DIFFERENTIAL INCLUSION

AURELIAN CERNEA Communicated by Gabriela Marinoschi

We consider a second-order differential inclusion and we obtain sufficient condi- tions forh-local controllability along a reference trajectory.

AMS 2010 Subject Classification: 34A60.

Key words: differential inclusion,h-local controllability, mild solution.

1. INTRODUCTION

In this paper we are concerned with the following second-order differential inclusion

(1.1) x^{00}∈Ax+F(t, x), x(0)∈X0, x^{0}(0)∈X1,

where F : [0, T]×X → P(X) is a set valued map, A is the infinitesimal
generator of a strongly continuous cosine family of operators{C(t); t∈R}on
a separable Banach space X and X0, X1 ⊂ X are closed sets. Let S_{F} be the
set of all mild solutions of (1.1) and let R_{F}(T) be the reachable set of (1.1).

For a mild solution z(.) ∈SF and for a locally Lipschitz function h :X →X
we say that the differential inclusion (1.1) is h-locally controllable around z(.)
if h(z(T)) ∈ int(h(R_{F}(T))). In particular, if h is the identity mapping the
above definitions reduces to the usual concept of local controllability of systems
around a solution.

The aim of the present paper is to obtain a sufficient condition forh-local controllability of inclusion (1.1) when X is finite dimensional. This result is derived using a technique developed by Tuan for differential inclusions ([15]).

More exactly, we show that inclusion (1.1) is h-locally controlable around the mild solutionz(.) if a certain linearized inclusion isλ-locally controlable around the null solution for everyλ∈∂h(z(T)), where∂h(.) denotes Clarke’s general- ized Jacobian of the locally Lipschitz functionh. The key tools in the proof of our result are a continuous version of Filippov’s theorem for mild solutions of problem (1.1) obtained in [5] and a certain generalization of the classical open mapping principle in [16].

REV. ROUMAINE MATH. PURES APPL.,58(2013),2,139–147

Our result may be interpreted as an extension of the controllability results in [10] toh-controllability.

We note that existence results and qualitative properties of the mild so- lutions of problem (1.1) may be found in [2–10] etc.

The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 we present some prelim- inary results to be used in the sequel and in Section 3 we present our main results.

2. PRELIMINARIES

Let denote by I the interval [0, T] and letX be a real separable Banach space with the norm||.||and with the corresponding metric d(., .). Denote by L(I) theσ-algebra of all Lebesgue measurable subsets ofI, byP(X) the family of all nonempty subsets of X and byB(X) the family of all Borel subsets ofX.

Recall that the Pompeiu-Hausdorff distance of the closed subsetsA, B ⊂X is defined by

dH(A, B) = max{d^{∗}(A, B),d^{∗}(B, A)}, d^{∗}(A, B) = sup{d(a, B);a∈A},
where d(x, B) = infy∈Bd(x, y).

As usual, we denote byC(I, X) the Banach space of all continuous func-
tions x(.) : I → X endowed with the norm ||x(.)||_{C} = sup_{t∈I}||x(t)|| and by
L^{1}(I, X) the Banach space of all (Bochner) integrable functions x(.) :I →X
endowed with the norm ||x(.)||_{1}=R

I||x(t)||dt.

We recall that a family {C(t); t∈R} of bounded linear operators from X intoX is a strongly continuous cosine family if the following conditions are satisfied

(i) C(0) =Id, whereIdis the identity operator in X, (ii) C(t+s) +C(t−s) = 2C(t)C(s) ∀t, s∈R,

(iii) the mapt→C(t)x is strongly continuous ∀x∈X.

The strongly continuous sine family{S(t); t∈R}associated to a strongly continuous cosine family{C(t); t∈R}is defined by

S(t)y :=

Z _{t}

0

C(s)yds, y∈X, t∈R.

The infinitesimal generator A:X →X of a cosine family{C(t); t∈R}

is defined by

Ay= (d^{2}

dt^{2})C(t)y|_{t=0}.

