<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">AJOR</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>American Journal of Operations Research</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2160-8830</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ajor.2012.23035</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">AJOR-22412</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Physics&amp;Mathematics</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  On Second-Order Duality in Nondifferentiable Continuous Programming
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>.</surname><given-names>Husain</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Santosh</surname><given-names>K. Shrivastav</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Mathematics, Jaypee University of Engineering and Technology, Guna (M.P), India</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>ihusain11@yahoo.com(.H)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>18</day><month>09</month><year>2012</year></pub-date><volume>02</volume><issue>03</issue><fpage>289</fpage><lpage>295</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>July</day>	<month>12,</month>	<year>2012</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>August</day>	<month>15,</month>	<year>2012</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>August</day>	<month>24,</month>	<year>2012</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  A Mond-Weir type second-order dual continuous programming problem associated with a class of nondifferentiable continuous programming problems is formulated. Under second-order pseudo-invexity and second-order quasi-invexity various duality theorems are established for this pair of dual continuous programming problems. A pair of dual continuous programming problems with natural boundary values is constructed and the proofs of its various duality results are briefly outlined. Further, it is shown that our results can be regarded as dynamic generalizations of corresponding (static) second-order duality theorems for a class of nondifferentiable nonlinear programming problems already studied in the literature.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Continuous Programming; Second-Order Invexity; Second-Order Pseudoinvexity; Second-Order Quasi-Invexity; Second-Order Duality; Nonlinear Programming</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Second-order duality in mathematical programming has been extensively investigated in the literature. In [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.22412-ref1">1</xref>] Chen formulated second order dual for a constrained variational problem and established various duality results under an involved invexity-like assumption. Subsequently, Husain et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.22412-ref2">2</xref>], have presented MondWeir type secondorder duality for the problem of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.22412-ref3">3</xref>], and by introducing continuous-time version of secondorder invexity and generalized second-order invexity, validated various duality results. Recently Husain and Masoodi [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.22412-ref4">4</xref>] formulated a Wolfe type dual for a nondifferential variational problem and proved usual duality theorems under second-order pseudoinvexity condition.</p><p>In this research, in order to relax the requirement of&#160;&#160; second-order pseudoinvexity we formulate a Mond-Weir type second-order dual to a class of nondifferentiability continuous programming problems where nondifferentiability enters due to the square root of a certain quadratic form appearing in the integrand of the objective functional. The popularity of this type of problems seems to originate from the fact that, even though the objective function and or constraint functions are non-smooth, a simple representation of the dual problem may be found. The theory of non-smooth mathematical programming deals with more general type of functions by means of generalized subdifferentials. However, square root of