See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/348592728

A generalization of Darbo's theorem with application to the solvability of

systems of integral-Differential equations in Sobolev spaces

Article in The International Journal of Nonlinear Analysis and Applications (IJNAA) · January 2021
DOI: 10.22075/ijnaa.2021.4784

CITATIONS READS

2 131

3 authors, including:

Hojjatollah Amiri Kayvanloo Mahnaz Khanehgir

Islamic Azad University Mashhad Branch Islamic Azad University
24 PUBLICATIONS 54 CITATIONS 43 PUBLICATIONS 86 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hojjatollah Amiri Kayvanloo on 19 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Nonlinear Anal. Appl. 12 (2021) No. 1, 287-300
ISSN: 2008-6822 (electronic)
http://www.ijnaa.semnan.ac.ir

A generalization of Darbo’s theorem with

application to the solvability of systems of
integral-Differential equations in Sobolev spaces
Hojjatollah Amiri Kayvanlooa , Mahnaz Khanehgira , Reza Allahyaria,∗
a
Department of Mathematics, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran

(Communicated by Madjid Eshaghi Gordji)

Abstract
In this article, we introduce the notion of (α, β)-generalized Meir-Keeler condensing operator in a
Banach space, a characterization using strictly L-functions and provide an extension of Darbo’s fixed
point theorem associated with measures of noncompactness. Then, we establish some results on
the existence of coupled fixed points for a class of condensing operators in Banach spaces. As an
application, we study the problem of existence of entire solutions for a general system of nonlinear
integral-differential equations in a Sobolev space. Further, an example is presented to verify the
effectiveness and applicability of our main results.
Keywords: Coupled fixed points, Measure of noncompactness, Meir-Keleer condensing operator,
Sobolev space, System of integral equations.
2010 MSC: Primary 47H08; Secondary 47H10, 45J05.

1. Introduction
The theory of systems of differential and integral equations play an important role in nonlinear
analysis and is applicable to numerous problems of the other branches of sciences. There have
recently been many papers regarding the existence solutions of systems of integral equations on some
spaces. For example, Aghajani and Allahyari [2] , Aghajani and Jalilian [3], Aghajani and Sabzali [6]
obtained some interesting results of the existence solutions for systems of nonlinear integral equations

∗
Corresponding author
Email addresses: amiri.hojjat93@mshdiau.ac.ir (Hojjatollah Amiri Kayvanloo), khanehgir@mshdiau.ac.ir
(Mahnaz Khanehgir), rezaallahyari@mshdiau.ac.ir (Reza Allahyari)

Received: 20 July 2018 Accepted: 8 September 2019

288 Amiri, Khanehgir,Allahyari

in Banach spaces. We recall that the existence results of these literatures were formulated with the
help of measures of noncompactness.
The concept of measure of noncompactness was initiated by Kuratowski [14]. Banaś et al. [8]
proposed a generalization of this notion which is more convenient in the applications. The tool of
measure of noncompactness has been used in the theory of operator equations in Banach spaces. They
are frequently used in the theory of functional equations, including ordinary differential equations,
equations with partial derivatives, integral and integro-differential equations, optimal control theory,
etc. In particular, the fixed point theorems derived from them have many applications. The principal
application of measures of noncompactness in the fixed point theory is contained in the Darbo’s fixed
point theorem [11]. The technique of measures of noncompactness in conjunction with it turned into
a tool to investigate the existence and behavior of solutions of many classes of integral equations
such as Volterra, Fredholm and Uryson type integral equations.
In 1969, Meir and Keeler [16] introduced the concept of Meir-Keeler contractive mapping and
proved some fixed point theorems for this kind of mappings. Thereafter, Aghajani et al., [4] gener-
alized some fixed point and coupled fixed point theorems for Meir-Keeler condensing operators via
measures of noncompactness.
On the other hand, Sobolev spaces [9], i.e., the class of functions with derivatives in Lp , play an
outstanding role in the modern analysis. In the last decades, there has been increasing attempts to
study of these spaces. Their importance comes from the fact solutions of partial differential equations
are naturally found in Sobolev spaces. They also highlighted in approximation theory, calculus of
variation, differential geometry, spectral theory, etc.
In this paper, we introduce the notion of (α, β)-generalized Meir-Keeler condensing operator in
a Banach space, and give an extension of Darbo’s fixed point theorem associated with measures
of noncompactness. Then, we establish an existence result of coupled fixed points for a class of
condensing operators in Banach spaces. As an application, we study the problem of existence of
solutions for the following system of nonlinear integral-differential equations in a Sobolev space.

(1.1)
{ ∫ ∂u ∂u
u(x) = f (x, u(x), v(x), ∫ g(y, u(y), ∂x 1
(y), . . . , ∂xn
(y), v(y))dy)
∂v ∂v
v(x) = f (x, v(x), u(x), g(y, v(y), ∂x1 (y), . . . , ∂xn (y), u(y))dy)
Further, an example is presented to verify the effectiveness and applicability of our main results.

2. Preliminaries
In this section, we provide some notations, definitions and preliminary facts which will be needed
further on. Denote by R the set of real numbers and put R+ = [0, +∞). For the Lebesgue measurable
subset D of Rn (n ∈ N), let m(D) be the lebesgue measure of D and let L1 (D) be ∫the space of all
Lebesgue integrable functions f on D equipped with the standard norm ∥f ∥L1 (D) = D |f (x)|dx.
Let (E, ∥ · ∥) be a real Banach space with zero element 0. The symbol B(x, r) stands for the
closed ball centered at x with radius r and put Br = B(0, r). For a nonempty subset X of E, the
symbols X and ConvX will denote the closure and closed convex hull of X, respectively. Moreover,
let ME indicate the family of nonempty and bounded subsets of E and NE indicate the family of all
nonempty and relatively compact subsets of E.

Definition 2.1. [8] A mapping µ : ME → R+ is said to be a measure of noncompactness in E if it

satisfies the following conditions:
Systems of integral equations12 (2021) No. 1, 287-300 289

1◦ The family ker µ = {X ∈ ME : µ(X) = 0} is nonempty and ker µ ⊂ NE .

2◦ X ⊂ Y ⇒ µ(X) ≤ µ(Y ).

3◦ µ(X) = µ(X).

4◦ µ(ConvX = µ(X).