For more details on strongly continuous cosine and sine family of operators we refer to [12, 14].

In what follows A is infinitesimal generator of a cosine family{C(t);t∈ R} and F(., .) : I ×X → P(X) is a set-valued map with nonempty closed values, which define the following Cauchy problem associated to a second-order differential inclusion

(2.1) x^{00}∈Ax+F(t, x), x(0) =x0, x^{0}(0) =x1.

A continuous mappingx(.)∈C(I, X) is called amild solutionof problem
(2.1) if there exists a (Bochner) integrable function f(.)∈L^{1}(I, X) such that:

(2.2) f(t)∈F(t, x(t)) a.e.(I),

(2.3) x(t) =C(t)x0+S(t)x1+ Z t

0

S(t−u)f(u)du ∀t∈I,

i.e., f(.) is a (Bochner) integrable selection of the set-valued map F(., x(.)) and x(.) is the mild solution of the Cauchy problem

(2.4) x^{00}=Ax+f(t) x(0) =x0, x^{0}(0) =x1.

We shall call (x(.), f(.)) atrajectory-selection pair of (2.1) iff(.) verifies (2.2) and x(.) is a mild solution of (2.4).

Hypothesis 2.1. i) F(., .) : I×X → P(X) has nonempty closed values and is L(I)⊗ B(X) measurable.

ii) There exists L(.)∈L^{1}(I,R_{+}) such that, for any t∈I, F(t, .) is L(t)-
Lipschitz in the sense that

d_{H}(F(t, x_{1}), F(t, x_{2}))≤L(t)||x_{1}−x_{2}|| ∀x_{1}, x_{2} ∈X.

Hypothesis 2.2. Let S be a separable metric space, X_{0}, X_{1} ⊂ X are
closed sets, a0(.) : S → X0, a1(.) : S → X1 and c(.) : S → (0,∞) are given
continuous mappings.

The continuous mappings g(.) : S → L^{1}(I, X), y(.) : S → C(I, X) are
given such that

(y(s))^{00}(t) =Ay(s)(t) +g(s)(t), y(s)(0)∈X_{0}, (y(s))^{0}(0)∈X_{1}.
There exists a continuous function p(.) :S →L^{1}(I,R_{+}) such that

d(g(s)(t), F(t, y(s)(t)))≤p(s)(t) a.e.(I), ∀s∈S.

Theorem 2.3 ([5]). Assume that Hypotheses 2.1 and 2.2are satisfied.

Then there existM >0and the continuous functionsx(.) :S →L^{1}(I, X),
h(.) : S → C(I, X) such that for any s ∈ S (x(s)(.), h(s)(.)) is a trajectory-
selection of (1.1) satisfying for any (t, s)∈I×S

x(s)(0) =a_{0}(s), (x(s))^{0}(0) =a_{1}(s),

(2.5) ||x(s)(t)−y(s)(t)|| ≤M[c(s) +||a_{0}(s)−y(s)(0)||+

||a_{1}(s)−(y(s))^{0}(0)||+
Z t

0

p(s)(u)du].

In what follows we assume that X=R^{n}.

A closed convex cone C ⊂R^{n} is said to be regular tangent cone to the
set X at x ∈ X ([13]) if there exists continuous mappings qλ :C∩B → R^{n},

∀λ >0 satisfying

λ→0+lim max

v∈C∩B

||q_{λ}(v)||

λ = 0,

x+λv+q_{λ}(v)∈X ∀λ >0, v ∈C∩B.

From the multitude of the intrinsic tangent cones in the literature (e.g.

[1]) the contingent, the quasitangent and Clarke’s tangent cones, defined, re- spectively, by

KxX={v ∈R^{n}; ∃sm→0+, xm ∈X : ^{x}^{m}_{s}^{−x}

m →v}

Q_{x}X={v∈R^{n}; ∀s_{m}→0+,∃x_{m}∈X: ^{x}^{m}_{s}^{−x}

m →v}

CxX ={v∈R^{n};∀(xm, sm)→(x,0+), xm∈X, ∃ym ∈X : ^{y}^{m}_{s}^{−x}^{m}

m →v}

seem to be among the most oftenly used in the study of different problems involving nonsmooth sets and mappings. We recall that, in contrast with KxX, QxX, the coneCxX is convex and one hasCxX⊂QxX ⊂KxX.

