10.1515@fca 2019 0027

RESEARCH PAPER
ON FRACTIONAL DIFFERENTIAL INCLUSIONS WITH

NONLOCAL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Charles Castaing 1 , C. Godet-Thobie 2 ,

Phan D. Phung 3 , Le X. Truong 4
Abstract
The main purpose of this paper is to study a class of boundary value

problem governed by a fractional differential inclusion in a separable Ba-
nach space
Eα
D u(t) + λD α−1 u(t) ∈ F (t, u(t), D α−1 u(t)), t ∈ [0, 1]
I0β+ u(t) |t=0 = 0, u(1) = I0γ+ u(1)
in both Bochner and Pettis settings, where α ∈]1, 2], β ∈ [0, 2 − α], λ ≥
0, γ > 0 are given constants, D α is the standard Riemann-Liouville frac-
tional derivative, and F : [0, 1] × E × E → 2E is a closed valued multifunc-
tion. Topological properties of the solution set are presented. Applications
to control problems and subdifferential operators are provided.
MSC 2010 : 26A33, 34A60, 34B10, 34A08, 47N70
Key Words and Phrases: fractional differential inclusion, Young mea-
sures, Bolza and relaxation problem, subdifferential operators
1. Introduction
Fractional differential equations have recently proved to be valuable
tools in the modeling of many phenomena in various fields of science and
engineering. There are numerous applications to viscoelasticity, control,
economics and so forth. Subsequently, there has been a great deal of re-
search on this field, see for examples, [2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 16, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27,

c 2019 Diogenes Co., Sofia
pp. 444–478 , DOI: 10.1515/fca-2019-0027
Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/28/19 3:12 AM
ON FRACTIONAL DIFFERENTIAL INCLUSIONS WITH . . . 445
28, 29, 30, 31, 34] and their references. present work is a contribution in
this direction.
In this paper, we investigate a class of boundary value problem governed
by a fractional differential inclusion (FDI) in a separable Banach space E
in both Bochner and Pettis settings
D α u(t) + λD α−1 u(t) ∈ F (t, u(t), D α−1 u(t)), t ∈ [0, 1] , (1.1)

(t − s)β−1
t
I0β+ u(t) |t=0 := lim u(s)ds = 0,
t→0 0 Γ(β)
1 (1.2)
γ (1 − s)γ−1
u(1) = I0+ u(1) = u(s)ds,
Γ(γ)
0
where α ∈]1, 2], β ∈ [0, 2 − α], λ ≥ 0, γ > 0 are given constants, D α is the
standard Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative, Γ is the gamma function
and F : [0, 1] × E × E → 2E is a closed valued multifunction.
In the present study we provide several new results in (FDI), with ap-
plication to Bolza and Relaxation problem in Optimal Control with Young
measure using new tools and subtle techniques. This paper is organized as
follows. In Section 2 we introduce some notions and recall some definitions
and needed results. In particular, we provide some results for the fractional
calculus in the Bochner and Pettis contexts. In Section 3 we provide exis-
tence results of solutions and topological properties of the solution set to
(1.1) in the Bochner setting. Section 4 is devoted to solutions and topolog-
ical properties of the solution set to (1.1) in the Pettis setting. In Section
5 we present an application to relaxation problem in optimal control gov-
erned by fractional differential equation (FDE) involving Young measure
[5, 24, 13]. A new application to fractional inclusion involving subdifferen-
tial operators is provided. We stress that the study of (1.1) in both Bochner
and Pettis settings is fairly general and new. One can find an important
literature in this topic in the case of the inclusion D α u(t) ∈ F (t, u(t)). In
the contrary, very few studies are available in the case of the inclusion (1.1).
2. Notations and Preliminaries

2.1. Some notations. Let E be a separable Banach space and E ∗ be its
topological dual. For the convenience of the reader, we state here several
notations that will be used in the sequel:
- B E : the closed unit ball of E,
- L([0, 1]) : the σ algebra of Lebesgue measurable sets on [0, 1],
- B(E) : the σ algebra of Borel subsets of E,

Authenticated
446 C. Castaing, C. Godet-Thobie, P.D. Phung, L.X. Truong
- L1E ([0, 1]) : the Banach space of all Lebesgue-Bochner integrable

E-valued functions defined on [0, 1],
- CE ([0, 1]) : the Banach space of all continuous functions f from
[0, 1] into E endowed with the norm f ∞ = supt∈[0,1] f (t).
- c(E) : the set of all nonempty, closed subsets of E,
- cc(E) : the set of all nonempty, closed and convex subsets of E,
- ck(E) : the set of all nonempty, compact and convex subsets of E,
- cwk(E) : the set of all nonempty, weakly compact and convex sub-
sets of E,
- bc(E) : the set of all nonempty bounded closed subsets of E,
- d(x, A) : the distance of a point x of E to a subset A of E, that is
d(x, A) = inf {x − y : y ∈ A} .
- dH (A, B) : the Hausdorff distance between two subsets A and B of
E, defined by dH (A, B) = max {supa∈A d(a, B), supb∈B d(b, A)} .
2.2. Fractional calculus.
Definition 2.1 (Fractional Bochner integral). Let f : [0, 1] → E. The

fractional Bochner-integral of order α > 0 of the function f is defined by
t
α (t − s)α−1
Ia+ f (t) := f (s)ds, t > a.
a Γ(α)

In the above definition, the sign “ ” denotes the Bochner integral. We
recall that f : A → E is Bochner integrable if there exists a sequence of
fn : A → E such that limn→∞ fn = f almost everywhere
simple functions
and limn→∞ A fn − f ds = 0. See [20] for more explanations.
Lemma 2.1 ([31]). Let f ∈ L1E ([0, 1]). We have

(i) If α ∈]0, 1[ then I α f exists almost everywhere on [0, 1] and I α f ∈
L1E ([0, 1]).
(ii) If α ∈ [1, ∞), then I α f ∈ CE ([0, 1]).
Definition 2.2. Let f ∈ L1E (I). We define the Riemann-Liouville

fractional derivative of order α > 0 of f by
t
α α dn n−α dn (t − s)n−α−1
D f (t) := D0+ f (t) = n I0+ f (t) = n f (s)ds,
dt dt 0 Γ(n − α)
where n = [α] + 1.
In the case E ≡ R, we have the following well-known results.

Authenticated
Lemma 2.2 ([30, 27]). Let α > 0. The general solution of the fractional
differential equation D α x(t) = 0 is given by
x(t) = c1 tα−1 + c2 tα−2 + · · · + cN tα−N , (2.1)
where ci ∈ R, i = 1, 2, ..., N (N is the smallest integer greater than or
equal to α).
Remark 2.1. Since D0α+ I0α+ v(t) = v(t), for every v ∈ C([0, 1]), we
have D0α+ [I0α+ D0α+ x(t) − x(t)] = 0 and by Lemma 2.2, it follows that
x(t) = I0α+ D0α+ x(t) + c1 tα−1 + · · · + cN tα−N , (2.2)
for some ci ∈ R, i = 1, 2, ..., N .
α,1
We denote by WB,E ([0, 1]) the space of all continuous functions in
CE ([0, 1]) such that their Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative of order
α − 1 are continuous and their Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative of
order α are Bochner integrable.
2.3. Green function and its properties. Let α ∈]1, 2], β ∈ [0, 2 −
α], λ ≥ 0, γ > 0 and G : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → R be a function defined by
⎧
⎨ exp(λs)Isα−1 + (exp(−λt)), 0 ≤ s ≤ t ≤ 1,
α−1
G(t, s) = ϕ(s)I0+ (exp(−λt))+
⎩
0, 0 ≤ t ≤ s ≤ 1,
(2.3)
where
exp(λs) α−1+γ

ϕ(s) = Is + (exp(−λt)) (1) − Isα−1 + (exp(−λt)) (1) (2.4)
μ0
with
α−1+γ
μ0 = I0α−1
+ (exp(−λt)) (1) − I 0+
(exp(−λt)) (1). (2.5)
Lemma 2.3. Let G be the function defined by (2.3)-(2.5).

(i) G(·, ·) satisfies the following estimate

1 1 + Γ(γ + 1)
|G(t, s)| ≤ + 1 = MG .
Γ(α) |μ0 |Γ(α)Γ(γ + 1)
α,1
(ii) If u ∈ WB,E ([0, 1]) satisfying boundary conditions (1.2), then
1

u(t) = G(t, s) D α u (s) + λD α−1 u(s) ds for every t ∈ [0, 1].
0

Authenticated
(iii) Let f ∈ L1E ([0, 1]) and uf : [0, 1] → E be the function defined by
1
uf (t) := G(t, s)f (s)ds for t ∈ [0, 1].
0

Then, I0+ uf (t) |t=0 = 0 and uf (1) = I0γ+ uf (1).
β
α,1
Moreover uf ∈ WB,E ([0, 1]) and for t ∈ [0, 1],
t 1

D α−1 uf (t) = exp(−λ(t − s))f (s)ds + exp(−λt) ϕ(s)f (s)ds, (2.6)
0 0

α
(D uf ) (t) + λ D α−1
uf (t) = f (t) for all t ∈ [0, 1]. (2.7)
P r o o f. (i) For 0 ≤ s ≤ t ≤ 1, we have

tα−1 1
+ (exp(−λt))(t) ≤ exp(−λs)Is+ (1)(t) ≤ I0+ (1)(t) =
Isα−1 ≤
α−1 α−1
Γ(α) Γ(α)
1
+ (exp(−λt))(t) ≤ Is+ (1)(t) ≤
exp(λs)Isα−1 α−1
and Γ(α) .
Hence, from (2.3) we deduce

1
|G(t, s)| ≤ (|ϕ(s)| + 1) for t, s ∈ [0, 1]. (2.8)
Γ(α)
On the other hand, since

exp(λs)Isα−1+γ
+ (exp(−λt))(1) = Isγ+ exp(λs)Isα−1 + (exp(−λt)) (1)

γ 1 1
≤ Is + (1) ≤ ,
Γ(α) Γ(α)Γ(γ + 1)
so that
1 1 1
|ϕ(s)| ≤ + . (2.9)
|μ0 | Γ(α)Γ(γ + 1) Γ(α)
From (2.8) and (2.9) we obtain

1 1 + Γ(γ + 1)
|G(t, s)| ≤ + 1 =: MG .
Γ(α) |μ0 |Γ(α)Γ(γ + 1)
(ii) Let x∗ ∈ E ∗ and let t ∈ [0, 1] be arbitrary.
α,1
Since u ∈ WB,E ([0, 1]), by Remark 2.1 following Lemma 2.2,

x∗ , u(t) = c0 tα−2 + I0α−1
+ D
α−1

x∗ , u(t) . (2.10)
So,

x∗ , I0β+ u(t) = I0β+
x∗ , u(t) = c0 I0β+ (tα−2 ) + I0α+β−1
+ D α−1
x∗ , u(t) .
Since α + β ≤ 2 and