5◦ µ(λX + (1 − λ)Y ) ≤ λµ(X) + (1 − λ)µ(Y ) for λ ∈ [0, 1].

6◦ If {Xn } is a sequence of closed chains of ME such that Xn+1 ⊂ Xn for n = 1, 2, . . . and if

∩∞
lim µ(Xn ) = 0, then the set X∞ = Xn ̸= ∅.
n→∞
n=1

Definition 2.2. [7] Suppose that E1 and E2 are two Banach spaces and µ1 and µ2 are arbitrary
measures of noncompactness on E1 and E2 , respectively. Also, suppose T : E1 → E2 is a continuous
operator satisfies the following condition:

µ2 (T (Ω)) < µ1 (Ω)

for every bounded noncompact set Ω ⊂ E1 . Then T is called a (µ1 , µ2 )-condensing operator.

Theorem 2.3. (Darbo [8]) Let C be a nonempty, bounded, closed and convex subset of a Banach
space E and let T : C → C be a continuous mapping. Assume that a constant k ∈ [0, 1) exists such
that
µ(T (X)) ≤ kµ(X)
for any nonempty subset X of C, where µ is a measure of noncompactness defined in E. Then T
has a fixed point in the set C.

Theorem 2.4. (Tychonoff fixed point theorem [1]) Let E be a Hausdorff locally convex linear topo-
logical space, C a convex subset of E and T : C → E a continuous mapping such that

T (C) ⊆ A ⊆ C,

with A compact. Then T has at least one fixed point.

Definition 2.5. [4] Let C be a nonempty subset of a Banach space E and µ an arbitrary measure
of noncompactness on E. An operator T : C → C is called a Mier-keeler condensing operator if for
any ε > 0, δ > 0 exists such that

ε ≤ µ(X) < ε + δ implies µ(T (X)) < ε

for any bounded subset X of C.

Definition 2.6. [10] Let X be a nonempty set. An element (x, y) ∈ X × X is called a coupled fixed
point of a mapping G : X × X → X if G(x, y) = x and G(y, x) = y.

Here we quote a useful theorem in [7] concerning the construction of a measure of noncompactness
on a finite product space.
290 Amiri, Khanehgir,Allahyari

Theorem 2.7. Let µ1 , µ2 , . . . , µn be measures of noncompactness in Banach spaces E1 , E2 , . . . , En ,

respectively. Moreover, suppose that the function F : [0, ∞)n → [0, ∞) is convex and F (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) =
0 if and only if xi = 0 for i = 1, 2, . . . , n. Then
e(X) = F (µ1 (X1 ), µ2 (X2 ), . . . , µn (Xn )),
µ
defines a measure of noncompactness in E1 × E2 ×, . . . × En , where Xi denotes the natural projection
of X into Ei , for i = 1, 2, . . . , n.
As a result from Theorem 2.7 above, we have the following example which is presented in [6].
Example 2.8. Let µ be a measure of noncompactness on a Banach space E. Take F (x, y) = x + y
for any (x, y) ∈ R2+ . Then all the conditions of Theorem 2.7 are satisfied. Therefore, µe(X) =
µ(X1 ) + µ(X2 ) defines a measure of noncompactness in the space E × E where Xi , i = 1, 2 denote
the natural projections of X.
Denote with Ψ the family of increasing functions ψ : R+ → R+ continuous in t = 0 such that
• ψ(t) = 0 if and only if t = 0,
• ψ(t + s) ≤ ψ(t) + ψ(s).

3. Fixed point results for (α, β)-generalized Meir-Keeler condensing operators

In this section, we define the notion of an (α, β)-generalized Meir-Keeler condensing operator on
a Banach space and describe some fixed point results.
Definition 3.1. Let C be a nonempty subset of a Banach space E and µ be an arbitrary measure
of noncompactness on E. Also, suppose ψ : R+ → R+ is an increasing mapping such that ψ(t) = 0
if and only if t = 0. We say that an operator T : C → C is an (α, β)-generalized Meir-Keeler
condensing operator if for any ε > 0, δ > 0 exists such that
ε ≤ β(µ(X))ψ(µ(X)) < ε + δ implies α(µ(T (X)))ψ(µ(T (X))) < ε (3.1)
for any bounded subset X of C, where α : R+ → [1, +∞) and β : R+ → (0, 1] are mappings.
Theorem 3.2. Let C be a nonempty, bounded, closed, and convex subset of a Banach space E and
let µ be an arbitrary measure of noncompactness on E. If T : C → C is a continuous and (α, β)-
generalized Meir-Keeler condensing operator, then T has at least one fixed point in the set C and the
set of all fixed points of T in C is compact.
Proof . By induction, we define a sequence {Cn } such that C0 = C and Cn = ConvT (Cn−1 ), n ≥ 1.
If µ(CN ) = 0 for some integer N ≥ 0, then CN is compact. Thus, Theorem 2.4 implies that T has a
fixed point. Now, assume µ(Cn ) > 0 for any n ≥ 0. Take εn = β(µ(Cn ))ψ(µ(Cn )) > 0 and consider
δn = δ(εn ) > 0 such that (3.1) holds. Therefore, by (3.1), we obtain
α(µ(T (Cn )))ψ(µ(T (Cn ))) < β(µ(Cn ))ψ(µ(Cn )) (3.2)
for each integer n ≥ 0. By using (3.2), we derive that
εn+1 = β(µ(Cn+1 ))ψ(µ(Cn+1 ))
≤ ψ(µ(Cn+1 ))
= ψ(µ(ConvT (Cn )))
≤ α(µ(T (Cn )))ψ(µ(T (Cn )))
< β(µ(Cn ))ψ(µ(Cn )) = εn ,
Systems of integral equations12 (2021) No. 1, 287-300 291

which implies that {εn } is a strictly decreasing sequence of positive real numbers. Thus, there is an
r ≥ 0 so that εn → r as n → ∞. We will show that r = 0. If r > 0, then by hypothesis, a δ(r) > 0
exists such that (3.1) holds and so N0 > 0 exists such that

r ≤ εn = β(µ(Cn ))ψ(µ(Cn )) < r + δ(r),

for any n ≥ N0 . By the definition of (α, β)-generalized Meir-Keeler condensing operator, we get
α(µ(T (Cn )))ψ(µ(T (Cn ))) < r for each n ≥ N0 . Then it can be concluded that εn+1 < r for any
n ≥ N0 which gives us a contradiction, so r = 0.
It can be shown that lim ψ(µ(Cn )) = 0, too. For, let ϱ > 0 be given. Then N1 > 0 exists such that
n→∞
for each n ≥ N1 , 0 < εn = β(µ(Cn ))ψ(µ(Cn )) < ϱ. Regarding to (3.2), we can write