The results in the next section will be expressed, in the case when the
mappingg(.) :X⊂R^{n}→R^{m} is locally Lipschitz atx, in terms of the Clarke
generalized Jacobian, defined by ([11])

∂g(x) = co{lim

i→∞g^{0}(xi); xi→x, xi∈X\Ω_{g}},
where Ωg is the set of points at which g is not differentiable.

Corresponding to each type of tangent cone, sayτxX one may introduce
(e.g. [1]) aset-valued directional derivativeof a multifunctionG(.) :X⊂R^{n}→
P(R^{n}) (in particular of a single-valued mapping) at a point (x, y)∈graph(G)
as follows

τ_{y}G(x;v) ={w∈R^{n}; (v, w)∈τ_{(x,y)}graph(G)}, v∈τ_{x}X.

We recall that a set-valued map, A(.) : R^{n} → P(R^{n}) is said to be a
convex (respectively, closed convex) process if graph(A(.)) ⊂ R^{n}×R^{n} is a
convex (respectively, closed convex) cone. For the basic properties of convex
processes we refer to [1], but we shall use here only the above definition.

Hypothesis 2.4. i) Hypothesis 2.1 is satisfied and X_{0}, X_{1} ⊂ R^{n} are
closed sets.

ii) (z(.), f(.))∈C(I,R^{n})×L^{1}(I,R^{n})is a trajectory-selection pair of (1.1)
and a family P(t, .) : R^{n} → P(R^{n}), t ∈ I of convex processes satisfying the
condition

(2.6) P(t, u)⊂Q_{f}_{(t)}F(t, .)(z(t);u) ∀u∈dom(P(t, .)), a.e. t∈I
is assumed to be given and defines the variational inclusion

(2.7) v^{00}∈Av+P(t, v).

Remark 2.5.We note that for any set-valued mapF(., .), one may find an infinite number of families of convex processP(t, .),t∈I, satisfying condition (2.6); in fact any family of closed convex subcones of the quasitangent cones, P(t)⊂Q(z(t),f(t))graph(F(t, .)), defines the family of closed convex process

P(t, u) ={v∈R^{n}; (u, v)∈P(t)}, u, v∈R^{n}, t∈I

that satisfy condition (2.6). One is tempted, of course, to take as an ”intrin-
sic” family of such closed convex process, for example Clarke’s convex-valued
directional derivatives C_{f}_{(t)}F(t, .)(z(t);.).

We recall (e.g. [1]) that, since F(t, .) is assumed to be Lipschitz a.e. on I, the quasitangent directional derivative is given by

(2.8) Q_{f(t)}F(t, .)((z(t);u)) ={w∈R^{n}; lim

θ→0+

1

θd(f(t)+θw, F(t, z(t)+θu)) = 0}.

In what follows B or B_{R}^{n} denotes the closed unit ball in R^{n} and 0_{n}
denotes the null element inR^{n}.

Consider h:R^{n}→R^{m} an arbitrary given function.

Definition 2.6. Inclusion (1.1) is said to be h-locally controllable around z(.) if h(z(T))∈int(h(RF(T))).

Inclusion (1.1) is said to belocally controllable around the solutionz(.) if
z(T)∈int(R_{F}(T)).

Finally, a key tool in the proof of our results is the following generalization of the classical open mapping principle due to Warga ([16]).

For k∈N we define
Σ_{k}:={γ = (γ_{1}, ..., γ_{k});

k

X

i=1

γ_{i} ≤1, γ_{i} ≥0, i= 1,2, ..., k}.