Authenticated

tα+β−2 1
I0β+ (tα−2 )
= (1 − s)β−1 sα−2 ds,
Γ(β) 0
it follows from the first condition of (1.2), that c0 = 0 and (2.10) becomes

x∗ , u(t) = I0α−1
+ D
α−1

x∗ , u(t) . (2.11)
∗ ∗
∗

Put v(t) := D
x , u(t)+λD
α α−1
x , u(t). Then, dt exp(λt)D
d α−1
x , u(t)
= exp(λt)v(t), and hence
D α−1
x∗ , u(t) = c1 exp(−λt) + exp(−λt)I01+ (exp(λt)v(t)) , (2.12)
where c1 ∈ R. Combining (2.11) and (2.12) implies that

x∗ , u(t) = c1 I0α−1 α−1
+ (exp(−λt)) + I0+ exp(−λt)I01+ (exp(λt)v(t)) (2.13)
and
∗ γ
x , I0+ u(t) = c1 I0α+γ−1
+ (exp(−λt))+ I0α+γ−1
+ exp(−λt)I01+ (exp(λt)v(t)) .
Using the second condition of (1.2) u(1) = I0γ+ u(1), we obtain

+ (exp(−λt)) (1) −
c1 I0α−1 I0α+γ−1
+ (exp(−λt)) (1) = c1 μ0

= I0α+γ−1
+ exp(−λt)I01+ (exp(λt)v(t)) (1)

−I0α−1
+ exp(−λt)I01+ (exp(λt)v(t)) (1).
By the definition of ϕ, we can write
1
μ0 ϕ(s)v(s)ds
0
1

= exp(λs) Isα+γ−1
+ (exp(−λt)) (1) − Isα−1 + (exp(−λt)) (1) v(s)ds,
0

= I0α+γ−1
+ exp(−λt)I01+ (exp(λt)v(t)) (1)

− I0α−1
+ exp(−λt)I01+ (exp(λt)v(t)) (1),
that is 1
c1 = ϕ(s)v(s)ds. (2.14)
0
On the other hand, by (2.14),
1 1

x∗ , G(t, s) D α u(s) + λD α−1 u(s) ds = G(t, s)v(s)ds
0 0
1 t
= I0α−1
+ (exp(−λt)) ϕ(s)v(s)ds + exp(λs)Isα−1
+ (exp(−λt))v(s)ds
0 0

= c1 I0α−1 α−1
+ (exp(−λt)) + I0+ exp(−λt)I01+ (exp(λt)v(t)) . (2.15)
And thanks to (2.13) we obtain, for every x∗ ∈ E ∗ ,

Authenticated
1
∗ ∗

x , u(t) = x , α
G(t, s) D u(s) + λD α−1
u(s) ds .
0
This implies
1

u(t) = G(t, s) D α u(s) + λD α−1 u(s) ds for t ∈ [0, 1],
0
as claimed.
(iii) From the definition in (2.3) we have
1
uf (t) = G(t, s)f (s)ds
0
1 t
= I0α−1
+ (exp(−λt)) ϕ(s)f (s)ds + exp(λs)Isα−1
+ (exp(−λt))f (s)ds
0 0
1
α−1
= I0+ (exp(−λt)) ϕ(s)f (s)ds + I0α−1 ˜
+ f (t), (2.16)
0 t
where
f˜(t) = exp(−λ(t − s))f (s)ds. (2.17)
0
Since f ∈ L1E ([0, 1]), it is easy to see that uf ∈ WB,E
α,1
([0, 1]). Moreover,
1
α−1 ˜
uf (1) = ϕ(s)f (s)ds I0α−1
+ (exp(−λt))(1) + I0+ f (1),
0 1
I0γ+ uf (t) = ϕ(s)f (s)ds I0α−1+γ
+ (exp(−λt)) + I0α−1+γ
+ f˜(t),
0
and then 1
γ
I0+ uf (1) = ϕ(s)f (s)ds I0α−1+γ
+ (exp(−λt))(1) + I0α−1+γ
+ f˜(1).
0
From (2.4)–(2.5) and (2.17), we have
1
γ
I0+ uf (1) − uf (1) = −μ0 ϕ(s)f (s)ds + I0α−1+γ
+ f˜(1) − I0α−1 ˜
+ f (1).
0
1
It is easy to obtain 0 ϕ(s)f (s)ds = μ10 (I0α−1+γ + f˜(1)−I0α−1 ˜
+ f (1)). So we note
γ
that uf (1) = I0+ uf (1).
∗ ∗
Now let x ∈ E be arbitrary, then it follows from (2.16) that
x∗ , I0β+ uf (t) = I−0 β ∗
+
x , uf (t)
1
= I0+α−1+β
(exp(−λt)) ϕ(s)
x∗ , f (s) ds + I0α−1+β
+ x ∗ ˜
, f (t) .
0

This shows that limt→0+ x∗ , I β uf (t) = 0 for all x∗ ∈ E ∗ , and as a conse-
quence, I β uf (t) |t=0 = 0.
It remains to check the equalities (2.6), (2.7). For x∗ ∈ E ∗ , we have

Authenticated

x∗ , D α−1 uf (t) = D α−1
x∗ , uf (t)
1
= exp(−λt) ϕ(s)
x∗ , f (s) ds + x∗ , f˜(t)
0
1
∗ ˜
= x , exp(−λt) ϕ(s)f (s)ds + f (t) ,
0
for all t ∈ [0, 1], and then (2.6) follows. Further, from this we get
1
∗ ∗ d ˜

x , D uf (t) = x , −λ exp(−λt)
α
ϕ(s)f (s)ds + f (t)
0 dt
1 t
= x∗ , −λ exp(−λt) ϕ(s)f (s)ds − λ exp(λ(t − s))f (s)ds + f (t) .
0 0
Therefore,
1
D uf (t) = −λ exp(−λt)
α
ϕ(s)f (s)ds
0
t
−λ exp(λ(t − s))f (s)ds + f (t) (2.18)
0
for all t ∈ [0, 1]. From (2.6), (2.18), we deduce (2.7). The proof of the
lemma is complete. 2
Remark 2.2. From Lemma 2.3, we can claim that if

1
uf (t) = G(t, s)f (s)ds, f ∈ L1E ([0, 1]),
0
then, for all t ∈ [0, 1],
α−1
uf (t) ≤ MG f L1 ([0,1]) , D uf (t) ≤ MG f L1 ([0,1]) . (2.19)
E E
Indeed, by Lemma 2.3-(i) it suffices to prove that

α−1
D uf (t) ≤ MG f L1 ([0,1]) .
E
α−1 1
It follows from (2.6) that D
uf (t) ≤ 0 (1 + |ϕ(s)|)|f (s)|ds. This, in

combining with (2.9), gives D α−1 uf (t) ≤ Γ(α)MG f L1 ([0,1]) and, since
E
α ∈]1, 2], implies our conclusion.
3. Topological structure of the solution set

From Lemma 2.3 we summarize a crucial fact.
Lemma 3.1. Let f ∈ L1E ([0, 1]). Then the boundary value problem

Authenticated

D α u(t) + λD α−1 u(t) = f (t), t ∈ [0, 1]
I0β+ u(t) |t=0 = 0, u(1) = I0γ+ u(1)
α,1
has a unique WB,E ([0, 1])-solution defined by
1
u(t) = G(t, s)f (s)ds, t ∈ [0, 1].
0
3.1. The nonconvex case. Now we will establish the theorem for exis-
tence of the solutions to problem (1.1)−(1.2) by applying the Covitz-Nadler
fixed point theorem [19].
Theorem 3.1. Let F : [0, 1] × E × E → c (E) be a closed valued

multifunction satisfying the following conditions
(A1) F is L([0, 1]) ⊗ B(E) ⊗ B(E)-measurable,
(A2) There are positive functions 1 , 2 ∈ L1R ([0, 1]) with MG 1 + 2 1 <
1 such that
dH (F (t, x1 , y1 ) , F (t, x2 , y2 )) ≤ 1 (t) x1 − x2 + 2 (t) y1 − y2 ,
for every (t, x1 , y1 ) , (t, x2 , y2 ) ∈ [0, 1] × E × E.
(A3) The function t → sup {a : a ∈ F (t, 0, 0)} is integrable.
α,1
Then the problem (1.1) − (1.2) has at least one solution in WB,E ([0, 1]).
P r o o f. First, for each h ∈ L1E ([0, 1]), we set

1
uh (t) = G(t, s)h(s)ds, t ∈ [0, 1]
0
α,1
and recall that uh ∈ WB,E ([0, 1]). We consider the set-valued maps
t → F (t, uh (t), D α−1 uh (t)), t ∈ [0, 1]

h → Γ(h) := f ∈ L1E ([0, 1]) : f (t) ∈ F (t, uh (t), D α−1 uh (t)), a.e. t .
(3.1)
Actually Γ(h) is the set of integrable selections of the multifunction t →
F (t, uh (t), D α−1 uh (t)). By means of Lemma 2.3, a function h ∈ L1E ([0, 1])
is a fixed point of h → Γ(h) if and only if uh is a solution of (1.1) − (1.2).
Step 1. Γ is well-defined. Indeed, assume h ∈ L1E ([0, 1]). We note
that, by assumption (A1), the multifunction t → F (t, uh (t), D α−1 uh (t))
is measurable and closed-valued on [0, 1]. This implies from the standard
measurable selections theorem [15] that t → F (t, uh (t), D α−1 uh (t)) admits

Authenticated
a measurable selection z. Therefore, for almost every t ∈ [0, 1], we have

z (t) ≤ sup {a : a ∈ F (t, 0, 0)} + dH F (t, 0, 0), F (t, uh (t), D α−1 uh (t))

≤ sup {a : a ∈ F (t, 0, 0)} + 1 (t) uh (t) + 2 (t) D α−1 uh (t)
≤ sup {a : a ∈ F (t, 0, 0)} + MG (1 (t) + 2 (t)) hL1 ([0,1]) .
E
by using the estimation (2.19). It follows from assumption (A3) that z ∈

L1E ([0, 1]) and then Γ (h) is nonempty.
Step 2. The map Γ : L1E ([0, 1]) → c(L1E ([0, 1])) is a closed valued multi-
1
valued contraction with respect to the Hausdorff distance dL H on closed
subsets of L1E ([0, 1]). It suffices to show that there exists some θ ∈ [0, 1) for
1 1
which dLH (Γ(h), Γ(g)) ≤ θ h − gL1E ([0,1]) . for all h, g ∈ LE ([0, 1]).
To do this, let f ∈ Γ(h) and ε > 0 be arbitrary. By the standard mea-
surable selections theorem [15], there exists a Lebesgue-measurable map-
ping ϕ : [0, 1] → E such that ϕ(t) ∈ F (t, ug (t), D α−1 ug (t)) for all t ∈ [0, 1]
and that

ϕ (t) − f (t) ≤ d f (t), F (t, ug (t), D α−1 ug (t) + ε,
for all t ∈ [0, 1]. As f ∈ Γ(h) we have

ϕ (t) − f (t) ≤ dH F (t, uh (t), D α−1 uh (t)), F (t, ug (t), D α−1 ug (t)) + ε
≤ 1 (t) ug (t) − uh (t)

+2 (t) D α−1 ug (t) − D α−1 uh (t) + ε,
for all t ∈ [0, 1]. From the estimation (2.19), we deduce that
ϕ − f L1 ([0,1]) ≤ MG 1 + 2 L1 (I) g − hL1 ([0,1]) + ε,
E R E
and hence
sup inf ||f − v||L1 ([0,1]) ≤ MG 1 + 2 1 g − hL1 ([0,1]) + ε.
E E
f ∈Γ(h) v∈Γ(g)
Since this holds for ε arbitrary, we have

sup inf ||f − v||L1 ([0,1]) ≤ MG 1 + 2 1 g − hL1 ([0,1]) .
E E
f ∈Γ(h) v∈Γ(g)
By interchanging the variables g, h we obtain

1 1
H (Γ(g), Γ(h)) ≤ MG 1 + 2 1 g − hL1 ([0,1]) , ∀g, h ∈ LE ([0, 1]) .
dL
E
Since θ := MG 1 + 2 1 < 1 by assumption (A2), Γ is a contractive map.