−ϱ < εn+1 = β(µ(Cn+1 ))ψ(µ(Cn+1 ))

≤ ψ(µ(Cn+1 ))
≤ α(µ(Cn+1 ))ψ(µ(Cn+1 ))
= α(µ(T (Cn )))ψ(µ(T (Cn )))
< εn = β(µ(Cn ))ψ(µ(Cn ))
< ϱ

for all n ≥ N1 . It follows that ψ(µ(Cn+1 )) → 0 and so ψ(µ(Cn )) → 0 as n → ∞. Next, we claim that
lim µ(Cn ) = 0. To support the claim, let it be untrue. Thus, there is an ε > 0 such that for each
n→∞
positive integer N, nN ≥ N exists in which µ(CnN ) ≥ ε. By increasing of ψ we have ψ(µ(CnN )) ≥ ψ(ε),
which is a contradiction with lim ψ(µ(Cn )) = 0. Hence, we deduce that, µ(Cn ) → 0 as n → ∞.
n→∞
Using this fact and since the sequence {Cn } is nested, in view of part 6◦ of Definition 2.1, it can be
∩
∞
concluded that the set C∞ = Cn is nonempty, closed, and convex subset of the C. Furthermore, the
n=1
set C∞ is invariant under T, and C∞ ∈ ker µ. Thus, applying Tychonoff fixed point theorem, we find
that the operator T has a fixed point. Now, suppose that FT = {x ∈ C : T (x) = x}. We are going
to show that µ(FT ) = 0. Suppose to the contrary, that µ(FT ) > 0. Take ε0 = β(µ(FT ))ψ(µ(FT )),
then by (3.2) and T (FT ) = FT , we infer that ψ(µ(FT )) < ψ(µ(FT )), which leads to a contradiction.
Then µ(FT ) = 0, which means that FT is relatively compact. As T is a continuous function, thus FT
is compact in C. □
Below, we recall from [15] the notion of a strictly L-function and then we establish an extension of
Darbo’s fixed point theorem using strictly L-functions.

Definition 3.3. A function θ : R+ → R+ is called a strictly L-function if θ(0) = 0, θ(s) > 0 for
s ∈ (0, +∞), and for any s > 0, δ > 0 exists such that θ(t) < s, for all t ∈ [s, s + δ].

Theorem 3.4. Let α, β, and ψ be as Definition 3.1, C be a nonempty, bounded, closed and convex
subset of a Banach space E, and let T : C → C be a continuous operator such that
( )
α(µ(T (X)))ψ(µ(T (X))) ≤ θ β(µ(X))ψ(µ(X))

for any X ⊆ C, where µ is an arbitrary measure of noncompactness on E and θ is a strictly

L-function. Then, T has at least one fixed point.
292 Amiri, Khanehgir,Allahyari

Proof . We are going to show that T is an (α, β)-generalized Meir-Keeler condensing operator. For
this purpose, let ε > 0 be arbitrary. By the hypothesis, δ > 0 exists such that

ε≤t≤ε+δ implies θ(t) < ε. (3.3)

If X is a subset of C such that ε ≤ β(µ(X))ψ(µ(X)) < ε+δ, then using (3.3) θ(β(µ(X))ψ(µ(X))) < ε
and by considering our assumptions, we have
( )
α(µ(T (X)))ψ(µ(T (X))) ≤ θ β(µ(X))ψ(µ(X)) < ε.

Hence, by making appeal to Theorem 3.2, we conclude that T has a fixed point. □
Now, we present a coupled fixed point theorem using strictly L-functions.
Theorem 3.5. Let E, C, β, θ and µ be as Theorem 3.4 and let α : R+ → [1, +∞) be an increasing
map. Also, suppose that ψ ∈ Ψ and G : C × C → C, is a continuous mapping satisfying
( )
α µ(G(X1 × X2 )) + µ(G(X2 × X1 )) ψ(µ(G(X1 × X2 ))) (3.4)

1 ( µ(X1 ) + µ(X2 ) µ(X1 ) + µ(X2 ) )

≤ θ β( )ψ( )
2 2 2
for all subsets X1 ,X2 of C. Then G has at least a coupled fixed point.

Proof . We first note that Example 2.8 implies that µ e(X) = µ(X1 ) + µ(X2 ) is a measure of
noncompactness in the space E × E, where Xi , i = 1, 2 are the natural projections of X. Define the
mapping G e : C × C → C × C by G(x,e y) = (G(x, y), G(y, x)). Clearly G e is continuous. We claim that
e satisfies all the conditions of Theorem 3.4. To prove this fact, let us choose a nonempty subset X
G
of C × C. By properties of the mappings α and ψ and using (3.4) we have
( )
α µ e 1 × X2 )) ψ(e
e(G(X e 1 × X2 )))
µ(G(X
( )
≤ α µe(G(X1 × X2 ) × G(X2 × X1 )) ψ(e µ(G(X1 × X2 ) × G(X2 × X1 )))
( )
≤ α µ(G(X1 × X2 )) + µ(G(X2 × X1 )) ψ(µ(G(X1 × X2 )))
( )
+α µ(G(X2 × X1 )) + µ(G(X1 × X2 )) ψ(µ(G(X2 × X1 )))
( µ(X ) + µ(X ) µ(X1 ) + µ(X2 ) )
1 2
≤ θ β( )ψ( )
2 2
( µ e(X1 × X2 ) e(X1 × X2 ) )
µ
= θ β( )ψ( ) .
2 2
Therefore, (1 ) ( )
α µ e 1 × X2 )) ψ( 1 µ
e(G(X e 1 × X2 ))) ≤ θ β( 1 µ
e(G(X
1
e(X1 × X2 ))ψ( µe(X1 × X2 ))
2 2 2 2
b = 21 µ
and taking µ e, we obtain
( ) ( )
α µ e 1 × X2 )) ψ(b
b(G(X e 1 × X2 ))) ≤ θ β(b
µ(G(X µ(X1 × X2 ))ψ(b
µ(X1 × X2 )) .