positive semi-definite quadratic form is one of the few cases of the nondifferentiable functions for which one can write down the sub-or quasi-differentials explicitly. Here, various duality theorems for this pair of MondWeir type dual problems are validated under secondorder pseudo-invexity and quasi-invexity conditions. A pair of Mond-Weir type dual variational problems with natural boundary values rather than fixed end points is formulated and the proofs of its duality results are briefly indicated. It is also shown that our second-order duality results can be considered as dynamic generalizations of corresponding (Static) second-order duality results established for nondifferentiable nonlinear programming problems, considered by J. Zang and Mond [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.22412-ref5">5</xref>].</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Pre-Requisites</title><p>Let I = [a, b] be a real interval,<img src="3-1040140\22f4cb87-d2a7-4d5c-936f-a8b706fc3c94.jpg" />: I &#215; R<sup>n</sup> &#215; R<sup>n</sup> → R and ψ: I &#215; R<sup>n</sup> &#215; R<sup>n</sup> → R<sup>m</sup> be twice continuously differentiable functions. In order to consider <img src="3-1040140\8dce4b27-534d-47f6-a52a-e5653d0aaa78.jpg" />where x: I → R<sup>n</sup> is differentiable with derivative<img src="3-1040140\0740ab2d-49a0-4b08-bb46-0ec60f759997.jpg" />, denoted by f and<img src="3-1040140\629fe4c9-5381-4201-b037-6377710a2175.jpg" />, the first order of f with respect to <img src="3-1040140\d59fbf7e-0b7a-45b4-aea7-5cd79349168d.jpg" /> and <img src="3-1040140\8f8cc190-60f0-4af3-af24-b611d4850906.jpg" /> respectively, that is,</p><p><img src="3-1040140\439bd0b8-725c-4187-bcdb-236ac872bafe.jpg" />,</p><p><img src="3-1040140\af71e0a9-1e5d-499c-b898-b0485917ac96.jpg" />.</p><p>Denote by <img src="3-1040140\867ce415-9819-415f-9ced-356e0716085e.jpg" /> the <img src="3-1040140\083dbe27-199d-4ed2-b2c9-96c7c837a7ad.jpg" /> Hessian matrix of f, and ψ<sub>x</sub> the m &#215; n Jacobian matrix respectively, that is, with respect to x(t), that is</p><p><img src="3-1040140\06ebeae4-5cdb-4794-b91d-88bc977005e7.jpg" />i, j = 1, 2, &#183;&#183;&#183;, n, ψ<sub>x</sub> the m &#215; n Jacobian matrix.</p><p><img src="3-1040140\3e091f92-4a2b-4d56-95a0-42b31bd7bbc5.jpg" /></p><p>The symbols <img src="3-1040140\2a284f41-c5ed-4037-b289-ab02efafe9c9.jpg" /> and <img src="3-1040140\d25cba5a-f62f-489d-b413-55b206d9b4ba.jpg" /> have analogous representations. Designate by X the space of piecewise smooth functions x: I → R<sup>n</sup>, with the norm <img src="3-1040140\495f92ca-c0d2-4669-8d08-35311d1459b8.jpg" />, where the differentiation operator D is given by</p><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72645"><graphic  xlink:href="3-1040140\a9da9a95-278a-4ad0-a346-52290a73cbe0.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Thus <img src="3-1040140\0cc31456-361e-4408-b25f-0b10d7936d6d.jpg" /> except at discontinuities.</p><p>We incorporate the following definitions which are required in the subsequent analysis.</p><p>Definition 1. (Second-Order Invex): If there exists a vector function <img src="3-1040140\dd2719c3-7173-49a7-9c63-862c5dbc8079.jpg" /> where η: I &#215; R<sup>n</sup> &#215; R<sup>n</sup> → R<sup>n</sup> and with η = 0 at t = a and t = b, such that for a scalar function<img src="3-1040140\f009a7bf-bfb0-494e-b2a6-d2e301cbd933.jpg" />, the functional</p><p><img src="3-1040140\60411229-ad33-4375-8f63-db6d92d127b1.jpg" /></p><p>where f: I &#215; R<sup>n</sup> &#215; R<sup>n</sup> → R satisfies</p><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72646"><graphic  xlink:href="3-1040140\a251ecfc-5c73-4d1a-8e73-7efdfcf367f8.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Then <img src="3-1040140\7bd29452-1d02-4430-97e2-879be464f922.jpg" /> is second-order invex with respect to η. Where <img src="3-1040140\fb9a8ed0-5326-4622-9af3-9a411ffd62c2.jpg" />, and<img src="3-1040140\494e9e14-aa38-4e3a-b328-95d177ba7680.jpg" />, the space of <img src="3-1040140\34d6f1f1-d106-4470-8564-ae4de8979bfc.jpg" />-dimensional continuous vector functions Definition 2. (Second-Order Pseudoinvex): If the functional <img src="3-1040140\6ee9a392-d891-4801-bd29-2cd444cfe5dd.jpg" /> satisfies</p><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72647"><graphic  xlink:href="3-1040140\50e20131-9a1e-4294-92a4-5d780c242054.