Applying the Covitz-Nadler’s theorem [19] to the contractive multivalued
map Γ shows that Γ has a fixed point. The proof is complete. 2

Authenticated
Theorem 3.2. Let F : [0, 1]×E ×E → bc(E) be a bounded closed val-

ued multifunction satisfying assumptions (A1)-(A3) in Theorem 3.1. Then
α,1
the WB,E ([0, 1])-solution set S for problem (1.1) − (1.2) is a retract in the
α,1
Banach space WB,E ([0, 1]), endowed with the norm

uW = u∞ + D α−1 u∞ + D α uL1 ([0,1]) .
E
P r o o f. As F has nonempty bounded closed values, it follows from

Theorem 3.1 that the multifunction Γ : L1E ([0, 1]) → c(L1E ([0, 1])) defined
by (3.1) is a contractive map having the nonempty, bounded, closed and
decomposable values in L1E ([0, 1]). Then, applying [9, Theorem 1] the set
Fix(Γ) of fixed points of Γ is a retract in L1E ([0, 1]). That means there
exists a retraction ψ : L1E ([0, 1]) → Fix(Γ); that is: ψ is a continuous map
whose restriction on Fix(Γ) is the identity. Let us define a map
α,1
Φ : WB,E ([0, 1]) → S
α,1
by setting, for u ∈ WB,E ([0, 1]), that
1

Φ(u)(t) = G(t, s)ψ D α u + λD α−1 u (s)ds, t ∈ [0, 1]. (3.2)
0
It is well-defined. Indeed, it follows from Lemma 2.3 that

D α (Φu) + λD α−1 (Φu) = ψ D α u + λD α−1 u (3.3)
almost everywhere, so that D α (Φu) + λD α−1 (Φu) ∈ Fix(Γ), and hence,
Φu ∈ S. Moreover, by the retraction property of ψ and Lemma 2.3, we can
deduce that Φ(u) = u for all u ∈ S.
α,1
It remains to show that Φ is continuous. Indeed, let u ∈ WB,E ([0, 1])
1
and ε > 0 be arbitrary given. From the continuity of ψ on LE ([0, 1]) there
is some δ > 0 such that

ψ(h) − ψ(D α u + λD α−1 u) 1 <ε
LE ([0,1])

whence h ∈ L1E ([0, 1]) with h − (D α u + λD α−1 u)L1 ([0,1]) < δ. Then, for
E
α,1
every v ∈ WB,E ([0, 1]) satisfying u − vW < 1+λ δ
we have
α
(D v + λD α−1 v) − (D α u + λD α−1 u) 1
LE ([0,1])
α−1
≤ D v − D uL1 ([0,1]) + λ D
α α
v − D α−1 uL1 ([0,1])
E E
δ δ
< +λ = δ,
1+λ 1+λ
so that

Authenticated
α
D (Φv) + λD α−1 (Φv) − (D α (Φu) + λD α−1 (Φu)) 1
LE ([0,1])

α
= ψ(D v + λD α−1
v) − ψ(D u + λD
α α−1
u) L1 ([0,1]) < ε. (3.4)
E
Therefore, it deduces from (3.2) and (2.19) that
Φ (v) (t) − Φ (u) (t)

≤ MG ψ(D α v + λD α−1 v) − ψ(D α u + λD α−1 u) L1E ([0,1])
< MG ε, (3.5)
and
α−1
D Φ (v) (t) − D α−1 Φ (u) (t)

≤ MG ψ(D α v + λD α−1 v) − ψ(D α u + λD α−1 u) L1E ([0,1])
< MG ε, (3.6)
for all t ∈ [0, 1]. Moreover, from (3.4) and (3.6) we get
D α (Φv) − D α (Φu)L1 ([0,1])

E

≤ D α (Φv) + λD α−1 (Φv) − (D α (Φu) + λD α−1 (Φu))L1 ([0,1])
E
+ λ D α−1 (Φv) − D α−1 (Φu)L1 ([0,1]) < ε + λMG ε. (3.7)

E
Combining (3.5)–(3.7) we obtain
Φ (v) (t) − Φ (u) (t)W < (1 + 2MG + λMG )ε,
that is, Φ is continuous as claimed. The proof is thus complete. 2
3.2. The convex case. We summarize at first some needed results. Let
E be a Banach space and let B E be the closed unit ball of E.
Lemma 3.2. Let H ⊂ E be a subset of a Banach space E such that for

each ε > 0, there is a weakly compact subset K such that H ⊂ K + εB E .
Then H is relatively weakly compact in E.
P r o o f. See Grothendiek ([25], p. 296). 2
Lemma 3.3. Assume that Q ⊂ CE ([0, 1]) is bounded equicontinuous

such that Q(t) is relatively weakly compact in E for each t ∈ [0, 1], then Q
is relatively weakly compact in CE ([0, 1]).
P r o o f. The proof can be made by using Lemma 3.2 and the measure
of weak noncompactness [1, 8]. See the proof in [32] Theorem 2.8. 2
Now we proceed to the study of (FDI) of the form

Authenticated

D α u(t) + λD α−1 u(t) ∈ F (t, u(t), D α−1 u(t)), t ∈ [0, 1] (3.8)
I0β+ u(t) |t=0 = 0, u(1) = I0γ+ u(1)
where F is a convex weakly compact valued mapping.
This following result is useful in the study of the (FDI) (3.8).
Theorem 3.3. Let X : [0, 1] → E be a convex weakly compact valued

measurable and integrably bounded mapping (i.e.|X| ∈ L1R ([0, 1]). Then
α,1
the WB,E ([0, 1])-solutions set of problem

D α u(t) + λD α−1 u(t) ∈ X(t), a.e. t ∈ [0, 1]
(3.9)
I0β+ u(t) |t=0 = 0, u(1) = I0γ+ u(1)
is weakly compact in CE ([0, 1]).
α,1
P r o o f. By virtue of Lemma 3.1, the WB,E ([0, 1])-solutions set X to
the above inclusion is characterized by
1
1
X = {uf : [0, 1] → E, uf (t) = G(t, s)f (s)ds, f ∈ SX , t ∈ [0, 1]}.
0
Claim: X is bounded, convex, equicontinuous and weakly compact in

CE ([0, 1]).
From the definition of the Green function G, it is not difficult to show
that {uf : f ∈ SX 1 } is bounded, equicontinuous in C ([0, 1]). Indeed let
E
(ufn ) be a sequence in X . We note that, for each n ∈ N, we have ufn ∈
α,1 1
WB,E ([0, 1]), and ufn (t) = 0 G(t, s)fn (s)ds, t ∈ [0, 1],
with I0β+ ufn (t)|t=0 = 0, ufn (1) = I0γ+ u(1),
t 1

D α−1 ufn (t) = exp(−λ(t − s))fn (s)ds + exp(−λt) ϕ(s)fn (s)ds,
0 0
(D α ufn ) (t) + λ D α−1 ufn (t) = fn (t), t ∈ [0, 1].
For t1 , t2 ∈ [0, 1], t1 < t2 , we have, using (2.16),
1
ufn (t2 ) − ufn (t1 ) = G(t, s)(fn (t2 , s) − fn (t1 , s))ds
0
1 t1
(t2 − τ )α−2 − (t1 − τ )α−2
= φ(s)f (s)ds e−λτ dτ
0 0 Γ(α − 1)
t2
(t2 − τ )α−2
+ e−λτ dτ
t1 Γ(α − 1)

Authenticated

t1
λs
t1
(t2 − τ )α−2 − (t1 − τ )α−2
−λτ
+ e e dτ f (s)ds
0 s Γ(α − 1)
t1 t2
−λτ (t2 − τ )
α−2
λs
+ e e dτ f (s)ds
0 t1 Γ(α − 1)
t2 t2
λs (t2 − τ )α−2 −λτ
+ e e dτ f (s)ds.
t1 s Γ(α − 1)
Then, we get
1
ufn (t2 ) − ufn (t1 ) ≤ |ϕ(s)| + eλs |X(s)|ds

0
t1
(t1 − τ )α−2 − (t2 − τ )α−2
× e−λτ dτ
0 Γ(α − 1)
1
t2
(t2 − τ )α−2
+ |ϕ(s)| + eλs |X(s)|ds e−λτ dτ
0 t1 Γ(α − 1)
t2 t2
(t2 − τ )α−2
+ eλs |X(s)|ds e−λτ dτ.
t1 t1 Γ(α − 1)
It is easy to obtain, after an integration by part, that
t2 t2
−λτ (t2 − τ ) −λt1 (t2 − t1 ) (t2 − τ )α−1
α−2 α−2
e dτ = e +λ e−λτ dτ
t1 Γ(α − 1) Γ(α) t1 Γ(α)
1+λ
≤ (t2 − t1 )α−1 ,
Γ(α)
and
t1 t1
(t1 − τ )α−2 − (t2 − τ )α−2 (t1 − τ )α−2 − (t2 − τ )α−2
e−λτ dτ ≤ dτ
0 Γ(α − 1) 0 Γ(α − 1)
(t2 − t1 )α−1 + tα−1
1 − tα−1
2
= .
Γ(α)
Using the inequality that |ap −bp | ≤ |a−b|p for all a, b ≥ 0 and 0 < p ≤ 1,
we yield
t1
(t2 − τ )α−2 − (t1 − τ )α−2 2
e−λτ dτ ≤ (t2 − t1 )α−1 .
0 Γ(α − 1) Γ(α)
Then, since α ∈]1, 2], we can increase ufn (t2 ) − ufn (t1 ) by
ufn (t2 ) − ufn (t1 ) ≤ K|t2 − t1 |α−1
1
with K = 0 (3 + λ)|φ(s)| + (4 + 2λ)eλs |X(s)|ds.
This shows that {ufn : n ∈ N} is equicontinuous in CE ([0, 1]). More-
over, for each t ∈ [0, 1] the set {ufn (t) : n ∈ N}, is contained in the convex

Authenticated
1
weakly compact set 0 G(t, s)X(s)ds [13, 15] so that X is relatively weakly
compact in CE ([0, 1]) as claimed. So, we can assume that
w- lim ufn = u∞ ∈ CE ([0, 1]).
n→∞
1 is σ(L1 , L∞ )-compact e.g [13] we may assume that (f ) σ(L1 , L∞ )-
As SX E E∗ n E E∗
converges to f∞ ∈ SX 1 . so that u weakly converges to u in C ([0, 1])
1 fn f∞ E
where uf∞ (t) = 0 G(t, s)f∞ (s)ds and so for every t ∈ [0, 1],
1
u∞ (t) = w- lim ufn (t) = w- lim G(t, s)fn (s)ds
n→∞ n→∞ 0
1
= G(t, s)f∞ (s)ds = uf∞ (t),
0
and

t
w- lim D α−1 ufn (t) = w- lim exp(−λ(t − s))fn (s)ds
n→∞ n→∞ 0
1
+ exp(−λt) ϕ(s)fn (s)ds
0
t 1
= exp(−λ(t − s))f∞ (s)ds + exp(−λt) ϕ(s)f∞ (s)ds
0 0

= D α−1 uf∞ (t), t ∈ [0, 1].
This means u∞ ∈ X , and the proof of the theorem is complete. 2
Remark 3.1. In the course of the proof of Theorem 3.3 we have proven
the continuous dependence of the mappings f → uf and f → D α−1 uf on
the convex σ(L1E , L∞ 1
E ∗ )-compact set SX . This fact has some importance in
further applications.
Theorem 3.4. Let X : [0, 1] → cwk(E) be a convex weakly compact

valued measurable and integrably bounded mapping. Let F : [0, 1] × Eσ ×
Eσ → cwk(E) be a convex weakly compact valued mapping satisfying:
(1) F is scalarly Lλ ([0, 1]) ⊗ B(Eσ ) ⊗ B(Eσ )-measurable, since E is a
separable Banach space, B(Eσ ) = B(E), i.e., for each x∗ ∈ E ∗ , the scalar
function δ∗ (x∗ , F (., ., .)) is Lλ ([0, 1]) ⊗ B(Eσ ) ⊗ B(Eσ )-measurable,
(2) The mapping F (t, ., .) is scalarly sequentially upper semicontinu-
ous, i.e., for each t ∈ [0, 1] and for each x∗ ∈ E ∗ , the scalar function
δ∗ (x∗ , F (t, ., .)) is sequentially upper semicontinuous on Eσ × Eσ ,
(3) F (t, x, y) ⊂ X(t) for all (t, x, y) ∈ [0, 1] × E × E.

