\tau\Big)ds
 \big|\frac{1}{1+t_1} - \frac{1}{1+t_2}\big| \\
 & \quad + \frac{1}{1+t_2} \int_{t_2}^{t_1}s \varphi^{-
 1}\Big(\int_0^{s}a(\tau)f(\tau, u, u')d\tau\Big)ds \\
& \to 0, \quad\text{uniformly as }  t_1 \to t_2
\end{align*}
and
\[
|(Tu)'(t_2) - (Tu)'(t_1)|
= \int_{t_1}^{t_2}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s a(\tau)f(\tau, u(\tau),
u'(\tau))d\tau\Big)ds
 \to 0,
\]
uniformly as $t_1 \to t_2$.
We obtain that $T\Omega$ is equicontinuous on any finite subinterval of
$[0, +\infty)$.

 For any $u \in \Omega$, we have
\begin{align*}
\lim_{t\to +\infty}\big|\frac{(Tu)(t)}{1+t}\big|
&= \lim_{t\to +\infty}\frac{1}{1+t}
\Big\{ \int_t^{+\infty}(t-s)\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
a(\tau)f(\tau, u(\tau), u'(\tau))d\tau\Big)ds  \\
&\quad+  \int_0^{+\infty} s\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
a(\tau)f(\tau, u(\tau), u'(\tau))d\tau\Big)ds\\
& \quad + \beta \int_0^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
a(\tau)f(\tau, u(\tau), u'(\tau))d\tau\Big)ds\Big\}\\
&\leq  \lim_{t\to +\infty} \varphi^{-1}(A_r)
\int_t^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s a(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds\\
&=  0
\end{align*}
and
\[
\lim_{t\to +\infty}|(Tu)'(t)|
= \lim_{t\to +\infty} \varphi^{-1}(A_r)
\int_t^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s a(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds
=  0.
\]
So $T\Omega$ is equiconvergent at infinity. By Lemma \ref{lem3.6},
$T\Omega$ is relatively compact. Therefore we know that $T$ is
compact.
 So $T : K \to K$ is completely continuous. The proof
is complete.
\end{proof}

 Let $ k >1 $ be a fixed constant and  choose $a
 = k$. Then  define
\begin{gather*}
\gamma =
\delta(\frac{1}{k})\frac{\delta\big(\frac{1}{k}\big)\beta
\int_{1/k}^{k}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_{1/k}^s
a(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds}{(1 +
\mu)\int_0^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
a(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds},
\\
\gamma_1 = \frac{\delta\big(\frac{1}{k}\big)\beta
\int_{1/k}^{k}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_{1/k}^s
a(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds}{(1 +
\mu)\int_0^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
a(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds},
\\
K_\rho = \{u\in K:  \|u\|_1 \leq \rho\},
\\
\Omega_\rho = \{u \in K: \min_{t \in [\frac{1}{k}, k]} u(t) < \gamma
\rho\} = \{u\in K: \gamma\|u\|_1 \leq \min_{t \in [\frac{1}{k}, k]}
u(t) < \gamma \rho\}.
\end{gather*}

\begin{lemma}[\cite{l1}]  \label{lem3.8}
The set $\Omega_\rho$ has the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)]  $\Omega_\rho$ is open relative to $K$.
\item[(b)]  $K_{\gamma\rho} \subset \Omega_\rho \subset K_\rho$.
\item[(c)]  $u \in \partial\Omega_\rho$ if and only if
   $\min_{t \in [\frac{1}{k}, k]} u(t) = \gamma \rho$.
\item[(d)]  $u \in \partial\Omega_\rho$, then $\gamma\rho \leq u(t) \leq
\rho$ for $t \in [\frac{1}{k}, k]$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}

 Now, we introduce the following notation. Let
\begin{gather*}
f_{\gamma\rho}^\rho = \min \big\{\frac{f(t, (1+t)u,
v)}{\varphi(\rho)}:  t \in [1/k, k],\; u \in
[\gamma\rho, \rho], v \in [0, \rho/\beta]\big\},
\\
f_0^\rho = \sup \big\{\frac{f(t, (1+t)u,v)}{\varphi(\rho)}:
t \in [0, +\infty),\; u \in [0, \rho], v \in [0, \rho/\beta]\big\},
\\
f^\alpha = \lim_{u \to \alpha} \sup\big\{\frac{f(t,
(1+t)u,v)}{\varphi(u)}: t \in [0, +\infty)\big\},
\\
f_\alpha = \lim_{u \to \alpha}\min \big\{\frac{f(t,
(1+t)u,v)}{\varphi(u)}: t \in [1/k, k]\big\}
\quad (\alpha := \infty \text{ or } 0^{+}),
\\
\frac{1}{m} = (1 + \mu)\int_0^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
a(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds,
\\
\frac{1}{M} = \delta\big(\frac{1}{k}\big)\beta
\int_{1/k}^{k}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_{1/k}^s
a(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds.
\end{gather*}