Lemma 2.7 ([16]). Let δ ≤ 1, let g(.) : R^{n} → R^{m} be a mapping that is
C^{1} in a neighborhood of 0_{n} containing δB_{R}^{n}. Assume that there exists β >0
such that for every θ ∈ δΣn, βBR^{m} ⊂ g^{0}(θ)Σn. Then, for any continuous
mapping ψ : δΣn → R^{m} that satisfies sup_{θ∈δΣ}_{n}||g(θ)−ψ(θ)|| ≤ ^{δβ}_{32} we have
ψ(0n) + ^{δβ}_{16}BR^{m}⊂ψ(δΣn).

3. THE MAIN RESULT

In what followsC_{0}is a regular tangent cone toX_{0}atz(0),C_{1} is a regular
tangent cone to X1 atz^{0}(0), denote by SP the set of all mild solutions of the
differential inclusion

v^{00}∈Av+P(t, v), v(0)∈C0, v^{0}(0)∈C1

and by RP(T) ={x(T); x(.)∈SP} its reachable set at timeT.

Theorem 3.1. Assume that Hypothesis 2.4 is satisfied and let h:R^{n}→
R^{m} be a Lipschitz function with Lipschitz constant l >0.

Then, inclusion (1.1) ish-local controllable around the solutionz(.) if
(3.1) 0_{m}∈int(λR_{P}(T)) ∀λ∈∂h(z(T)).

Proof. By (3.1), since λR_{P}(T) is a convex cone, it follows thatλR_{P}(T) =
R^{m} ∀λ∈∂f(z(T)). Therefore, using the compactness of∂f(z(T)) (e.g. [11]),
we have that for every β >0 there exist k∈N and uj ∈RP(T) j = 1,2, ..., k
such that

(3.2) βB_{R}^{m}⊂λ(u(Σ_{k})) ∀λ∈∂f(z(T)),
where

u(Σ_{k}) ={u(γ) :=

k

X

j=1

γ_{j}u_{j}, γ = (γ_{1}, ..., γ_{k})∈Σ_{k}}.

Using an usual separation theorem we deduce the existence of β1, ρ1 >0
such that for allλ∈L(R^{n},R^{m}) withd(λ, ∂f(z(T)))≤ρ1 we have

(3.3) β1BR^{m} ⊂λ(u(Σk)).

Since uj ∈ RP(T), j = 1, ..., k, there exist (wj(.), gj(.)), j = 1, ..., k
trajectory-selection pairs of (2.7) such that uj =wj(T), j = 1, ..., k. We note
that β >0 can be taken small enough such that||w_{j}(0)|| ≤1,j= 1, ..., k.

Define w(t, s) =

k

X

j=1

sjwj(t), g(t, s) =

k

X

j=1

sjgj(t), ∀s= (s1, ..., s_{k})∈R^{k}.
Obviously,w(., s)∈SP,∀s∈Σk.

Taking into account the definition of C_{0} and C_{1}, for every ε > 0 there
exists a continuous mappingo_{ε}: Σ_{k}→R^{n} such that

(3.4) z(0) +εw(0, s) +oε(s)∈X0, z^{0}(0) +ε∂w

∂t(0, s) +oε(s)∈X1

(3.5) lim

ε→0+max

s∈Σ_{k}

||o_{ε}(s)||

ε = 0.

Define

pε(s)(t) := 1

εd(g(t, s), F(t, z(t) +εw(t, s))−f(t)), q(t) :=

k

X

j=1

[||g_{j}(t)||+L(t)||w_{j}(t)||], t∈I.

Then, for every s∈Σk one has

p_{ε}(s)(t)≤ ||g(t, s)||+^{1}_{ε}d_{H}(0_{n}, F(t, z(t) +εw(t, s))−f(t))≤ ||g(t, s)||+

1

εd_{H}(F(t, z(t)), F(t, z(t) +εw(t, s)))≤ ||g(t, s)||+L(t)||w(t, s)|| ≤q(t).