Authenticated
α,1
Then the WB,E ([0, 1])-solutions set to the (FDI)
α
D u(t) ∈ F (t, u(t), D α−1 u(t)), t ∈ [0, 1]
(3.11)
I0β+ u(t) |t=0 = 0, u(1) = I0γ+ u(1)
is weakly compact in the space CE ([0, 1]).
1 let us define
P r o o f. Step 1: Existence: For each h ∈ SX
Φ(h) = {f ∈ L1E [0, 1] : f (t) ∈ F (t, uh (t), D α−1 uh (t)), a.e. t ∈ [0, 1]} (3.12)
where 1
uh (t) = G(t, s)h(s)ds, t ∈ [0, 1]. (3.13)
0
Taking account of (1), (2), (3) it is clear that Φ(h) is nonempty with
Φ(h) ⊂ SX 1 . In fact Φ(h) is the set of integrable selections of the convex
weakly compact valued mapping Kh (t) := F (t, uh (t), D α−1 uh (t)), t ∈ [0, 1].
From Lemma 3.1 and (3.12) it is clear that any fixed point of Φ consti-
tutes a WB,E α,1
([0, 1])-solution to (3.11). We show that Φ : SX 1 → S 1 is
X
a convex σ(L1E , L∞ E ∗ )-compact valued upper semicontinuous mapping. By
weak compactness, it is enough to show that the graph of Φ is sequentially
σ(L1E , L∞ 1 ∞
E ∗ )-closed. Let fn ∈ Φ(hn ) such that (hn ) σ(LE , LE ∗ )-converges to
h ∈ SX 1 and (f ) σ(L1 , L∞ )-converges to f ∈ S 1 . We need to show that
n E E∗ X
f ∈ Φ(h). By (3.12) and the remark of the proof of Theorem 3.3 we have
that uhn (t) → uh (t) and that D α−1 uhn (t) → D α−1 uh (t) for each t ∈ [0, 1],
for E endowed with the weak topology. Now from
fn (t) ∈ F (t, uhn (t), D α−1 uhn (t)), a.e. t ∈ [0, 1],
we deduce

1A (t)x∗ , fn (t) ≤ δ∗ (1A (t)x∗ , F (t, uhn (t), D α−1 uhn (t))) a.e. t ∈ [0, 1]
for each A ∈ Lλ ([0, 1]) and for each x∗ ∈ E ∗ so that by integrating

∗

x , fn (t)dt ≤ δ∗ (x∗ , F (t, uhn (t), D α−1 uhn (t)))dt.
A A
Thus we have
lim
x∗ , fn (t)dt =
x∗ , f (t)dt
n
A A
∗ ∗
≤ lim sup δ (x , F (t, uhn (t), D α−1 uhn (t)))dt
n A
≤ lim sup δ∗ (x∗ , F (t, uhn (t), D α−1 uhn (t)))dt

A n
≤ δ∗ (x∗ , F (t, uh (t), D α−1 uh (t)))dt.

A

Authenticated
Whence we get

∗

x , f (t)dt ≤ δ∗ (x∗ , F (t, uh (t), D α−1 uh (t)))dt
A A
for every A ∈ Lλ ([0, 1]). Consequently,

x∗ , f (t) ≤ δ∗ (x∗ , F (t, uh (t), D α−1 uh (t))) a.e.
By taking a dense sequence (e∗k ) in E ∗ with respect to the Mackey topology
τ (E ∗ , E), we get

e∗k , f (t) ≤ δ∗ (e∗k , F (t, uh (t), D α−1 uh (t))) a.e.
for all k ∈ N, by ([15], Prop. III.35) we get finally
f (t) ∈ F (t, uh (t), D α−1 uh (t)) a.e.
Apply the Kakutani-Ky Fan fixed point theorem to the convex σ(L1E , L∞ E ∗ )-
compact valued upper semicontinuous mapping Φ shows that Φ admits a
α,1
fixed point, h ∈ Φ(h), thus proving the existence of the WB,E -solutions to
the (FDI ) (3.11).
Step 2: Weak compactness: It follows easily from the above arguments
and the weak compactness in CE ([0, 1]) of
1 1 , t ∈ [0, 1]}
X = {uf : [0, 1] → E, uf (t) = 0 G(t, s)f (s)ds, f ∈ SX
given in Theorem 3.3. 2
Theorem 3.5. Let X : [0, 1] → ck(E) be a convex compact val-

α,1
ued measurable and integrably bounded mapping. Then the WB,E ([0, 1])-
solution set of problem
α
D u(t) + λD α−1 u(t) ∈ X(t) t ∈ [0, 1]
I0β+ u(t) |t=0 = 0, u(1) = I0γ+ u(1)
is nonempty and compact in CE ([0, 1]).
α,1
P r o o f. In view of Lemma 2.3, the WB,E ([0, 1])-solution set is nonempty

1 , with S 1 stood for the set of
and characterized by X = uf : f ∈ SX X
Bochner integrable selections of X. So, it is sufficient to prove that X is
compact.
Let (ufn ) be a sequence in X . It is note that, for each n ∈ N, we have
α,1 1
ufn ∈ WB,E ([0, 1]) and ufn (t) = 0 G(t, s)fn (s)ds, t ∈ [0, 1], with
• I0β+ ufn (t)|t=0 = 0, ufn (1) = I0γ+ u(1),
t 1

• D α−1 ufn (t) = exp(−λ(t−s))fn (s)ds+exp(−λt) ϕ(s)fn (s)ds,
0 0
t ∈ [0, 1],
• (D α ufn ) (t) + λ D α−1 ufn (t) = fn (t), a.e. t ∈ [0, 1].

Authenticated
First we show that {ufn : n ∈ N} is relatively compact in CE ([0, 1]). By a

calculus identical to that of the proof of Theorem (3.3), we obtain
ufn (t2 ) − ufn (t1 ) ≤ K|t2 − t1 |α−1
1
with K = 0 (3 + λ)|φ(s)| + (4 + 2λ)eλs |X(s)|ds.
This shows that {ufn : n ∈ N} is equicontinuous in CE ([0, 1]). More-
over, for each t ∈ [0, 1] the set {ufn (t) : n ∈ N}, is contained in the con-
1
vex compact set 0 G(t, s)X(s)ds ([10]). Therefore, thanks to the Arzela-
Ascoli theorem, the family of functions {ufn : n ∈ N} is relatively compact
in CE ([0, 1]) as claimed. So, we can assume that
lim ufn = u∞ ∈ CE ([0, 1]) uniformly.
n→∞
1 is σ(L1 , L∞ )-compact (e.g [13]) we may assume that
As SX (fn ) σ(L1E , L∞
E E∗ E ∗ )-
converges to f∞ ∈ SX 1 . so that, for every t ∈ [0, 1],
1 1
u∞ (t) = lim ufn (t) = lim G(t, s)fn (s)ds = G(t, s)f∞ (s)ds = uf∞ (t),
n→∞ n→∞ 0 0
and

t
lim D α−1 ufn (t) = lim exp(−λ(t − s))fn (s)ds
n→∞ n→∞ 0
1
+ exp(−λt) ϕ(s)fn (s)ds
0
t 1
= exp(−λ(t − s))f∞ (s)ds + exp(−λt) ϕ(s)f∞ (s)ds
0 0

= D α−1 uf∞ (t), t ∈ [0, 1].
This means u∞ ∈ X , and the proof of the theorem is complete. 2
Theorem 3.6. Let X : [0, 1] → ck(E) be a convex compact valued

measurable and integrably bounded mapping, and let F : [0, 1] × E × E →
ck(E) be a convex compact valued multimapping satisfying the following
assumptions:
(B1) F is scalarly L([0, 1]) ⊗ B(E) ⊗ B(E)-measurable, that is, for every
x∗ ∈ E ∗ , the scalar function δ∗ (x∗ , F (·, ·, ·)) is L([0, 1]) ⊗ B(E) ⊗
B(E)-measurable.
(B2) The multimapping F (t, ·, ·) is scalarly upper semicontinuous, that
is, for every t ∈ [0, 1] and for every x∗ ∈ E ∗ , the scalar function
δ∗ (x∗ , F (t, ·, ·)) is upper semicontinuous on E × E.
(B3) F (t, x, y) ⊂ X(t) for almost every t ∈ [0, 1] and for every x, y ∈ E.
α,1
Then the WB,E ([0, 1])-solutions set to

Authenticated

D α u(t) + λD α−1 u(t) ∈ F (t, u(t), D α−1 u(t)), t ∈ [0, 1]
I0β+ u(t) |t=0 = 0, u(1) = I0γ+ u(1)
is nonempty and compact in CE ([0, 1]).
P r o o f. The arguments are similar to the proof of Theorem 3.5 and

is omitted. 2
4. Fractional inclusion in Pettis setting

We recall and summarize at first some needed results on the Pet-
tis integration. Let λ := dt be the Lebesgue measure on [0, 1] and let
L([0, 1]) the σ-algebra of Lebesgue measurable sets on [0, 1]. A mapping
f : [0, 1] → E is scalarly integrable function if, for every x∗ ∈ E ∗ , the
scalar function
x∗ , f is Lebesgue integrable on [0, 1]. A scalarly integrable
function f : [0, 1] → E is Pettis-integrable
if, for every
Lebesgue measur-
able set A the weak integral A f dt defined by
x , A f dt = A
x∗ , f dt
∗
for all x∗ ∈ E ∗ belongs to E. We denote by PE1 ([0, 1]) the space of all
Pettis integrable functions f : [0, 1] → E endowed with the Pettis norm
1
||f ||P 1 = supx∗ ∈B E ∗ 0 |
x∗ , f |dt. A mapping f : [0, 1] → E is Pettis-
E
integrable iff the set {
x∗ , f : ||x∗ || ≤ 1} is uniformly integrable in the space
L1R ([0, 1]). More generally a convex compact valued mapping X : [0, 1] → E
is scalarly integrable, if, for every x∗ ∈ E ∗ , the scalar function δ∗ (x∗ , X) is
integrable on [0, 1], X is Pettis-integrable if the set {δ∗ (x∗ , X) : ||x∗ || ≤ 1}
is uniformly integrable in the space L1R ([0, 1]). In view of ([12], Theorem 4.2
or [13], Cor. 6.3.3) the set SX P e of all Pettis-integrable selections of a convex
compact valued Pettis-integrable mapping X : [0, 1] → E is sequentially

σ(PE1 , L∞ ⊗ E ∗ )-compact. In this section we proceed to the study of FDI
in the Pettis context of the form
α
(4.1)
I0β+ u(t) |t=0 = 0, u(1) = I0γ+ u(1)
where α ∈]1, 2], β ∈ [0, 2 − α], γ > 0, λ ≥ 0 are given constant, and D α and
D α−1 are the Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative, F is a convex com-
α,1
pact valued mapping. By WP,E ([0, 1]) we denote the space of all continuous
functions in CE ([0, 1]) such that their Riemann-Liouville fractional deriv-
ative of order α − 1 are continuous and their Riemann-Liouville fractional
derivative of order α are Pettis integrable.We need at first some Pettis
analogs of the results developed in the preceding section.