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Then <img src="3-1040140\c72b2a04-d509-4f00-95f4-66467edd4d63.jpg" /> is said to be second-order pseudoinvex with respect to η.</p><p>Definition 3. (Second-order Quasi-Invex): If the functional <img src="3-1040140\62b29db0-da0f-4766-b2e7-3b239c498dac.jpg" /> satisfies</p><p><img src="3-1040140\65914a6d-465d-4a5f-825c-1ebfa10512fb.jpg" /></p><p>Then <img src="3-1040140\3a7b28b6-492b-4e2d-8b1a-dce885b67d0c.jpg" /> is said to be second-order quasi-invex with respect to η.</p><p>Remark 1. If f does not depend explicitly on t, then the above definitions reduce to those given in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.22412-ref5">5</xref>] for static cases.</p><p>Consider the following class of nondifferentiable continuous programming problems studied in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.22412-ref6">6</xref>]:</p><p>(VP): Minimize</p><p><img src="3-1040140\3c2294a9-e311-4e4f-9c19-add895f306e4.jpg" /></p><p>Subject to x(a) = 0 = x(b), <img src="3-1040140\75846aec-a8e2-4628-b7bc-42abe874f0cc.jpg" />, <img src="3-1040140\a1d173a1-35a1-457b-abc0-b110bc9f46ae.jpg" />, <img src="3-1040140\5e908959-a106-4c16-8222-8fa436412792.jpg" />,<img src="3-1040140\222754fa-a869-425e-ad30-8515b7bfbc9a.jpg" />.</p><p>Where, 1) f, g and h are twice differentiable functions from I &#215; R<sup>n</sup> &#215; R<sup>n</sup> into R, R<sup>m</sup> and R<sup>k</sup> respectively, and 2) <img src="3-1040140\822bf628-afd0-48ef-b85a-28220b411591.jpg" />is a positive semi-definite n &#215; n matrix with <img src="3-1040140\e4224952-082b-4d5d-9e57-479a7f519b23.jpg" /> continuous on I.</p><p>The proposition gives the Fritz John optimality conditions which are derived by Chandra, et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.22412-ref6">6</xref>].</p><p>Proposition 1. (Fritz John optimality Conditions): If (CP) attains a local minimum at <img src="3-1040140\3550ec61-67ae-4bec-81c5-0148eb2a4c4f.jpg" /> and if <img src="3-1040140\bf5b4d24-552e-4a23-a400-bff5a70efae1.jpg" /> maps X onto a closed subspace of C(I, R<sup>p</sup>), then there exist Lagrange multipliers<img src="3-1040140\dae04e6c-4033-4980-9410-3fa1bacac028.jpg" />, piecewise smooth<img src="3-1040140\afd39371-01c0-4fc4-aa66-f1640b133f88.jpg" />: I → R<sup>m</sup> and<img src="3-1040140\127463a3-abc7-4834-986d-c1a06afda42d.jpg" />: I → R<sup>k</sup>, not all zero, and also piecewise smooth<img src="3-1040140\cfc50e16-2467-49a4-98b1-0e6b7f7ac2f4.jpg" />: I → R<sup>n</sup> satisfying, for all<img src="3-1040140\3bfdd5d9-ce54-49ed-9e1f-a6f14a195d3e.jpg" />,</p><p><img src="3-1040140\2330a5c1-805f-4e18-bf30-81baf359a8ea.jpg" /></p><p><img src="3-1040140\7e0bb087-36c6-4fee-9f76-c61e114b3568.jpg" /></p><p><img src="3-1040140\9466f1f2-497c-4739-aaac-372a843912dc.jpg" /><img src="3-1040140\8735c0b2-9bc7-42ab-8009-786c6da467d3.jpg" /></p><p>If <img src="3-1040140\4c890279-436d-4d38-bc48-abc56e57c13e.jpg" /> is surjective, then τ and <img src="3-1040140\7e77c6a3-75f9-4875-b9c4-d658910d5870.jpg" /> are not both zero. The following Schwartz inequality has been used in deriving the above optimality conditions given and will also be required in the forthcoming analysis of the research.</p><p>Lemma 1 (Schwartz Inequality): It states that</p><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72648"><label>(1)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\d2e28dbc-2590-4545-8d48-05bea8619e1e.