\begin{remark}\label{rem3.9} \rm
It is easy to see that $0 < m$, $M < \infty$ and
$M\gamma = M\gamma_1\delta(\frac{1}{k}) = \delta(\frac{1}{k})m < m$.
\end{remark}


\begin{lemma} \label{lem3.10}
If $f$ satisfies the condition
\begin{equation}\label{e3.12}
f_0^\rho \leq \varphi (m) \indent and \ \ u \neq Tu \ \ for\  u \in
\partial K_\rho,
\end{equation}
then $i_k(T, K_\rho) = 1$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
By \eqref{e3.11} and \eqref{e3.12},  for $u(t) \in \partial
K_\rho$, we have $ \|u\|_1 = \sup_{0 \leq t < +\infty}\frac{|u(t)|}{1 +
t} = \rho$.  Moreover, Lemma \ref{lem3.3} implies that $\|u\|_2 \leq
\frac{1}{\beta}\|u\|_1 = \frac{1}{\beta}\rho$, Therefore, from
definition of $f_0^\rho$ we have
\[
f(t, u, u') \leq \varphi (\rho)\varphi (m) = \varphi(\rho m).
\]
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
\|Tu\|
&=  \|Tu\|_1 + \|Tu\|_2 \leq (1+\mu) \|Tu\|_2\\
&=  (1 + \mu) \int_0^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
a(\tau)f(\tau, u(\tau), u'(\tau))d\tau\Big)ds\\
&\leq   \rho m (1 + \mu)\int_0^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
a(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds\\
&\leq  \rho = \|u\|_1\ \leq \|u\|.
\end{align*}
This implies that $\|Tu\| \leq \|u\|$ for $u(t) \in \partial
K_\rho$. By Theorem \ref{thm2.4} (1) we have $i_k(T, K_\rho) = 1$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}  \label{lem3.11}
If $f$ satisfies the conditions
\begin{equation}\label{e3.13}
f_{\gamma\rho}^\rho \geq \varphi (M\gamma) \indent and \ \ u \neq Tu
\ \ for\ u \in
\partial \Omega_\rho,
\end{equation}
then $i_k(T, \Omega_\rho) = 0$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Let $e(t) \equiv 1$ for $t \in [0, +\infty)$. Then $e \in
\partial K_1$,  and we claim that
\[
u \neq Tu + \lambda e,\quad
u \in \partial \Omega_\rho,\quad \lambda >0.
\]
If not, there exist $u_0 \in \partial \Omega_\rho$ and
$\lambda_0 > 0$ such that $u_0 = Tu_0 + \lambda_0 e$. By
\eqref{e3.11} and \eqref{e3.13} we have
\begin{align*}
u_0 &=  Tu_0(t) + \lambda_0e\\
&\geq \delta\big(\frac{1}{k}\big)
\|Tu_0\|_1 + \lambda_0 \\
&=  \delta\big(\frac{1}{k}\big) \sup_{t \in
[0, +\infty)}\frac{|Tu_0|}{1+t} + \lambda_0\\
&\geq \delta\big(\frac{1}{k}\big) \frac{(Tu)(0)}{1+0} + \lambda_0\\
&=  \delta\big(\frac{1}{k}\big)
\beta\int_0^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
a(\tau)f(\tau, u(\tau), u'(\tau))d\tau\Big)ds + \lambda_0\\
&\geq \delta\big(\frac{1}{k}\big)\beta
\int_{1/k}^{k}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_{1/k}^s
a(\tau)f(\tau, u(\tau), u'(\tau))d\tau\Big)ds + \lambda_0 \\
&\geq \delta\big(\frac{1}{k}\big)M\gamma\rho\beta
\int_{1/k}^{k}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_{1/k}^s
a(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds + \lambda_0\\
&\geq \gamma\rho + \lambda_0.
\end{align*}
This implies that $\gamma \rho \geq \gamma \rho + \lambda_0$ which
is a contradiction. Hence by Theorem \ref{thm2.4} (2), we have
$i_k(T, \Omega_\rho) = 0$.
\end{proof}