Authenticated
Lemma 4.1. Let f ∈ PE1 ([0, 1]) be a Pettis-integrable function. Then

1 α,1
the function uf (t) = 0 G(t, s)f (s)ds, t ∈ [0, 1] is the unique WP,E ([0, 1])-
solution to the fractional differential equation (FDE)
α
D u(t) + λD α−1 u(t) = f (t), t ∈ [0, 1]
I0β+ u(t) |t=0 = 0, u(1) = I0γ+ u(1)
with the integral representation formula
1
u(t) = G(t, s)f (s)ds, t ∈ [0, 1],
0
1 t
α
D u(t) = exp(−λt) ϕ(s)f (s)ds + exp(−λ(t − s)))f (s)ds, t ∈ [0, 1].
0 0
We begin with a crucial lemma.
Lemma 4.2. Let X : [0, 1] → E be a convex compact valued Pettis-

α,1
integrable mapping. Then the WP,E ([0, 1])-solutions set X to the (FDI)
α
D u(t) + λD α−1 u(t) ∈ X(t), t ∈ [0, 1]
(4.2)
I0β+ u(t) |t=0 = 0, u(1) = I0γ+ u(1)
is bounded, convex, equicontinuous, compact in the Banach space CE ([0, 1]).
P r o o f. Step 1. Let us recall that the set SX P e of all Pettis-integrable
selections of X is nonempty and sequentially compact for the topology of

pointwise convergence on L∞ ⊗ E ∗ and the multivalued integral
1 1 !
X(t) dt = f (t) dt : f ∈ SX Pe
0 0
is convex and compact in E (see [12, 15]).
α,1
Step 2. In view of Lemma 4.1, the WP,E ([0, 1])-solutions set X to (4.2)
is characterized by
1
X = {uf : [0, 1] → E | uf (t) = G(t, s)f (s) ds, ∀t ∈ [0, 1]; f ∈ SXPe
}.
0
Recall that X is Pettis-integrable and the set {δ∗ (x∗ , X(.)) : x∗ ∈ B E ∗ } is
uniformly integrable in L1R ([0, 1]). Now by an easy modification of the proof
of Theorem 3.3, we show that X is equicontinuous in CE ([0, 1]). Indeed, let
x∗ ∈ B E∗ , t1 , t2 ∈ [0, 1] and t1 < t2 , we have the estimate
t1
∗ (t1 − τ )α−2 − (t2 − τ )α−2

x ,ufn (t2 ) − ufn (t1 ) ≤ e−λτ dτ
0 Γ(α − 1)
1
× sup |ϕ(s)| + eλs |δ∗ (x∗ , X(s))|ds

x∗ ∈B E ∗ 0

Authenticated
1
t2
−λτ (t2 − τ )α−2
+ e dτ sup |ϕ(s)| + eλs |δ∗ (x∗ , X(s))|ds
t1 Γ(α − 1) x∗ ∈B ∗ 0
E
1
t2
(t2 − τ )α−2
+ e−λτ dτ sup eλs |δ∗ (x∗ , X(s))|ds.
t1 Γ(α − 1) x∗ ∈B ∗ 0
E
from which it follows that ufn (t2 ) − ufn (t1 ) ≤ K|t2 − t1 |α−1 with
1
K = sup (3 + λ)|φ(s)| + (4 + 2λ)eλs |δ∗ (x∗ , X(s))|ds.
x∗ ∈B E ∗ 0
Further, for each t ∈ [0, 1], the set X (t) is relatively compact in E
1
because it is included in the convex compact set 0 G(t, s)X(s) ds. We
claim that X is compact in CE ([0, 1]). Let (fn ) be a sequence in SΓP e . We
note that SX P e is sequentially compact for the topology of pointwise con-
vergence on L∞ ⊗ E ∗ and the sequence (ufn ) sequentially weakly compact

in CE ([0, 1]). Indeed we can extract from (fn ) a subsequence (fm ) such
that (fm ) σ(PE1 , L∞ ⊗ E ∗ )-converges to a function f ∈ SX P e . So, for every
∗ ∗
x ∈ E and for every t ∈ [0, 1], we have
1 1
∗ ∗
lim
G(t, s)x , fm (s) ds = lim
x , G(t, s)fm (s) ds
m→+∞ 0 m→+∞ 0
1 1
=
G(t, s)x∗ , f (s) ds =
x∗ , G(t, s)f (s) ds.
0 0
This means that ufm converges in CE ([0, 1]) to uf , and then shows the
compactness of X in CE ([0, 1]). At this point, it is worth to mention that
the sequence (D α−1 ufm ) converges to D α−1 uf in E by using the σ(PE1 , L∞ ⊗
E ∗ )-convergence of (fm ). 2
Remark 4.1. (1) In the course of the proof of Lemma 4.2, we have
proven the continuous dependence of the mappings f → uf and f →
D α−1 uf on the convex σ(PE1 , L∞ ⊗ E ∗ )-compact set SX P e . This fact has
some importance in further applications.

(2) It is worth to mention that {D α−1 uf : f ∈ SX
P e } is included in the
1 t
convex compact set exp(−λt) 0 ϕ(s)X(s)ds + 0 exp(−λ(t − s)))X(s)ds.
α,1
Now we proceed to consider the existence of solutions in WP,E ([0, 1])
to the FDI
α
I0β+ u(t) |t=0 = 0, u(1) = I0γ+ u(1).
Theorem 4.1. Let X : [0, 1] → ck(E) be a convex compact valued

Pettis-integrable mapping. Let F : [0, 1] × E × E → ck(E) be a convex

Authenticated
compact valued mapping satisfying:

(1) F is scalarly Lλ ([0, 1])⊗B(E)⊗B(E)-measurable, i.e., for each x∗ ∈ E ∗ ,
the scalar function δ∗ (x∗ , F (., ., .)) is Lλ ([0, 1]) ⊗ B(E) ⊗ B(E)-measurable,
(2) The mapping F (t, ., .) is scalarly sequentially upper semicontinuous, i.e.,
for each t ∈ [0, 1] and for each x∗ ∈ E ∗ , the scalar function δ∗ (x∗ , F (t, ., .))
is upper semicontinuous on E × E,
(3) F (t, x, y) ⊂ X(t) for all (t, x, y) ∈ [0, 1] × E × E.
α,1
Then the WP,E ([0, 1])-solutions set to the FDI (4.1) is compact in CE ([0, 1]).
P r o o f. Taking the above stated results into account, a mapping u :

α,1
[0, 1] → E is a WP,E ([0, 1])-solution of the above FDI iff there exists f ∈ SX
Pe
such that 1
u(t) = uf (t) = G(t, s)f (s)ds, ∀t ∈ [0, 1]
0
and such that
D α uf (t) + λD α−1 u(t) = f (t) ∈ F (t, uf (t), D α−1 uf (t)) ∀t ∈ [0, 1].
Let X be defined in Lemma 4.2. For each u ∈ X , let us set
Φ(u) = {v ∈ X : D α v(t) + λD α−1 v(t) ∈ F (t, u(t), D α−1 u(t) a.e.}.
It is clear that Φ(u) is nonempty, convex compact. We need to check
that the graph of Φ is sequentially weakly closed in X × X . Let vn ∈ Φ(un )
such that un → u and vn → v in X . By the sequential σ(PE1 , L∞ ⊗ E ∗ )-
compactness of SX P e and Lemma 4.2, we may assume that u (t) = u (t) →
n fn
u(t) = uf (t) in E for each t ∈ [0, 1], D α−1 un (t) = D α−1 ufn (t) → D α−1 u(t)
in E for each t ∈ [0, 1], and D α un + λD α−1 un = fn σ(PE1 , L∞ ⊗ E ∗ )-
converges to D α u+λD α−1 u = f and similarly vn (t) = ugn (t) → v(t) = vg (t)
in E for each t ∈ [0, 1], D α−1 vn (t) = D α−1 ugn (t) → D α−1 v(t) in E for
each t ∈ [0, 1], and D α vn + λD α−1 vn = gn σ(PE1 , L∞ ⊗ E ∗ )-converges to
D α v + λD α−1 v = g with gn (t) ∈ F (t, ufn (t), D α−1 ufn (t)) a.e.
From the above inclusion, we have

h ⊗ x∗ , gn (t) ≤ δ∗ (h ⊗ x∗ , F (t, ufn (t), D α−1 ufn (t))) a.e.,
where h ∈ L∞ ([0, 1, dt) and x∗ ∈ E ∗ . By integrating we get
1 1
∗

h ⊗ x , gn (t)dt ≤ δ∗ (h ⊗ x∗ , F (t, ufn (t), D α−1 ufn (t)))dt.
0 0
Whence we deduce that
1 1
∗
lim
h ⊗ x , gn (t)dt =
h ⊗ x∗ , g(t)dt
n→∞ 0 0
1
≤ lim sup δ∗ (h ⊗ x∗ , F (t, ufn (t), D α−1 ufn (t)))dt
n 0

Authenticated
1
≤ lim sup δ∗ (h ⊗ x∗ , F (t, ufn (t), D α−1 ufn (t)))dt
0 n
1
≤ δ∗ (h ⊗ x∗ , F (t, uf (t), D α−1 uf (t)))dt
0
so that, in particular, by taking h = 1A with A ∈ Lλ ([0, 1] we get

∗

x , g(t)dt ≤ δ∗ (x∗ , F (t, uf (t), D α−1 uf (t)))dt
A A
so that

x∗ , g(t) ≤ δ∗ (x∗ , F (t, uf (t), D α−1 uf (t))) a.e.
Taking a dense sequence (e∗k ) with respect to the Mackey topology, we get

e∗k , g(t) ≤ δ∗ (e∗k , F (t, uf (t), D α−1 uf (t))) a.e.
By virtue of ([15], Prop. III.35) we conclude that
g(t) ∈ F (t, uf (t), D α−1 uf (t)) a.e.
thus prove that the graph of Φ is weakly compact in X × X . 2
5. Applications
5.1. Relaxation and Control problem. In this subsection we present
some new applications of the above stated results, namely we study a frac-
tional differential equation with Young measures in the framework of control
problem. Here is at first a uniqueness result.
Theorem 5.1. Let f : [0, 1] × E × E → E be a mapping satisfying the

following conditions:
(a) f is L([0, 1]) ⊗ B(E) ⊗ B(E) measurable,
(b) f (t, x1 , y1 ) − f (t, x2 , y2 ) ≤ 1 (t)x1 − x2 + 2 (t)y1 − y2 , for all
(t, x1 , y1 ), (t, x2 , y2 ) in [0, 1] × E × E, with MG 1 + 2 L1 ([0,1]) < 1,
R
(c) The function t → f (t, 0, 0) is integrable.
Then the boundary value problem
α
D u(t) + λD α−1 u(t) = f (t, u(t), D α−1 u(t)), t ∈ [0, 1]
I0β+ u(t)|t=0 = 0, u(1) = I0γ+ u(1),
α,1
has a unique solution in WB,E ([0, 1]).
P r o o f. By Theorem 3.1 it suffices to prove the uniqueness of solu-

α,1
tions. To do this we assume that u1 and u2 are two WB,E ([0, 1])-solutions
of the problem. Let v = u1 − u2 and
(t) = D α v(t) + λD α−1 v(t), t ∈ [0, 1].