b, is also a measure of noncompactness, so Theorem 3.4 guarantees that G

Since µ e has a fixed point,
or equivalently G has a coupled fixed point. □
The next result is a special case of the theorem above, which will be used in Section 4.
Systems of integral equations12 (2021) No. 1, 287-300 293

Corollary 3.6. Let C be a nonempty, bounded, closed and convex subset of a Banach space E and
G : C × C → C be a continuous mapping satisfying
1 ( µ(X1 ) + µ(X2 ) )
ψ(µ(G(X1 × X2 ))) ≤ θ ψ( ) (3.5)
2 2
for all subsets X1 ,X2 of C, where µ is an arbitrary measure of noncompactness in the space E, θ is
a strictly L-function, and ψ ∈ Ψ. Then G has at least a coupled fixed point.

4. Application
In this section, we study the existence of solutions for a system of nonlinear integral-differential
equations. We also provide an illustrative example to verify the effectiveness and applicability of our
results.
We start with some preliminaries which we need in subsequent.
Lemma 4.1. [12] Let Ω be a Lebesgue measurable subset of Rn and 1 ≤ p ≤ ∞. If {fk } is convergent
to f in the Lp -norm, then there is a subsequence {fkm } which converges to f a.e., and there is
g ∈ Lp (Ω), g ≥ 0, such that
|fkm (x)| ≤ g(x) for a.e. x ∈ Ω.
Definition 4.2. [5] We say that a function f : Rn × Rm → R satisfies the Carathéodory conditions
if the function f (., u) is measurable for each u ∈ Rm and the function f (x, .) is continuous for almost
all x ∈ Rn .
Let Ω be a subset of Rn and k ∈ N, we denote by W k,1 (Ω) the space of functions f which, together
with all their distributional derivatives Dα f of order |α| ≤ k, belong to L1 (Ω). Here α = (α1 , . . . , αn )
is a multi-index, i.e., each αj is a nonnegative integer, |α| = α1 + . . . + αn , and
Dα = ∂ |α| /∂xα1 1 . . . ∂xαnn .
Then, W k,1 (Ω) is equipped with the complete norm
∥f ∥Ω
k,1 = max ∥D f ∥L1 (Ω) .
α
0≤|α|≤k

Now, we are ready to define a measure of noncompactness on the spaces W k,1 (Ω).
Theorem 4.3. Suppose that 1 ≤ k < ∞ and U is a bounded subset of W k,1 (Ω). For u ∈ U , ε > 0
and 0 ≤ |α| ≤ k, let
ω T (u, ε) = sup{∥Th Dα u − Dα u∥L1 (BT ) : h ∈ Ω, ∥h∥Rn < ε, 0 ≤ |α| ≤ k},
ω T (U, ε) = sup{ω T (u, ε) : u ∈ U },
ω T (U ) = limω T (U, ε),
ε→0
ω(U ) = lim ω T (U ),
T →∞
and
d(U ) = lim sup{∥Dα u∥L1 (Ω\BT ) : u ∈ U, 0 ≤ |α| ≤ k},
T →∞

where BT = {a ∈ Ω : ∥a∥Rn ≤ T } and Th u(t) = u(t + h).

Then ω0 : MW k,1 (Ω) → R given by
ω0 (U ) = ω(U ) + d(U )
defines a measure of noncompactness on W k,1 (Ω).
294 Amiri, Khanehgir,Allahyari

Proof .Here, we give a sketch of proof.

1◦ follows from the definition of ω0 and applying [13, Theorem 5].
2◦ is obvious by the definition of ω0 .
3◦ is a straightforward consequence of the definition of ω0 and part 2◦ .
4◦ follows directly from Dα [Conv(U )] = Conv(Dα U ) (U ∈ MW k,1 (Ω) ).
5◦ can be obtained by using the equality

Dα (λu1 + (1 − λ)u2 ) = λDα u1 + (1 − λ)Dα u2

for all λ ∈ [0, 1], u1 ∈ X and u2 ∈ Y .

To verify 6◦ , suppose that {Un } is a sequence of closed and nonempty sets of MW k,1 (Ω) such that
Un+1 ⊂ Un for n = 1, 2, . . ., and lim ω0 (Un ) = 0. Now, for any n ∈ N, take un ∈ Un and set G = {un }.
n→∞
We show that G is a compact set in W k,1 (Ω). For, let ε > 0 be fixed. Since lim ω0 (Un ) = 0, there
n→∞
exists sufficiently large m1 ∈ N such that ω0 (Um1 ) < ε. Hence, there is small enough δ1 > 0 and
large enough T1 > 0 such that ω T1 (Um1 , δ1 ) < ε and d(Um1 ) < ε. Therefore,

∥Th Dα un − Dα un ∥L1 (BT1 ) < ε

and
∥Dα un ∥L1 (Ω\BT1 ) < ε
for all n > m1 , 0 ≤ |α| ≤ k and h ∈ Ω such that ∥h∥Rn < δ1 . Then, we obtain
∥Th Dα un − Dα un ∥L1 (Ω)

≤ ∥Th Dα un − Dα un ∥L1 (BT1 ) + ∥Th Dα un − Dα un ∥L1 (Ω\BT1 )

≤ ∥Th Dα un − Dα un ∥L1 (BT1 ) + ∥Th Dα un ∥L1 (Ω\BT1 ) + ∥Dα un ∥L1 (Ω\BT1 )
< 3ε.