Next, if s1, s2∈Σ_{k} one has

|p_{ε}(s_{1})(t)−p_{ε}(s_{2})(t)| ≤ ||g(t, s_{1})−g(t, s_{2})||+^{1}_{ε}d_{H}(F(t, z(t) +εw(t, s_{1})),
F(t, z(t) +εw(t, s2)))≤ ||s_{1}−s2||.max_{j=1,k}[||g_{j}(t)||+L(t)||w_{j}(t)||],
thus, p_{ε}(.)(t) is Lipschitz with a Lipschitz constant not depending onε.

On the other hand, from (2.8) it follows that

ε→0limpε(s)(t) = 0 a.e.(I), ∀s∈Σk

and hence,

(3.7) lim

ε→0+max

s∈Σ_{k}pε(s)(t) = 0 a.e.(I).

Therefore, from (3.6), (3.7) and Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem we obtain

(3.8) lim

ε→0+

Z T

0

maxs∈Σ_{k}pε(s)(t)dt= 0.

By (3.4), (3.5), (3.8) and the upper semicontinuity of the Clarke general- ized Jacobian we can find ε0, e0>0 such that

(3.9) max

s∈Σ_{k}

||o_{ε}_{0}(s)||

ε_{0} +
Z T

0

maxs∈Σ_{k}pε0(s)(t)dt≤ β1

2^{8}l^{2},

(3.10) ε_{0}w(T, s)≤ e_{0}

2 ∀s∈Σ_{k}.
If we define

y(s)(t) :=z(t) +ε_{0}w(t, s), g(s)(t) :=f(t) +ε_{0}g(t, s) s∈R^{k},
a_{0}(s) :=z(0)+ε_{0}w(0, s)+o_{ε}_{0}(s), a_{1}(s) :=z^{0}(0)+ε_{0}∂w

∂t(0, s)+o_{ε}_{0}(s), s∈R^{k},
then we apply Theorem 2.3 and we find that there exists the continuous func-
tionx(.) : Σ_{k}→C(I,R^{n}) such that for anys∈Σ_{k} the functionx(s)(.) is solu-
tion of the differential inclusionx^{00} ∈Ax+F(t, x), x(s)(0) =a_{0}(s),(x(s))^{0}(0) =
a_{1}(s) ∀s∈Σ_{k} and one has

(3.11) ||x(s)(T)−y(s)(T)|| ≤ ε_{0}β_{1}

2^{6}l ∀s∈Σ_{k}.
We define

h_{0}(x) :=

Z

R^{n}

h(x−by)χ(y)dy, x∈R^{n},
φ(s) :=h_{0}(z(T) +ε_{0}w(T, s)),

where χ(.) :R^{n} →[0,1] is a C^{∞} function with the support contained in BR^{n}

that satisfies R

R^{n}χ(y)dy= 1 and b= min{^{e}_{2}^{0},^{ε}_{2}^{0}6^{β}l^{1}}.

Therefore, h0(.) is of classC^{∞} and verifies

(3.12) ||h(x)−h0(x)|| ≤lb,

(3.13) h^{0}_{0}(x) =

Z

R^{n}

h^{0}(x−by)χ(y)dy.

In particular,

h^{0}_{0}(x)∈co{h^{0}(u); ||u−x|| ≤b, h^{0}(u) exists},
φ^{0}(s)µ=h^{0}_{0}(z(T) +ε0w(T, µ)) ∀µ∈Σk.

Using again the upper semicontinuity of Clarke’s generalized Jacobian we obtain

d(h^{0}_{0}(z(T) +ε_{0}w(T, s)), ∂h(z(T)))≤sup{d(h^{0}_{0}(u), ∂h(z(T))); ||u−z(t)||

≤ ||u−(z(T) +ε0w(T, s))||+||ε_{0}w(t, s)|| ≤e0, h^{0}(u) exists}< ρ1.
The last inequality with (3.3) gives

ε_{0}β_{1}B_{R}^{m} ⊂φ^{0}(s)Σ_{k} ∀s∈Σ_{k}.
Finally, for s∈Σ_{k}, we put ψ(s) =h(x(s)(T)).