Authenticated
Then we have
(t) = f (t, u1 (t), D α−1 u1 (t)) − f (t, u2 (t), D α−1 u2 (t))

≤ 1 (t)u1 (t) − u2 (t) + 2 (t) D α−1 u1 (t) − D α−1 u2 (t)
1 t
≤ 1 (t) |G(t, s)|(s)ds + 2 (t) exp(−λ(t − s))(s)ds
0 0
1
+ 2 (t) exp(−λt) |ϕ(s)|(s)ds
0
1 1
≤ MG 1 (t) (s)ds + 2 (t) (1 + |ϕ(s)|) (s)ds
0 0
1
≤ MG (1 (t) + 2 (t)) (s)ds
0
by noting that from (2.9), 1 + |ϕ(s)| ≤ MG . This implies that
1 1 1
(s)ds ≤ MG 1 + 2 L1 ([0,1]) (s)ds < (s)ds
E
0 0 0
1
so that (s)ds = 0. Hence (t) = 0 for t ∈ [0, 1] which means that v
0
is a solution of problem
α
D v(t) + λD α−1 v(t) = 0, t ∈ [0, 1]
β γ
I0+ v(t)|t=0 = 0, v(1) = I0+ v(1).
Therefore v = 0 and u1 ≡ u2 . 2
Let Z be a compact subset of E. By M1+ (Z) we denote the space
of all probability Radon measures on Z. It is well-known that M1+ (Z) is
a compact metrizable space with respect to the narrow topology. We also
denote by Y([0, 1], M1+ (Z)) the space of all Young measures defined on [0, 1]
endowed with the stable topology. A sequence (ν n ) in Y([0, 1], M1+ (Z))
1
ν ∈ Y([0, 1], M+ (Z))
stably converges to
1
if
1
lim [ ht (z)dνtn (z)]dt = [ ht (z)dνt (z)]dt
n→∞ 0 Z 0 Z
for all h ∈ L1C(Z) ([0, 1]),
here C(Z) denotes the space of all continuous real
valued functions defined on Z endowed with the norm of uniform conver-
gence.
Let Δ be a measurable mapping defined on [0, 1] with nonempty com-
pact values in Z. Let G be the Green function given in (2.3) and let
f : E × E × Z → E be a function satisfying the following conditions:
(i) f (t, ., ., .) is continuous on E × E × Z, for every t ∈ [0, 1]
(ii) f (., x, y, z) is measurable on [0, 1], for every (x, y, z) ∈ E × E × Z
(iii) f (t, x, y, z) ∈ X(t) for all (t, x, y, z) ∈ [0, 1] × E × E × Z, where X is a

Authenticated
convex compact valued integrably bounded mapping.

(iv) there exist l1 , l2 ∈ R+ with MG (l1 + l2 ) < 1 such that
||f (t, x1 , y1 , z)−f (t, x2 , y2 , z)|| ≤ l1 ||x1 −x2 ||+l2 ||y1 −y2 ||, for all (t, x1 , y1 , z)
and (t, x2 , y2 , z) ∈ [0, 1] × E × E × Z.
We consider the following control problem governed by a (FDE) with
original controls
α
D uζ (t) + λD α−1 uζ (t) = f (t, uζ (t), D α−1 uζ (t), ζ(t))
(5.1)
I0β+ uζ (t)|t=0 = 0, uζ (1) = I0γ+ uζ (1),
where ζ belongs to the set Z := SΔ 1 of all original controls, which means that
α,1
ζ is a Lebesgue-measurable selection of Δ. The existence of WB,E ([0, 1])
solution for (5.1) is guaranteed by Theorem 3.1 or Theorem 3.4 using con-
ditions (i) and (ii) and the uniqueness is ensured by Theorem 5.1. Next we
consider a relaxation problem governed by a (FDE) with Young measure
controls
α
D uν (t) + λD α−1 uν (t) = Z f uν (t), D α−1 uν (t), z νt (dz)
(5.2)
I0β+ uν (t)|t=0 = 0, uν (1) = I0γ+ uν (1),
where ν belongs to the set R := SΣ of all relaxed (alias Young measure)
controls, which means that ν is a Lebesgue-measurable selection of the
mapping Σ defined by

Σ(t) := σ ∈ M1+ (Z) : σ(Δ(t)) = 1
for all t ∈ [0, 1]. We note that R := SΣ is compact metrizable with respect
to the stable topology [13], and for each ν ∈ R, the existence and unique-
α,1
ness of WB,E ([0, 1])-solution to (5.2) again follows from the above remark,
because the function
f˜(t, x, y, ν) = f (t, x, y, z)ν(dz)
Z
(t, x, y, ν) ∈ [0, 1] × E × E × M1+ (Z), inherits the properties of the function
f.
α,1
Now we will state some topological properties of the WB,E ([0, 1])-solutions
set to the (FDE) (5.2).
α,1
Theorem 5.2. Let (i)−−(iv) hold. Then the set (SR ) of all WB,E ([0, 1])-
solutions to (5.2) is sequentially compact in CE ([0, 1]). Moreover the solu-
α,1
tions set (SZ ) of (5.1) in WB,E ([0, 1]) is dense in (SR ) with respect to the
topology of uniform convergence.
P r o o f. The proof is divided by two steps.

Authenticated
Step 1. Let (ν n ) be a sequence in R ≡ SΣ which stably converges to

ν∞ ∈ R, and, for each n ∈ N ∪ {∞}, let uν n be the unique solution to the
FDE
α
D uν n (t) + λD α−1 uν n (t) = Z f t, uν n (t), D α−1 uν n (t), z νtn (dz)
I0β+ uν n |t=0 = 0, uν n (1) = I0γ+ uν n (1).

For simplicity let gn (t) := Z f t, uν n (t), D α−1 uν n (t), z νtn (dz), t ∈ [0, 1].
From Lemma 2.3 we have, for t ∈ [0, 1],
1
uν n (t) = G(t, s)[D α uν n (s) + λD α−1 uν n (s)]ds
0
1
= G(t, s)gn (s)ds, (5.2.1)
0
t 1
α−1
D uν n (t) = exp(−λ(t − s))gn (s)ds + exp(−λt) ϕ(s)gn (s)ds,
0 0
(5.2.2)

gn (t) = f t, uν n (t), D α−1 uν n (t), z νtn (dz) ∈ X(t). (5.2.3)
Z
Arguing as in Theorem 3.5 we may assume that gn σ(L1E , L∞ E ∗ )-converges

to g∞ ∈ SX 1 so that:
α,1
(a) uν n pointwisely converges on [0, 1] to ug∞ ∈ WB,E ([0, 1]) where
1
ug∞ (t) = G(t, s)g∞ (s)ds, t ∈ [0, 1]
0
(b) D α−1 uν n pointwisely converges to D α−1 ug∞ ,

(c) gn = D αuν n +λD α−1 uν n σ(L1E , L∞
E )-converges to D α ug∞ +λD α−1 ug∞ =
g∞ ,
(d) I0β+ ug∞ |t=0 = 0, ug∞ (1) = I0γ+ ug∞ (1).
α,1
Step 2. We claim that ug∞ coincides with the WB,E ([0, 1])-solution uν ∞
∞
associated with ν ∈ R to the FDE
α
D uν ∞ (t) + λD α−1 uν ∞ (t) = Z f t, uν ∞ (t), D α−1 uν ∞ (t), z νt∞ (dz)
I0β+ uν ∞ |t=0 = 0, uν ∞ (1) = I0γ+ uν ∞ (1).
Indeed, multiplying scalarly into the equation (5.2.3)

D α uν n (t) + λD α−1 uν n (t) = f t, uν n (t), D α−1 uν n (t), z νtn (dz)
Z
by h ∈ L∞
E ([0, 1]) and integrating on [0, 1] we get

Authenticated
1
h(t), D α uν n (t) + λD α−1 uν n (t) dt
0
1
α−1
n
= h(t), f t, uν n (t), D uν n (t), z νt (dz) dt,
0 Z
so that
1
lim
h(t), D α uν n (t) + λD α−1 uν n (t)dt
n→∞ 0
1
=
h(t), D α ug∞ (t)λD α−1 ug∞ dt
0
1
α−1
n
= lim h(t), f t, uν n (t), D uν n (t), z νt (dz) dt
n→∞ 0 Z
1
= lim [
h(t), f (t, uν n (t), D α−1 uν n (t), z)νtn (dz)]dt. (5.2.4)
n→∞ 0 Z
Using (a), (b), the stable convergence ν n → ν ∞ and the fiber product
theorem for Young measures ([13], Theorem 3.3.3), we note that the fiber
product δuν n ⊗ δDα−1 uν n ⊗ ν n stably converges to δuν ∞ ⊗ δDα−1 uν ∞ ⊗ ν ∞ .
Further the Carathéodory integrand H(t, x, y, z) :=
h(t), f (t, x, y, z) sat-
isfies the following estimate
|H(t, x, y, z)| = |
h(t), f (t, x, y, z)| ≤ ||h(t)|| |X(t)|
with t → ||h(t)|| |X(t)| ∈ L1R+ ([0, 1]). From the above fact, we deduce that
1
lim [ H(t, uν n (t), D α−1 uν n (t), z)νtn (dz)]dt
n→∞ 0 Z
1
= [ H(t, uν ∞ (t), D α−1 uν ∞ (t), z)νt∞ (dz)]dt (5.2.5)
0 Z
Then from (5.2.4) and (5.2.5) we get
1

h(t), D α ug∞ (t) + λD α−1 ug∞ (t)dt
0
1
= [ H(t, uν ∞ (t), D α−1 uν ∞ (t), z)νt∞ (dz)]dt
0 Z
1
=
h(t), f (t, uν ∞ (t), D α−1 uν ∞ (t), z)νt∞ (dz)dt.
0 Z
It follows that

α
D ug∞ (t) + λD α−1
ug∞ (t) = f (t, uν ∞ (t), D α−1 uν ∞ (t), z)νt∞ (dz), a.e.
Z

Authenticated
Finally, by the uniqueness of the solution we conclude that ug∞ = uν ∞ .