\section{Main results}

The main results in this articles  are the following.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm4.1}
 Assume that one of the following conditions holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(C3)] There exist $\rho_1, \rho_2, \rho_3 \in (0, \infty)$ with
$\rho_1 < \gamma \rho_2$ and $\rho_2 < \rho_3$ such that
\[
f_0^{\rho_1} \leq \varphi(m),\quad
f_{\gamma\rho_2}^{\rho_2} \geq \varphi(M\gamma), \quad
u \neq Tu \text{ for } u \in\partial \Omega_{\rho_2} \text{ and }
 f_0^{\rho_3} \leq \varphi(m).
\]
\item[(C4)] There exist $\rho_1, \rho_2, \rho_3 \in (0, \infty)$ with
$\rho_1 <  \rho_2 < \gamma\rho_3$ such that
\[
f_{\gamma\rho_1}^{\rho_1} \geq \varphi(M\gamma),\quad
f_{0}^{\rho_2} \leq \varphi(m), \quad
u \neq Tu \text{ for }u \in \partial K_{\rho_2}
\text{  and } f_{\gamma\rho_3}^{\rho_3} \geq \varphi(M\gamma).
\]
\end{itemize}
Then \eqref{e1.1}  has two positive solutions in $K$. Moreover if in
(C3) $f_0^{\rho_1} \leq \varphi(m)$ is replaced by
$f_0^{\rho_1} < \varphi(m)$, then \eqref{e1.1}  has a third
positive solution $u_3 \in K_{\rho_1}$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
The proof is similar to the one in \cite[Theorem 2.10]{l1}.
We omit it here.
\end{proof}

 As a special case of Theorem \ref{thm4.1} we obtain the
following result.

\begin{corollary}\label{coro3.3}
If there exists $\rho > 0$ such that one
of the following conditions holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(C5)] $0 \leq f^0 < \varphi(m)$,
$f_{\gamma\rho}^\rho \geq \varphi(M\gamma)$,
$u \neq Tu$  for  $u \in \partial \Omega_\rho$
and $0 \leq f^\infty < \varphi(m)$,
\item[(C6)]  $\varphi(M) < f_0  \leq \infty$,
$ f_{0}^\rho \geq \varphi(m)$, $u \neq Tu$ for
$u \in \partial K_\rho$  and $\varphi(M) < f_\infty \leq \infty$.
\end{itemize}
Then \eqref{e1.1}  has two positive solutions in $K$.
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
We show that (C5) implies (C3).
It is easy to verify that $0 \leq f^0 < \varphi(m)$ implies that
there exist $\rho_1 \in (0, \gamma\rho)$ such that
$f_0^{\rho_1} < \varphi(m)$. Let $a \in (f^\infty, \varphi(m))$.
Then there exists $r > \rho$ such that
$\sup_{t \in [0, +\infty)}f(t, (1+t)u, v) \leq
a\varphi(u)$ for $u \in [r, \infty)$ since $0 \leq f^0 <
\varphi(m)$. Let
\[
\beta = \max\big\{\sup_{t \in [0,+\infty)}f(t, (1+t)u, v): \ 0 \leq
u \leq r, \  0 \leq v \leq \frac{r}{\beta}\big\}
\]
and
\[
 \rho_3 >
\varphi^{-1}\big(\frac{\beta}{\varphi(m) - a}\big).
\]
Then
\[
\sup_{t \in [0, +\infty)}f(t, (1+t)u, v) \leq a \varphi(u) + \beta
\leq a\varphi(\rho_3) + \beta < \varphi(m)\varphi(\rho_3)
\]
 for $u \in [0, \rho_3]$.
This implies that $f_0^{\rho_3} < \varphi(m)$ and (C3) holds.
Similarly, (C6) implies (C4).
\end{proof}

 By an argument similar to that of Theorem \ref{thm4.1} we
obtain the following result.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm4.3}
 Assume that one of the following conditions holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(C7)]   There exist $\rho_1, \rho_2 \in (0, \infty)$ with
$\rho_1 < \gamma\rho_2$ such that $f_0^{\rho_1} \leq \varphi(m)$
and $f_{\gamma\rho_2}^{\rho_2} \geq \varphi(M\gamma)$.