Obviously, ψ(.) is continuous and from (3.11), (3.12), (3.13) one has

||ψ(s)−φ(s)||=||h(x(s)(T))−h_{0}(y(s)(T))|| ≤ ||h(x(s)(T))−

h(y(s)(T))||+||h(y(s)(T))−h_{0}(y(s)(T))|| ≤l||x(s)(T)−y(s)(T)||+lb

≤ ^{ε}^{0}_{64}^{β}^{1} +^{ε}^{0}_{64}^{β}^{1} = ^{ε}^{0}_{32}^{β}^{1}.

We apply Lemma 2.7 and we find that
h(x(0k)(T)) +ε_{0}β_{1}

16 BR^{m} ⊂ψ(Σk)⊂h(RF(T)).

On the other hand,||h(z(T))−h(x(0_{k})(T))|| ≤ ^{ε}^{0}_{64}^{β}^{1}, so we haveh(z(T))∈
int(R_{F}(T)) and the proof is complete.

Remark 3.2.If m = n and h(x) ≡ x, Theorem 3.1 yields Theorem 3.4 in [10].

REFERENCES

[1] J.P. Aubin and H. Frankowska,Set-valued Analysis. Birkhauser, Berlin, 1990.

[2] M. Benchohra,On second-order differential inclusions in Banach spaces. New Zealand J. Math. 30(2001), 5–13.

[3] M. Benchohra and S.K. Ntouyas, Existence of mild solutions of second-order initial value problems for differential inclusions with nonlocal conditions. Atti. Semin. Mat.

Fis. Univ. Modena Reggio Emilia49(2001), 351–361.

[4] A. Cernea, On a second-order differential inclusion. Atti. Semin. Mat. Fis. Univ.

Modena Reggio Emilia55(2007), 3–12.

[5] A. Cernea,Continuous version of Filippov’s theorem for a second-order differential in- clusion. An. Univ. Bucure¸sti Mat. 57(2008), 3–12.

[6] A. Cernea,On the solution set of some classes of nonconvex nonclosed differential in- clusions. Port. Math. 65(2008), 485–496.

[7] A. Cernea, Variational inclusions for a nonconvex second-order differential inclusion.

Mathematica50(73)(2008), 169–176.

[8] A. Cernea,Some Filippov type theorems for mild solutions of a second-order differential inclusion. Rev. Roumaine Math. Pures Appl. 54(2009), 1–11.

[9] A. Cernea, Lipschitz-continuity of the solution map of some nonconvex second-order differential inclusions. Fasc. Math. 41(2009) 45–54.

[10] A. Cernea,Derived cones to reachable sets of a class of second-order differential inclu- sions. Rev. Roumaine Math. Pures Appl. 56(2011), 1–11.

[11] F.H. Clarke, Optimization and Nonsmooth Analysis. Wiley Interscience, New York, 1983.

[12] O. Fattorini,Second-order linear differential equations in Banach spaces. Mathematical Studies vol. 108, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1985.

[13] E.S. Polovinkin and G.V. Smirnov,An approach to differentiation of many-valued map- ping and necessary condition for optimization of solution of differential inclusions.

Differ. Equ. 22(1986), 660–668.

[14] C.C. Travis and G.F. Webb,Cosine families and abstract nonlinear second-order differ- ential equations. Acta Math. Hungar. 32(1978), 75–96.

[15] H.D. Tuan,On controllability and extremality in nonconvex differential inclusions. J. Op- tim. Theory Appl. 85(1995), 437–474.

[16] J. Warga, Controllability, extremality and abnormality in nonsmooth optimal control.

J. Optim. Theory Appl. 41(1983), 239–260.

Received 15 October 2012 University of Bucharest, Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics,

Academiei 14, 010014 Bucharest, Romania

acernea@fmi.unibuc.ro