This proves the first part of the theorem, while the second part follows by
continuity and density since Z is dense in R with respect to the stable
topology ([13], Lemma 7.1.1). 2
Now let L : [0, 1] × E × E × Z → R be a bounded continuous mapping
|L(t, x, y, z)| ≤ η, ∀(t, x, y, z) ∈ [0, 1] × E × E × Z
for some constant η > 0. We consider the following Bolza control problem.
Theorem 5.3. Let us consider the problems

1
(PZ ) inf L(t, uζ (t), D α−1 uζ (t), ζ(t))dt
ζ∈Z 0
1
(PR ) inf [ L(t, uν (t), D α−1 uν (t), z)dνt (z)]dt
ν∈R 0 Z
α,1
where uζ is the WB,E ([0, 1])-solution associated with ζ ∈ Z to
α
D uζ (t) + λD α−1 uζ (t) = f (t, uζ (t), D α−1 uζ (t), ζ(t))
I0β+ uζ |t=0 = 0, uζ (1) = I0γ+ uζ (1)
α,1
and uν is the WB,E ([0, 1])-solution associated with ν ∈ R to
α
D uν (t) + λD α−1 uν (t) = Z f t, uν (t), D α−1 uν (t), z νt (dz)
I0β+ uν |t=0 = 0, uν (1) = I0γ+ uν (1).
Then we have
1
inf L(t, uζ (t), D α−1 uζ (t), ζ(t))dt
ζ∈Z 0
1
= inf [ L(t, uν (t), D α−1 uν (t), z)dνt (z)]dt.
ν∈R 0 Z
P r o o f. Let ν ∈ R. As Z is dense in R with respect to the stable

topology, there exists a sequence (ζn ) in Z such that the associated Young
measures (δζn ) stably converges to ν. Let uζn be the unique solution to
α
D uζn (t) + λD α−1 uζn (t) = f (t, uζn (t), D α−1 uζn (t), ζn (t)
I0β+ uζn |t=0 = 0, uζn (1) = I0γ+ uζn (1)
and let uν be the unique solution to
α
D uν (t) + λD α−1 uν (t) = Z f t, uν (t), D α−1 uν (t), z νt (dz)
I0β+ uν |t=0 = 0, uν (1) = I0γ+ uν (1)

Authenticated
In view of Step 1of the proof

of Theorem 5.2, the sequence (uζn ) pointwisely
converges to uν , D α−1 uζn pointwisely converges to D α−1 uν so that, δuζn ⊗
δDα−1 uζn ⊗ ν n stably converges to δuν ⊗ δDα−1 uν ⊗ ν. So we have
1

lim L t, uζn (t), D α−1 uζn (t), ζn (t) dt
n→∞ 0
1

= [ L t, uν (t), D α−1 uν (t), z νt (dz)]dt.
0 Z
As
1 1

L t, uζn (t), D α−1 uζn (t), ζn (t) dt ≥ inf L(t, uζ (t), D α−1 uζ (t), ζ(t))dt
0 ζ∈Z 0
for all n ∈ N, it follows that
1
[ L(t, uν (t), D α−1 uν (t), z)dνt (z)]dt
0 Z
1
≥ inf L(t, uζ (t), D α−1 uζ (t), ζ(t))dt.
ζ∈Z 0
As ν ∈ R is arbitrary given we get
1
inf [ L(t, uν (t), D α−1 uν (t), , z)dνt (z)]dt
ν∈R 0 Z
1
≥ inf L(t, uζ (t), D α−1 uζ (t), ζ(t))dt.
ζ∈Z 0
But
1
inf L(t, uζ (t), D α−1 uζ (t), ζ(t))dt
ζ∈Z 0
1
≥ inf [ L(t, uν (t), D α−1 uν (t), z)dνt (z)]dt
ν∈R 0 Z
thus finishing the proof. 2
5.2. Application to FDI involving the subdifferential operator. We

need to recall and summarize some notions on the subdifferential mapping
of local Lipchitzean functions developed by L. Thibault [35]. Let E be a
separable Banach space. Let f : E → R be a locally Lipchitzean function.
By Christensen [17, Theorem 7.5], there is a set Df such that its comple-
mentary is Haar-nul (hence Df is dense in E) such that for all x ∈ Df and
for all v ∈ E
f (x + δv) − f (x)
rf (x, v) = lim
δ→0 δ

Authenticated
exists and v → rf (x, v) is linear and continuous. Let us set ∇f (x) =

rf (x, .) ∈ E ∗ . Then rf (x, v) =
∇f (x), v, ∇f (x) is the gradient of f at
the point x. Let us set
Lf (x) = { lim ∇f (xj )|xj ∈ Df , xj → x}.
j→∞
By definition, the subdifferential ∂f (x) in the sense of Clarke [18] at the

point x ∈ E is defined by ∂f (x) = co Lf (x). The generalized directional
derivative of f at a point x ∈ E in the direction v ∈ E is denoted by
f 0 (x, v) = lim suph→0,δ→0 f (x+h+δv)−f
δ
(x+h)
.
Proposition 5.1. Let f : E → R be a locally Lipschitz function.

Then the subdifferential ∂f (x) at the point x ∈ E is convex weak star
compact and
f 0 (x, v) = sup{
ζ ∗ , v|ζ ∗ ∈ ∂f (x)} ∀v ∈ E
that is, f 0 (x, .) is the support function of ∂f (x).
P r o o f. See Thibault [35, Proposition I.12]. 2

Here are some useful properties of the subdifferential mapping.
Proposition 5.2. Let f : E → R be a locally Lipschitz function.

Then the convex weak star compact valued subdifferential mapping ∂f is
upper semicontinuous with respect to the weak star topology.
P r o o f. See [35, Proposition I. 17]. Indeed we have

[f (x + h + δv) − f (x + h)]
δ∗ (v, ∂f (x)) = f 0 (x, v) = lim sup .
h→0,δ→0 δ
As f 0 (., v) is upper semicontinuous and ∂f is convex compact valued
in Es∗ , by [15], ∂f is upper semicontinuous in Es∗ . 2
Proposition 5.3. Let (T, T ) a measurable space and f : T × E → R

such that:
f (., ζ) is T -measurable, for every ζ ∈ E.
f (t, .) is locally Lipschitz for every t ∈ T .
Let ft0 (x, v) the directional derivative of f (t, .) := ft in the direction v for
every fixed t ∈ T . Let x and v be two T -measurable mappings from T to
E. Then the following hold:
(a) the mapping t → ft0 (x(t), v(t)) is T -measurable.
(b) the mapping t → ∂ft (x(t)) is graph measurable, that is, its graph
belongs to T ⊗ B(Es∗ ).

Authenticated
P r o o f. See Thibault [35, Proposition I.20 and Corollary I. 21]. Note

that the convex weak star compact valued mapping t → ∂ft (x(t)) is scalarly
T -measurable, and so enjoys good measurability properties because Es∗ is
a locally convex Lusin space. 2
We end with some specific existence results for fractional inclusion in-
volving the subdifferential operator.
Proposition 5.4. Assume that E = Rd , and h : [0, T ]×Rd ×Rd → Rd

be a bounded Caratheodory mapping, that is, h is separately Lebesque-
measurable on [0, T ], separately continuous on Rd × Rd , ||h(t, x, y)|| ≤
M, ∀(t, x, y) ∈ [0, T ] × Rd × Rd . Let f : [0, T ] × E → R be a mapping
such that:
1) ∀x ∈ E, f (., x) is Lebesgue-measurable,
2) There exists β ∈ R+ such that, for all t ∈ [0, T ], for all x, y ∈ E,
||f (t, x) − f (t, y)|| ≤ β||x − y||.
Then the following hold:
(a) ∂ft (x) ⊂ βB E , for all (t, x) ∈ [0, T ] × E,
α,1
(b) The WB,E ([0, T ])-solutions set to the FDI
α
D u(t) + λD α−1 u(t) ∈ ∂ft (u(t)) + h(t, u(t), D α−1 u(t)), t ∈ [0, T ]
I0β+ u(t)|t=0 = 0, u(1) = I0γ+ uν (1)
is compact in the space CE ([0, T ]).
P r o o f. The proof is immediate by applying Theorem 3.5 to the con-

vex compact valued mapping F : (t, x, y) → ∂ft (x) + h(t, x, y) taking
account of the properties of the subdifferential mapping and its measur-
able properties given in Proposition 5.3. By virtue of Theorem 3.5, the
α,1
WB,E ([0, T ])-solutions set to the (FDI)
α
D u(t) + λD α−1 u(t) ∈ ∂ft (u(t)) + h(t, u(t), D α−1 u(t)), t ∈ [0, T ]
I0β+ u(t)|t=0 = 0, u(1) = I0γ+ uν (1)
is compact in the space CE ([0, T ]) by noting that
F (t, x, y) := ∂ft (x) + h(t, x, y) ⊂ (β + M )B E
satisfies the conditions of Theorem 3.5. 2
Proposition 5.5. Assume that E = Rd , h : [0, T ] × Rd × Rd → Rd

be a bounded Caratheodory mapping, and ϕ : E → R be a C 1 , Lipschitz
α,1
mapping: |ϕ(x) − ϕ(y)| ≤ β||x − y||, ∀x, y ∈ E. Then the WB,E ([0, T ])-
solutions set to the equation

Authenticated

D α u(t) + λD α−1 u(t) + ∇ϕ(u(t)) = h(t, u(t), D α−1 u(t)), t ∈ [0, T ]
I0β+ u(t)|t=0 = 0, u(1) = I0γ+ uν (1)
P r o o f. The proof is immediate by applying Theorem 3.5 to the map-

ping F : (t, x, y) → h(t, x, y) − ∇ϕ(y), ∀(t, x, y) ∈ [0, T ] × E × E. By The-
orem 3.5, the solutions set to the above equation is compact in the space
CE ([0, T ]) by noting that ∂ϕ(y) = ∇ϕ(y) ∈ βB E , ∀y ∈ E so that the map-
ping F (t, x, y) = h(t, x, y) − ∇ϕ(y) satisfies the conditions of Theorem 3.5.
2
If α = 2, D α u(t) = ü(t), D α−1 u(t) = u̇(t) and Proposition 5.5 reads as
follows.
Proposition 5.6. Assume that E = Rd , h : [0, T ] × Rd × Rd → Rd

be a bounded Caratheodory mapping and ϕ : E → R be a C 1 , Lipschitz
mapping.
α,1
Then the WB,E ([0, T ])-solutions set to the equation

ü(t) + λu̇(t) + ∇ϕ(u(t)) = h(t, u(t), u̇(t)), t ∈ [0, T ]
I0β+ u(t)|t=0 = 0, u(1) = I0γ+ uν (1)
6. Conclusions
Our study of the fractional inclusion
D α u(t) + λD α−1 u(t) ∈ F (t, u(t), D α−1 u(t)), t ∈ [0, 1]
provides several new results and allows to treat in a new setting many
related problems such as functional differential inclusions, second order
evolution inclusions, Bolza and relaxation in Control Theory with new per-
spectives. This is out of the scope of the current manuscript and will be
the aim of future work.
References
[1] C. Angosto and B. Cascales, Measures of weak noncompactness in
Banach spaces. Topology Appl. 156 (2009), 1412–1421.
[2] R.P. Agarwal, S. Arshad, D. O’Regan and V. Lupulescu,
Fuzzy fractional integral equations under compact-
ness type condition. Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 15, No
4 (2012), 572–590: DOI: 10.2478/s13540-012-0040-1;
https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/fca.2012.15.issue-4/issue-files/fca.2012.15.issue-4.xml.