On the other hand, we know that the set {u1 , u2 , . . . , um1 } is compact, hence δ2 > 0 and T2 > 0 exist
such that
∥Th Dα un − Dα un ∥L1 (BT2 ) < ε
for all n = 1, 2, . . . , m1 , 0 ≤ |α| ≤ k and h ∈ Ω with ∥h∥Rn < δ2 .
Furthermore,
∥Dα un ∥L1 (Ω\BT2 ) < ε,
which implies that
∥Th Dα un − Dα un ∥L1 (Ω) < 3ε
for all n = 1, 2, . . . , m1 .
Thus,
∥Th Dα un − Dα un ∥L1 (Ω) < 3ε
and
∥Dα un ∥L1 (Ω\BT ) < ε < 3ε
for all n ∈ N, ∥h∥Rn < min{δ1 , δ2 } and T = max{T1 , T2 }. By making use of [13, Theorem 5] we find
that G is a compact set.
Systems of integral equations12 (2021) No. 1, 287-300 295

Using compactness of G, a subsequence {unj } and u0 ∈ W k,1 (Ω) exist such that unj → u0 . Since
un ∈ Un , Un+1 ⊂ Un and Un is closed for all n ∈ N, we yield
∩
∞
u0 ∈ Un = U∞ ,
n=1

that finishes the proof of 6◦ .□

In the sequel, to demonstrate the applicability of our results, we study the existence of solutions for
the system of integral-differential equations (1.1) in the Sobolev space W 1,1 (Ω) × W 1,1 (Ω) under the
following general assumptions.
(1) f : Ω × R3 → R and ∂x ∂f
i
, i = 1, 2, . . . , n satisfy the Caratéodory conditions, and constants b > 0
and λ ∈ [0, 6 ) and a ∈ L (Ω) exist such that
1 1
{ } { }
(i) |f (x, u(x), v(x), w)| ≤ a(x) + λ max |Dα u(x)| : α = 0, 1 + λ max |Dα v(x)| : α = 0, 1 + b|w|,
{ } { }
(ii) | ∂x
∂f
i
(x, u(x), v(x), w)| ≤ a(x) + λ max |D α
u(x)| : α = 0, 1 + λ max |D α
v(x)| : α = 0, 1 + b|w|,
{ } { }
(iii) | ∂u
∂f ∂u
(x, u(x), v(x), w) ∂x i
(x)| ≤ a(x) + λ max |D α
u(x)| : α = 0, 1 + λ max |D α
v(x)| : α = 0, 1 + b|w|,
{ } { }
∂v (x, u(x), v(x), w) ∂xi (x)| ≤ a(x) + λ max |D u(x)| : α = 0, 1 + λ max |D v(x)| : α = 0, 1 + b|w|,
(iv) | ∂f ∂v α α

for any u, v ∈ W 1,1 (Ω) and x ∈ Ω, where

∫
∂u ∂u ∂u
w = w(u, v) = g(y, u(y), (y), (y), . . . , (y), v(y))dy.
Ω ∂x1 ∂x2 ∂xn

(2) Suppose h ∈ Rn , with ∥h∥Rn small enough, Th : Ω ⊆ Rn → Rn be the transformation mapping

i.e., Th (x) = x + h, and let ψ ∈ Ψ and Λ ⊆ Ω be arbitrary so that
∫
(i) ψ( Λ (|f (Th (x), u
{1 (x), v1 (x), w) − f (x, u(x), v(x),
} w)|dx){ })
≤ 16 θ 14 ψ(max ∥Dα (u1 − u)∥L1 (Λ) : α = 0, 1 + max ∥Dα (v1 − v)∥L1 (Λ) : α = 0, 1 ) ,
∫ ∂f
(ii) ψ( Λ | ∂x (T (x), u (x), v1 (x), w) − ∂x ∂f
(x, u(x), v(x), w)|dx)
( i h { 1 i } { })
≤ 6 θ 4 ψ(max ∥D (u1 − u)∥L1 (Λ) : α = 0, 1 + max ∥Dα (v1 − v)∥L1 (Λ) : α = 0, 1 ) ,
1 1 α

∫ ∂f
(iii) ψ( Λ | ∂u ∂xi (x + h) −}∂u (x, u(x),
(T (x), u (x), v1 (x), w) ∂u 1 ∂f ∂u
v(x), w) ∂x (x)|dx)
( 1 h { 1 { i })
≤ 6 θ 4 ψ(max ∥D (u1 − u)∥L1 (Λ) : α = 0, 1 + max ∥D (v1 − v)∥L1 (Λ) : α = 0, 1 ) ,
1 1 α α

∫ ∂f
(iv) ψ( Λ | ∂v ∂xi (x + h) −}∂v (x, u(x),
(T (x), u (x), v1 (x), w) ∂v 1 ∂f ∂v
v(x), w) ∂x (x)|dx)
( 1 h { 1 { i })
≤ 61 θ 14 ψ(max ∥Dα (u1 − u)∥L1 (Λ) : α = 0, 1 + max ∥Dα (v1 − v)∥L1 (Λ) : α = 0, 1 ) ,

where θ is a continuous strictly L-function such that θ(a + b) ≥ θ(a) + θ(b) (a, b ∈ R+ ).
(3) g : Ω × Rn+2 → R satisfies the Caratéodory conditions and there exists a bounded continuous
function a1 : Ω → R+ such that |a1 (x)| ≤ M for all x ∈ Ω and some M > 0, and a concave increasing
lower semi-continuous function ξ : R+ → R+ so that

|g(x, u0 , u1 , . . . , un+1 )| ≤ a1 (x)ξ( max |ui |).

0≤i≤n+1

(4) There exists a positive solution r0 of the inequality

( 1 )
3 ∥a∥L1 (Ω) + 2λr + bM m(Ω)2 ξ( r) ≤ r. (4.1)
m(Ω)
296 Amiri, Khanehgir,Allahyari

Theorem 4.4. Under the assumptions (1)-(4), the system of integral-differential equations (1.1) has
at least one solution in the space W 1,1 (Ω) × W 1,1 (Ω).
Proof . First, we define the operator G : W 1,1 (Ω) × W 1,1 (Ω) → W 1,1 (Ω) by
∫
∂u ∂u
G(u, v)(x) = f (x, u(x), v(x), g(y, u(y), (y), . . . , (y), v(y))dy).
Ω ∂x1 ∂xn
Notice that, the space W 1,1 (Ω) × W 1,1 (Ω) is equipped with the norm ∥(u, v)∥1,1 = ∥u∥Ω 1,1 + ∥v∥1,1
Ω

for each (u, v) ∈ W 1,1 (Ω) × W 1,1 (Ω). Now, by using of conditions (1), (3) and Jensen’s inequality we
have
∫
∂u ∂u
|G(u, v)(x)| = f (x, u(x), v(x), g(y, u(y), (y), . . . , (y), v(y))dy)
∂x 1 ∂x n
{ Ω } { }
≤ a(x) + λ max |Dα u(x)| : α = 0, 1 + λ max |Dα v(x)| : α = 0, 1
∫ ( { })
∂u
+b a1 (y)ξ max |u(y)|, |v(y)|, | (y)| : i = 1, 2, . . . , n dy
∂xi
Ω
{ } { }
≤ a(x) + λ max |D u(x)| : α = 0, 1 + λ max |Dα v(x)| : α = 0, 1
α