\item[(C8)]   There exist $\rho_1, \rho_2 \in (0, \infty)$ with
$\rho_1 < \rho_2$ such that $f_{\gamma\rho_1}^{\rho_1} \geq
\varphi(M\gamma)$
and $f_{0}^{\rho_2} \leq \varphi(m)$.
\end{itemize}
Then \eqref{e1.1} has a positive solution in $K$.
\end{theorem}

 As a special case of Theorem \ref{thm4.3} we obtain the
following result.

\begin{corollary}\label{coro4.4}
If there exists $\rho > 0$ such that one
of the following conditions holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(C5)]   $0 \leq f^0 < \varphi(m)$,
$f_{\gamma\rho}^\rho \geq \varphi(M\gamma)$,
$u \neq Tu$ for  $u \in \partial \Omega_\rho$
and $0 \leq f^\infty < \varphi(m)$,

\item[(C6)]   $\varphi(M) < f_0  \leq \infty$,
$f_{0}^\rho \geq \varphi(m)$, $u \neq Tu$ for
$u \in \partial K_\rho$ and
$\varphi(M) < f_\infty \leq \infty$.
\end{itemize}
Then \eqref{e1.1}  has two positive solutions in $K$.
\end{corollary}


\section{Examples}
As an example we mention the boundary-value problem
\begin{equation}\label{e5.1}
\begin{gathered}
(\varphi(-u{''})(t))' =  a(t)f(t, u, u'), \quad  0 < t < +\infty, \\
u(0) -  u'(0) = 0,   \\
u'(\infty) =  0,\quad u''(0) = 0,
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{e5.2}
\varphi(u) = \begin{cases} \frac{u^3}{1 + u^2}, &u \leq 0, \\
u^2 &u > 0,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
and
\[
f(t, u, v ) = \begin{cases} 10^{-5}|\sin t| + \big(\frac{u}{1 +
t}\big)^9
+ \frac{1}{100}\big(\frac{v}{1000}\big), &u \leq 2,\\
 10^{-5}|\sin t| + \big(\frac{2}{1 + t}\big)^9 +
\frac{1}{100}\big(\frac{v}{1000}\big), & u \geq 2.
\end{cases}
\]
We choose $k = 2$, $\beta = 1$, $\delta(t) = t/2$ and so
$$
\int_0^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s a(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds = 4,
\int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{2}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_{\frac{1}{2}}^s
a(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds = 2.
$$
It is easy to see by calculating that $\mu = 1$, $\gamma = 1/64$,
$\gamma_1 = 1/16$ and
\begin{gather*}
\frac{1}{m} = (1 + \mu)\int_0^{+\infty}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_0^s
a(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds = 8,
\\
\frac{1}{M} = \delta\big(\frac{1}{2}\big)\beta
\int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{2}\varphi^{-1}\Big(\int_{\frac{1}{2}}^s
a(\tau)d\tau\Big)ds = \frac{1}{2}.
\end{gather*}
Thus $m = 1/8$, $M = 2$ and let $\rho_1 = 1/2$,
$\rho_2 = 128$, $\rho_3 = 320$. After some simple calculation we have
\[
f(t, (1+t)u, u') \leq 10^{-5} + \frac{1}{512} + \frac{1}{2} \times
10^{-5} < \frac{1}{256} = \varphi(m\rho_1) =
\varphi(m)\varphi(\rho_1),
\]
for all $(t, u, u') \in [0, +\infty) \times [0,1/2]\times [0, \frac{1}{2}]$.
Therefore, $f_0^{\rho_1} < \varphi(m)$. On the other hand,
\[
f(t, (1+t)u, u') \geq 2^9 = 512 > 16 = \varphi(M\gamma\rho_2) =
\varphi(M)\varphi(\gamma\rho_2),
\]
for all $(t, u, u') \in [1/2, 2] \times [2, 128]\times [0, 128]$.
We have $f_{\gamma\rho_2}^{\rho_2} > \varphi(M\gamma)$. At last
\[
f(t, (1+t)u, u') \leq 10^{-5} + 2^9  + 320 \times 10^{-5} < 513 <
1600 = \varphi(m\rho_3) =
\varphi(m)\varphi(\rho_3),
\]
for all $(t, u, u' ) \in [0, +\infty) \times [0, 320]\times [0,
320]$.
Thus we have $f_0^{\rho_3} <  \varphi(m)$. Then the condition (C3)
in Theorem \ref{thm4.1} is satisfied. So boundary-value
problem \eqref{e5.1} has at least three positive solutions in $K$.