Authenticated
[3] R.P. Agarwal, B. Ahmad, A. Alsaedi and N. Shahzad, Dimension ot

the solution set for fractional differential inclusion. J. Nonlinear Convex
Anal. 14, No 2 (2013), 314–323.
[4] B. Ahmad and J. Nieto, Riemann-Liouville fractional differential equa-
tions with fractional boundary conditions. J. Fixed Point Theory Appl.
13, No 2 (2012), 329–336.
[5] E.J. Balder, Lectures on Young Measure Theory and its Applications
in Economics. Rend. Istit. Mat. Univ. Trieste, 31, Suppl.: 1–69 (2000).
Workshop di Teoria della Misura et Analisi Reale Grado (1997).
[6] M. Benchohra, J. Henderson, S.K. Ntouyas, A. Ouahab, Existence re-
sults for fractional functional differential inclusions with infinite delay
and applications to control theory. Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 11, No 1
(2008), 35–56.
[7] M. Benchohra, J. Graef and F-Z. Mostefai, Weak solutions for
boundary-value problems with nonlinear fractional differential inclu-
sions. Nonlinear Dyn. Syst. Theory 11, No 3 (2011), 227–237.
[8] F.S. De Blasi, On a property of the unit sphere in a Banach space. Bull.
Math. Soc. Sci. Math. Roumanie (N.S.) 21, No 64 (1977), 3–4.
[9] A. Bressan, A. Cellina and A. Fryszkowski, A class of absolute retracts
in spaces of integrable functions. Proc. A. M. S. 112 (1991), 413–418.
[10] C. Castaing, Quelques résultats de compacité liés a l’intégration. C. R.
Acad. Sc. Paris 270 (1970), 1732–1735; and Bull. Soc. Math. France
31 (1972), 73–81.
[11] C. Castaing, Topologie de la convergence uniforme sur les parties uni-
formément intégrables de L1E et théorèmes de compacité faible dans
certains espaces du type Köthe-Orlicz. Sém. Anal. Convexe 10 (1980),
5.1–5.27.
[12] C. Castaing, Weak compactness and convergences in Bochner and Pet-
tis integration. Vietnam J. Math. 24, No 3 (1996), 241–286.
[13] C. Castaing, P. Raynaud de Fitte and M. Valadier, Young Measures on
Topological Spaces with Applications in Control Theory and Probability
Theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2004).
[14] C. Castaing, L X. Truong and P.D. Phung, On a fractional differen-
tial inclusion with integral boundary condition in Banach spaces. J.
Nonlinear Convex Anal. 17, No 3 (2016), 441–471.
[15] C. Castaing, M. Valadier, Convex Analysis and Measurable Multifunc-
tions. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 580, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-
Heidelberg-New York (1977).
[16] A. Cernea, On a fractional differential inclusion with boundary condi-
tion. Stud. Univ. Babes-Bolyai Math. LV (2010), 105–113.

Authenticated
[17] J.P.R. Christensen, Topology and Borel Structure. Math. Studies 10,
Notas de Mathematica (1974).
[18] F. Clarke, Generalized gradients and applications. Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc. 205 (1975), 247–262.
[19] H. Covitz, S.B. Nadler, Multivalued contraction mappings in general-
ized metric spaces. Israel J. Math. 8 (1970), 5–11.
[20] J. Diestel and J.J. Uhl, Vector Measures. Math. Surveys 15, A.M.S.
Providence, Rhode Island (1977).
[21] A.M.A. El-Sayed, Nonlinear functional differential equations of arbi-
trary orders. Nonlinear Anal. 33 (1998), 181–186.
[22] A.M.A. El-Sayed, Sh.A. Abd El-Salam, Nonlocal boundary value prob-
lem of a fractional-order functional differential equation. Int. J. Non-
linear Sci. 7 (2009), 436–442.
[23] A.M.A. El-Sayed, A.G. Ibrahim, Set-valued integral equations of arbi-
trary (fractional) order. J. Appl. Math. Comput. 118 (2001), 113–121.
[24] L.C. Florescu and C. Godet-Thobie, Young Measures and Compactness
in Measure Spaces. De Gruyter, Berlin (2012).
[25] A. Grothendieck, Espaces Vectoriels Topologiques. Publicacão da So-
ciedade de Matemática de Sao Paulo (1964).
[26] A.G. Ibrahim and A.M.A. El-Sayed, Definite integral of fractional or-
der for set-valued function. J. Frac. Calculus 11 (1997), 81–87.
[27] A.A. Kilbas, H.M. Srivastava, J.J. Trujillo, Theory and Applications
of Fractional Differential Equations. Math. Stud. 204, North Holland
(2006).
[28] K.S. Miller, B. Ross, An Introduction to the Fractional Calculus and
Fractional Differential Equations. Wiley, New York (1993).
[29] A. Ouahab, Some results for fractional boundary value problem of
differential inclusions. Nonlinear Anal. 69 (2008), 3877–3896.
[30] I. Podlubny, Fractional Differential Equations. Academic Press, New
York (1999).
[31] P.D. Phung and L.X. Truong, On a fractional differential inclusion
with integral boundary conditions in Banach space. Fract. Calc. Appl.
Anal. 16, No 3 (2013), 538–558; DOI: 10.2478/s13540-013-0035-6;
https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/fca.2013.16.issue-3/
issue-files/fca.2013.16.issue-3.xml.
[32] D. O’Regan, Fixed point theorem for weakly sequentially closed maps.
Arch. Math. (Brno) 36 (2000), 61–70.
[33] H.A.H. Salem, A.M.A. El-Sayed, O.L. Moustafa, A note on the frac-
tional calculus in Banach spaces. Studia Sci. Math. Hungar. 42 (2005),
115–130.

Authenticated
[34] S.G. Samko, A.A. Kilbas, O.I. Marichev, Fractional Integrals and
Derivatives: Theory and Applications. Gordon and Breach, New York
(1993).
[35] L. Thibault, Propriétés des sous-différentiels de fonctions localement
Lipschitziennes définies sur un espace de Banach séparable. Applica-
tions. Thèse, Université Montpellier (1976).
1 Département de Mathématiques, Université Montpellier II

Case Courrier 051, 34095 Montpellier Cedex 5, FRANCE
e-mail: charles.castaing@gmail.com
2 Université de Bretagne Occidentale
Laboratoire de Mathématiques de Bretagne Atlantique, CNRS UMR 6205,
6, avenue Victor Le Gorgeu, CS 9387, F-29238 Brest Cedex 3, FRANCE
e-mail: christiane.godet-thobie@univ-brest.fr Received: October 13, 2017
Revised: February 4, 2019
3 Faculty of Applied Sciences
Ho Chi Minh City University of Food Industry, VIETNAM
e-mail: pdphungvn@gmail.com
4 Department of Mathematics and Statistics
University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City, VIETNAM
e-mail: lxuantruong@gmail.com
Please cite to this paper as published in:

Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal., Vol. 22, No 2 (2019), pp. 444–478,
DOI: 10.1515/fca-2019-0027; at https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/fca.

Authenticated

10.1515@fca 2019 0027

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10.1515@fca 2019 0027

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RESEARCH PAPER

ON FRACTIONAL DIFFERENTIAL INCLUSIONS WITH

Charles Castaing 1 , C. Godet-Thobie 2 ,

The main purpose of this paper is to study a class of boundary value

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

2. Notations and Preliminaries

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

- L1E ([0, 1]) : the Banach space of all Lebesgue-Bochner integrable

Definition 2.1 (Fractional Bochner integral). Let f : [0, 1] → E. The

Lemma 2.1 ([31]). Let f ∈ L1E ([0, 1]). We have

Definition 2.2. Let f ∈ L1E (I). We deﬁne the Riemann-Liouville

In the case E ≡ R, we have the following well-known results.

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

Lemma 2.3. Let G be the function deﬁned by (2.3)-(2.5).

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

P r o o f. (i) For 0 ≤ s ≤ t ≤ 1, we have

Hence, from (2.3) we deduce

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

Remark 2.2. From Lemma 2.3, we can claim that if

Indeed, by Lemma 2.3-(i) it suﬃces to prove that

3. Topological structure of the solution set

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

Theorem 3.1. Let F : [0, 1] × E × E → c (E) be a closed valued

P r o o f. First, for each h ∈ L1E ([0, 1]), we set

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

a measurable selection z. Therefore, for almost every t ∈ [0, 1], we have

by using the estimation (2.19). It follows from assumption (A3) that z ∈

Since this holds for ε arbitrary, we have

By interchanging the variables g, h we obtain

Since θ := MG 1 + 2 1 < 1 by assumption (A2), Γ is a contractive map.

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

Theorem 3.2. Let F : [0, 1]×E ×E → bc(E) be a bounded closed val-

P r o o f. As F has nonempty bounded closed values, it follows from

It is well-deﬁned. Indeed, it follows from Lemma 2.3 that

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

Therefore, it deduces from (3.2) and (2.19) that

Φ (v) (t) − Φ (u) (t)

D α (Φv) − D α (Φu)L1 ([0,1])

+ λ D α−1 (Φv) − D α−1 (Φu)L1 ([0,1]) < ε + λMG ε. (3.7)

Lemma 3.2. Let H ⊂ E be a subset of a Banach space E such that for

P r o o f. See Grothendiek ([25], p. 296). 2

Lemma 3.3. Assume that Q ⊂ CE ([0, 1]) is bounded equicontinuous

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

Theorem 3.3. Let X : [0, 1] → E be a convex weakly compact valued

Claim: X is bounded, convex, equicontinuous and weakly compact in

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

ufn (t2 ) − ufn (t1 ) ≤ |ϕ(s)| + eλs |X(s)|ds

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

Theorem 3.4. Let X : [0, 1] → cwk(E) be a convex weakly compact

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

≤ lim sup δ∗ (x∗ , F (t, uhn (t), D α−1 uhn (t)))dt

≤ δ∗ (x∗ , F (t, uh (t), D α−1 uh (t)))dt.

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

Theorem 3.5. Let X : [0, 1] → ck(E) be a convex compact val-

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

First we show that {ufn : n ∈ N} is relatively compact in CE ([0, 1]). By a

Theorem 3.6. Let X : [0, 1] → ck(E) be a convex compact valued

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

P r o o f. The arguments are similar to the proof of Theorem 3.5 and

4. Fractional inclusion in Pettis setting

compact valued Pettis-integrable mapping X : [0, 1] → E is sequentially

Since θ := MG 1 + 2 1 < 1 by assumption (A2), Γ is a contractive map.

Φ (v) (t) − Φ (u) (t)

D α (Φv) − D α (Φu)L1 ([0,1])

+ λ D α−1 (Φv) − D α−1 (Φu)L1 ([0,1]) < ε + λMG ε. (3.7)

ufn (t2 ) − ufn (t1 ) ≤ |ϕ(s)| + eλs |X(s)|ds

In view of Step 1of the proof