( 1 { })
+ bM m(Ω)ξ max ∥u∥Ω 1,1 , ∥v∥ Ω
1,1 .
m(Ω)
By integrating over Ω we obtain
∫ ( { })
1
|G(u, v)(x)|dx ≤ ∥a∥L1 (Ω) + λ∥u∥Ω Ω 2
1,1 + λ∥v∥1,1 + bM m(Ω) ξ max ∥u∥Ω
1,1 , ∥v∥Ω
1,1 . (4.2)
Ω m(Ω)

Using chain rule and with a similar argument as above we have

∂G(u, v)(x) ∂
= f (x, u(x), v(x), w)
∂xi ∂xi
∂f ∂f ∂u
≤ (x, u(x), v(x), w) + (x, u(x), v(x), w) (x)
∂xi ∂u ∂xi
∂f ∂v ∂f ∂w
+ (x, u(x), v(x), w) (x) + (x, u(x), v(x), w)
∂v ∂xi ∂w ∂xi
( { } { }
≤ 3 a(x) + λ max |D u(x)| : α = 0, 1 + λ max |D v(x)| : α = 0, 1
α α

( 1 { }))
+bM m(Ω)ξ max ∥u∥Ω 1,1 , ∥v∥Ω
1,1 .
m(Ω)
By integrating over Ω, we deduce
∫ ( ( 1 { }))
∂G(u, v)(x)
≤ 3 ∥a∥L1 (Ω) + λ∥u∥Ω
1,1 + λ∥v∥ Ω
1,1 + bM m(Ω) 2
ξ max ∥u∥Ω
1,1 , ∥v∥ Ω
1,1 . (4.3)
Ω ∂xi m(Ω)

Due to inequalities (4.2) and (4.3), we infer that G is well defined and

G(Br0 × Br0 ) ⊆ Br0 ,

where r0 is any solution of (4.1).
Now, we show that the map G : Br0 × Br0 → Br0 is continuous. For, let {(un , vn )} be an arbitrary
sequence in Br0 × Br0 which converges to (u, v) ∈ Br0 × Br0 . By Lemma 4.1 there are subsequences
∂u ∂v
{unk } and {vnk } which converge to u and v a.e., respectively, and for i = 1, . . . , n { ∂xnik }, { ∂xnik }
converge to { ∂x
∂u
i
}, { ∂x
∂v
i
} a.e., respectively and there is h ∈ L1 (Ω), h ≥ 0 such that
{ ∂unk ∂unk }
max |unk (y)|, (y) , . . . , (y) , |vnk (y)| ≤ h(y) for a.e. y ∈ Ω.
∂x1 ∂xn
Systems of integral equations12 (2021) No. 1, 287-300 297

From condition (3) we have

∂unk ∂unk ( { ∂unk })
g(y, unk (y), (y), . . . , (y), vnk (y)) ≤ a1 (y)ξ max |unk (y)|, |vnk (y)|, (y) : i = 1, . . . , n
∂x1 ∂xn ∂xi
≤ a1 (y)ξ(h(y)).

Since g satisfies the Caratéodory conditions, it follow that

∂unk ∂unk ∂u ∂u
g(y, unk (y), (y), . . . , (y), vnk (y)) → g(y, u(y), (y), . . . , (y), v(y))
∂x1 ∂xn ∂x1 ∂xn

as k → ∞. As a consequence of Lebesgue’s Dominated Convergence Theorem, it yields that

∫ ∫
∂unk ∂unk ∂u ∂u
g(y, unk (y), (y), . . . , (y), vnk (y))dy → g(y, u(y), (y), . . . , (y), v(y))dy
∂x1 ∂xn ∂x1 ∂xn

as k → ∞. We know that f satisfies Caratéodory conditions, then

∫
∂unk ∂unk
G(unk , vnk ) = f (x, unk (x), vnk (x), g(y, unk (y), (y), . . . , (y), vnk (y))dy)
Ω ∂x1 ∂xn

is convergent to ∫
∂u ∂u
G(u, v) = f (x, u(x), v(x), g(y, u(y), (y), . . . , (y), v(y))dy).
Ω ∂x1 ∂xn
∂G(unk ,vnk )
Similarly, ∂xi
converges to ∂G(u,v)
∂xi
(x) as k → ∞. These give us
∥G(unk , vnk ) − G(u, v)∥1,1 → 0

as k → ∞. Therefore G is a continuous function from Br0 × Br0 into Br0 . To finish the proof we have
to verify that condition (3.5) is satisfied. For this, let T > 0 and ε > 0 be arbitrary constants and
let U × V be a nonempty and bounded subset of Br0 × Br0 . Choose (u, v) ∈ U × V and x, h ∈ BT
with ∥h∥Rn ≤ ε, then from condition (2) we have
ψ(∥τh G(u × v) − G(u × v)∥L1 (BT ) )
∫
= ψ( |f (Th (x), τh u(x), τh v(x), w) − f (x, u(x), v(x), w)|dx)
BT
1 (1 { }
≤ θ ψ(max ∥τh Dα u − Dα u∥L1 (BT ) : α = 0, 1
6 4 { }))
+ max ∥τh Dα v − Dα v∥L1 (BT ) : α = 0, 1
1 (1 )
≤ θ ψ(ω T (u, ε) + ω T (v, ε))
2 4
1 (1 )
≤ θ ψ(ω T (U, ε) + ω T (V, ε)) .
2 4
Thus, by using continuity of ψ and θ, we obtain
{ }
lim sup ψ(∥τh G(u × v) − G(u × v)∥L1 (BT ) ) : h ∈ Ω, ∥h∥Rn < ε, u ∈ U, v ∈ V
ε→0