\begin{remark}\label{rem5.1} \rm
 From \eqref{e5.2}, we can see that $\varphi$ is not odd, therefore
the boundary-value problem with $p$-Laplacian operator
\cite{l5,r1,s1,w1} do not apply to \eqref{e5.2}. So we generalize a
$p$-Laplace operator for some $p> 1$ and the function $\varphi$
which we defined above is more
comprehensive and general than $p$-Laplace operator.
\end{remark}

\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
\par The authors of this paper wish to thanks the referee for valuable suggestions regarding
the original manuscript.
\par This project is supported by grant NSFC(10871096), Foundation of Major Project of Science
and Technology of Chinese Education Ministry, SRFDP of Higher
Education, the project of Nanjing Normal University and Project of
Graduate Education Innovation of Jiangsu Province (181200000214).



\begin{thebibliography}{00}

\bibitem{a1} R. P. Agarwal, D. O'Regan, \emph{Infinite Interval Problems for
Differential, Difference and Integral Equations}, Kluwer Academic,
Dordrecht, 2001.


\bibitem{a2} D. Aroson,  M. G., Crandall, L.A. Peletier,  \emph{Stabilization of
solutions of a degenerate nonlinear diffusion problem},  Nonlinear
Anal. 6 (1982) 1001-1022.


\bibitem{b1} J. V. Baxley, \emph{ Existence and uniqueness of nonlinear
boundary-value problems on infinite intervals}, J. Math. Anal. Appl.
147 (1990) 122-133.

\bibitem{d1} K. Deimling, \emph{Nonlinear Functional Analysis,
Springer-Verlag}, New York, 1985.

\bibitem{i1} G. Iffland,  \emph{Positive solutions of a problem Emden-Flower type with
a type free boundary},  SIAM J.Math. Anal. 18 (1987) 283-292.

\bibitem{l1} K. Q. Lan, \emph{Multiple positive solutions of semilinear differential
equations with singularities}, J. London Math. Soc. 63 (2001)
690-704.

\bibitem{l2} S. H. Liang, J. H. Zhang, \emph{The existence of countably many
positive solutions for nonlinear singular $m$-point boundary-value problems on the half-line}, J. Comput.  Appl.  Math., 222 (2008)
229-243.

\bibitem{l3} B. F. Liu, J. H. Zhang, \emph{ The existence of positive
solutions for some nonlinear boundary-value problems with linear
mixed boundary conditions}, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 309(2005) 505-516.

\bibitem{l4} Y. Sh. Liu, \emph{Boundary value probelm for second order differential
equations on unbounded domain}, Acta Anal. Funct. Appl. 4 (3) (2002)
211-216. (in Chinese)

\bibitem{l5}H. Lian, H. H. Pan, W. G. Ge, \emph{Triple positive solutions for boundary-value problems on infinite intervals}, Nonlinear Analysis 67 (2007)
2199-2207.

\bibitem{l6}Y. S. Liu, \emph{Existence and unboundedness of positive
solutions for singular boundary-value problems on half-line}, Appl.
Math. Comput. 1404(2003) 543-556.

\bibitem{r1} J. L. Ren, W. G. Ge, B. X. Ren, \emph{Existence of positive
solutions for quasi-linear  boundary-value problems}, Acta, Math.
Appl. Sinica, Vol. 21, No. 3 (2005) 353-358. (in Chinese)

\bibitem{s1} Y. Sang, H. Su,  \emph{Positive solutions of nonlinear
third-order $m$-point BVP for an increasing homeomorphism and
homomorphism with sign-changing nonlinearity}, J. Comput.  Appl.
Math., 225 (2009) 288-300.

\bibitem{w1} Y. Y. Wang, C. Hou, \emph{Existence of multiple positive
solutions for one-dimensional $p$-Laplacian}, J. Math. Anal. Appl.
315(2006) 144-153.

\bibitem{y1} B. Q. Yan, \emph{Multiple unbounded solutions of boundary-value problems for second-order differential equations on the half-line},
Nonlinear Anal. 51 (2002) 1031-1044.

\bibitem{z1} M. Zima, \emph{On positive solution of boundary-value problems
on the half-line}, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 259 (2001) 127-136.


\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}























\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}