1 (1 )
≤ θ ψ(ω T (U ) + ω T (V )) .
2 4
and taking T → ∞ we deduce
{ } 1 (1 )
lim lim sup ψ(∥τh G(u × v) − G(u × v)∥L1 (BT ) ) : h ∈ Ω, ∥h∥Rn < ε, u ∈ U, v ∈ V ≤ θ ψ(ω(U ) + ω(V )) . (4.4)
T →∞ ε→0 2 4
By the same reasoning as above we have
298 Amiri, Khanehgir,Allahyari

ψ(∥τh DG(u × v) − DG(u × v)∥L1 (BT ) )

∫
= ψ( Df (Th (x), τh u(x), τh v(x), w) − Df (x, u(x), v(x), w) dx)
BT
∫
∂f ∂f
≤ ψ( (x + h, τh u(x), τh v(x), w) − (x, u(x), v(x), w) dx
BT ∂xi ∂xi
∫
∂f ∂τh u ∂f ∂u
+ (x + h, τh u(x), τh v(x), w) (x + h) − (x, u(x), v(x), w) (x) dx
BT ∂τh u ∂xi ∂u ∂xi
∫
∂f ∂τh v ∂f ∂v
+ (x + h, τh u(x), τh v(x), w) (x + h) − (x, u(x), v(x), w) (x) dx
BT ∂τh v ∂xi ∂v ∂xi
1 (1 { }
≤ θ ψ(max ∥τh Dα u − Dα u∥L1 (BT ) : α = 0, 1
2 4{ })
+ max ∥τh Dα v − Dα v∥L1 (BT ) : α = 0, 1 )
1 (1 )
≤ θ ψ(ω T (u, ε) + ω T (v, ε))
2 4
1 (1 )
≤ θ ψ(ω T (U, ε) + ω T (V, ε)
2 4

and so
{ }
lim lim sup ψ(∥τh DG(u × v) − DG(u × v)∥L1 (BT ) ) : h ∈ Ω, ∥h∥Rn < ε, u ∈ U, v∈V (4.5)
T →∞ ε→0

1 (1 )
≤ θ ψ(ω(U ) + ω(V )) .
2 4
The relations (4.4) and (4.5) imply that
1 (1 )
ψ(ω(G(U × V )) ≤ θ ψ(ω(U ) + ω(V )) . (4.6)
2 4
Next, taking into account our hypotheses and Jensen’s inequality, for an arbitrary (u, v) ∈ U × V
and x ∈ Ω \ BT we derive that
∫
ψ(∥G(u × v)∥L1 (Ω\BT ) ) = ψ( |f (x, u(x), v(x), w|dx)
Ω\BT
∫ ∫
≤ ψ( |f (x, u(x), v(x), w) − f (x + h, 0, 0, w)|dx + |f (x + h, 0, 0, w)|dx)
Ω\BT Ω\BT
1 (1 { } { })
≤ θ ψ(max ∥Dα u∥L1 (Ω\BT ) : α = 0, 1 + max ∥Dα v∥L1 (Ω\BT ) : α = 0, 1 )
6∫ 4
+ a(x + h) + b|w|dx
Ω\BT
1 (1 { } { })
≤ θ ψ(max ∥Dα u∥L1 (Ω\BT ) : α = 0, 1 + max ∥Dα v∥L1 (Ω\BT ) : α = 0, 1 )
2 4
1 { }
+ ∥a∥L1 (Ω\BT ) + bM m(Ω \ BT )m(Ω)ξ( max ∥u∥1,1 , ∥v∥1,1 ). (4.7)
m(Ω)
Similarly,
1 (1 { } { })
ψ(∥DG(u × v)∥L1 (Ω\BT ) ) ≤ θ ψ(max ∥Dα u∥L1 (Ω\BT ) : α = 0, 1 + max ∥Dα v∥L1 (Ω\BT ) : α = 0, 1
2 4
1 { }
+ ∥a∥L1 (Ω\BT ) + bM m(Ω \ BT )m(Ω)ξ( max ∥u∥1,1 , ∥v∥1,1 ). (4.8)
m(Ω)
Passing T to infinity in the relations (4.7) and (4.8) it follows that
1 (1 )
ψ(d(G(U × V ))) ≤ θ ψ(d(U ) + d(V )) . (4.9)
2 4
Systems of integral equations12 (2021) No. 1, 287-300 299

On combining (4.6) and (4.9) and increasing of mappings θ and ψ we obtain

ψ(µ(G(U × V ))) = ψ(ω(G(U × V )) + d(G(U × V )))
1( 1 1 )
≤ θ( ψ(ω(U ) + ω(V ))) + θ( ψ(d(U ) + d(V )))
2 4 4
1 (1 1 )
≤ θ ψ(ω(U ) + ω(V )) + ψ(d(U ) + d(V ))
2 4 4
1 (2
≤ θ ψ(ω(U ) + d(U ) + ω(V ) + d(V ))
2 4
1 ( µ(U ) + µ(V ) )
≤ θ ψ( ) .
2 2

Now, Corollary 3.6 guarantees that G has a coupled fixed point in Br0 × Br0 and thus system of
integral-differential equations (1.1) have at least one solution in W 1,1 (Ω) × W 1,1 (Ω). □

Example 4.5. Consider the following system of integral-differential equations

 1 1

 u(x1 , x2 ) = ln(1 + x1 √
+ x2 ) + 192 sin(x21 x2 )u(x1 , x2 ) + 576 cos(2x1 + 3x2 )v(x1 , x2 )

 ∫ ∫

 1 1 1 7 2
∂u ∂u
(y1 ,y2 )− ∂x (y1 ,y2 )
+ y13 ln |v(y1 , y2 )|)dy1 dy2 ,
 + 8 0 0 ey1 +y2 tanh( sin u(y1 , y2 )e ∂x1 2





1 1
√x2 ) + 192 sin(x1 x2 )v(x1 , x2 ) + 576 cos(2x1 + 3x2 )u(x1 , x2 )
v(x1 , x2 ) = ln(1 + x1 + 2


 1 ∫ 1 ∫ 1 y1 +y2 7 ∂v
(y ,y )− ∂v (y ,y )
+8 0 0 e tanh( sin2 v(y1 , y2 )e ∂x1 1 2 ∂x2 1 2 + y13 ln |u(y1 , y2 )|)dy1 dy2 .

(4.10)
Observe that system (4.10) is a special case of the system (1.1) with Ω = [0, 1]2 ,
1 1 1
f (x1 , x2 , u(x1 , x2 ), v(x1 , x2 ), w) = ln(1 + x1 + x2 ) + sin(x21 x2 )u(x1 , x2 ) + cos(2x1 + 3x2 )v(x1 , x2 ) + w
192 576 8
and
√
∂u ∂u 7 ∂u ∂u
g(x1 , x2 , u(x1 , x2 ), (x1 , x2 ), (x1 , x2 )) = ex1 +x2 tanh( sin2 u(x1 , x2 )e ∂x1 (x1 ,x2 )− ∂x2 (x1 ,x2 ) + x31 ln |v(x1 , x2 )|).
∂x1 ∂x2

In this example, hypothesis (1) of Theorem 4.4 holds if we define a(x1 , x2 ) = ln 3, λ = 17 , b = 18 .

Moreover, take ψ(t) = θ(t) = 2t , then for each h ∈ Rn with sufficiently small ∥h∥Rn , hypothesis (2) is
valid, too. Indeed, for arbitrary subset Λ of Ω we have
∫
Λ
|f (x + h, u1 (x), v1 (x), w) − f (x, u(x), u(x), w)|dx
∫
≤ | ln(1 + x1 + h1 + x2 + h2 ) − ln(1 + x1 + x2 )|dx1 dx2
Λ
∫
1
+ | sin((x1 + h1 )2 (x2 + h2 ))u1 (x1 , x2 ) − sin(x21 x2 )u(x1 , x2 )|dx1 dx2
192 Λ
∫
1
+ | cos(2(x1 + h1 ) + 3(x2 + h2 ))v1 (x1 , x2 ) − cos(2x1 + 3x2 )v(x1 , x2 )|dx1 dx2 . (4.11)
576 Λ
The first term of right hand side of (4.11) tends to zero as ∥h∥Rn → 0. On the other hand, we have
| sin((x1 + h1 )2 (x2 + h2 ))u1 (x1 , x2 ) − sin(x21 x2 )u(x1 , x2 )|

≤ | sin((x1 + h1 )2 (x2 + h2 ))||u1 (x1 , x2 ) − u(x1 , x2 )|

+| sin((x1 + h1 )2 (x2 + h2 )) − sin(x21 x2 )||u(x1 , x2 )|
≤ |u1 (x1 , x2 ) − u(x1 , x2 )| + |h21 x2 + h2 x21 + h21 h2 + 2h1 x1 x2 + 2h1 h2 x1 ||u(x1 , x2 )|,
300 Amiri, Khanehgir,Allahyari

which implies that

∫
| sin((x1 + h1 )2 (x2 + h2 ))u1 (x1 , x2 ) − sin(x21 x2 )u(x1 , x2 )|dx1 dx2 ≤ ∥u1 − u∥L1 (Λ) ,
Λ

where ∥h∥Rn is small enough.

Similarly,
∫
| cos(2(x1 + h1 ) + 3(x2 + h2 ))v1 (x1 , x2 ) − cos(2x1 + 3x2 )v(x1 , x2 )|dx1 dx2 ≤ ∥v1 − v∥L1 (Λ) .
Λ

With the help of previous inequalities, part (i) of hypothesis (2) can be concluded. The other parts of
(2) are similar and we ignore the details. In addition, property (3) holds if we consider a(x1 , x2 ) = e2 ,
2
ξ(t) = 1, and M = e2 . It can be easily shown that each number r ≥ 21(ln 3+ e8 ) satisfies the inequality
(4.1). Consequently, all the conditions of Theorem 4.4 are satisfied.
It implies that the system of integral-differential equations (4.10) has at least one solution in the
Sobolev space W 1,1 (Ω) × W 1,1 (Ω).

References
[1] R. Agarwal, M. Meehan and D. O’Regan, Fixed Point Theory and Applications, Cambridge University Press.
2004.
[2] A. Aghajani, R. Allahyari, and M. Mursaleen, A generalization of Darbo’s theorem with application to the
solvability of systems of integral equations, J. Comput. Appl. Math. 260 (2014) 68–77.
[3] A. Aghajani, and Y. Jalilian, Existence of nondecreasing positive solution for a system of singular integral
equations, Mediter. J. Math. 8 (2011) 563–576.
[4] A. Aghajani, M. Mursaleen and A. Shole Haghighi, Fixed point theorems for Meir-Keeler condensing operators
via measure of noncompactness, Acta Math. Science. 35B (2015) 552–566.
[5] A. Aghajani, D. O’Regan, and A. Shole Haghighi, Measure of noncompactness on Lp (Rn ) and applications, Cubo
A Math. J. 17 (2015) 85–97.
[6] A. Aghajani, and N. Sabzali, Existence of coupled fixed points via measure of noncompactness and applications,
J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 15(5) (2014) 941–952.
[7] R. R. Akhmerov, M. I. Kamenski, A. S. Potapov, A. E. Rodkina and B. N. Sadovskii, Measures Of Noncompactness
And Condensing Operators, Birkhauser Verlag. Basel 1992.
[8] J. Banaś, and K. Goebel, Measures Of Noncompactness In Banach Spaces, In: Lecture Notes In Pure And Applied
Mathematics, 60, Dekker, New York 1980.
[9] H. Brezis, Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces And Partial Differential Equations. Springer Science. Business
Media, LLC 2011.
[10] S. S. Chang, Y. J. Cho and N. J. Huang, Coupled fixed point theorems with application, J. Korean Math. Soc.
33 (1996) 575–585.
[11] G. Darbo, Punti uniti in trasformazioni a codominio non compatto, Rend. Sem. Mat. Uni. Padova. 24 (1955)
84–92.
[12] P. Drabek, and J. Milota, Methods Of Nonlinear Analysis, Birkhauser Velgar AG, 2007.
[13] H. Hanche-Olsen, and H. Holden, The Kolmogrov-Riesz compactness theorem. Expo. Math. 28 (2010) 385–394.
[14] K. Kuratowski, Sur les espaces complets, Fund. Math. 15 (1930) 301-309.
[15] T. C. Lim, On characterazations of Meir-Keeler contractive maps, Nonlinear Anal. 46 (2001) 113–120.
[16] A. Meir and E. Keeler, A theorem on contraction mappings, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 28 (1969) 326–329.

View publication stats