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>with equality in (1) if (and only if)</p><p><img src="3-1040140\50e80250-2d44-4510-bd57-599c3e8377d8.jpg" /></p><p>for some <img src="3-1040140\aee5b3ae-3a21-4b67-a10a-6d8706016683.jpg" /></p><p>Remark 2. The Fritz John necessary optimality conditions in Proposition 1 for (VP) become the KarushKuhn-Tucker type optimality conditions if τ = 1. It suffices for τ = 1, that the following Slater’s Constraint qualification holds:</p><p><img src="3-1040140\20cc1b50-0e44-4d3c-92ad-ffe5590edc90.jpg" /></p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Mond-Weir Type Second-Order Duality</title><p>Consider the following continuous programming problem (CP) by ignoring the equality constraint, <img src="3-1040140\ce8a221e-9f57-44e0-b3c1-36e165f91bc8.jpg" />, in the problem (VP):</p><p>(CP): Minimize</p><p><img src="3-1040140\3688483d-3318-483a-ada2-95392fd4cb3d.jpg" /></p><p>Subject to</p><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72649"><label>(2)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\fa93b826-1312-4206-8f6d-52e150caf7cd.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72650"><label>(3)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\37f5bbac-f116-434b-a144-79b28338c00d.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>In the spirit of Zhang and Mond [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.22412-ref5">5</xref>], we formulated the following Mond-Weir type second-order dual continuous programming problem (M – WCD):</p><p>(M – WCD): Maximize</p><p><img src="3-1040140\340af8ee-85ec-4337-aaa0-2fa96c2eeec9.jpg" /></p><p>Subject to</p><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72651"><label>(4)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\a2be899a-6855-4d66-a915-3ce2863d89e1.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72652"><label>(5)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\8c76fc90-1f66-4179-9a37-a7e33281fe2e.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72653"><label>(6)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\cf42bb73-6660-4685-ab93-285f2a03850e.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72654"><label>(7)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\62d493c9-cdc3-43b6-819e-4a7a589d4bd2.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72655"><label>(8)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\269d1fea-8eea-4001-b85b-b44dc02d141c.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where <img src="3-1040140\dc0027d4-d5b6-4ae0-a345-d0311b0e2083.jpg" /> and</p><p><img src="3-1040140\0055fa5e-3cc6-4a1c-9268-bbd2dadc7343.jpg" /></p><p>If B(t) = 0, for t &#206; I, then the problems (CP) and (M – WCD) constitutes the pair of problems treated by Husain et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.22412-ref2">2</xref>].</p><p>Theorem 1. (Weak Duality): Assume that</p><p>(A<sub>1</sub>): <img src="3-1040140\5f21c05c-1eed-4cf9-be19-02360e53ec05.jpg" />is feasible for (CP) and (u, y, w, p) is feasible for (M – WCD)(A<sub>2</sub>):&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160; &#160;<img src="3-1040140\7babe32f-bbf5-466a-9063-30f49bb6ba0c.jpg" /></p><p>is second-order pseudoinvex and</p><p><img src="3-1040140\0309599a-6bfd-4224-8a23-1bc5df001fb7.jpg" /></p><p>is second-order quasi-invex with respect to the same η</p><p>Then, infimum (CP) ≥ supremum (M – WCD).</p><p>Proof: Since x is feasible for (CP) and (u, y, w, p) is feasible for (M – WCD), we have</p><p><img src="3-1040140\1b30c834-dc5d-4de8-b3bd-e4b1639e21dd.jpg" /></p><p>By the second-order quasi-invexity of</p><p><img src="3-1040140\bcec8311-87bc-4a0a-ac8d-cce7f972befc.jpg" /></p><p>and integrating by parts this implies</p><p><img src="3-1040140\960899f0-4676-4e9d-a291-447ce97737f7.jpg" /></p><p>which by using (4) and (5) yields</p><p><img src="3-1040140\67a39586-2329-469e-987a-eca6214ecf81.jpg" /></p><p>Using equality Constraint (6), this gives</p><p><img src="3-1040140\c469f8b9-0fd5-4816-b1d6-2c3a35d91055.jpg" />.</p><p>By integration by parts and using (1), from this we have,</p><p><img src="3-1040140\e70c0b35-4927-48cd-aad4-a7dfb0b1a05a.jpg" />.</p><p>This, because of second-order pseudoinvexity of</p><p><img src="3-1040140\5ec63f25-13cb-4e75-b54e-9dfa65cd73c2.jpg" />, implies,</p><p><img src="3-1040140\15a70ad4-cbc4-49b2-8ad9-8441fac81448.jpg" /></p><p>Since<img src="3-1040140\64797dca-e640-4ca1-b476-a41b781cd033.jpg" />, by the generalized Schwartz inequality, the above inequality gives</p><p><img src="3-1040140\31ed81ec-6381-4b65-a19c-d7bbc53e6098.jpg" /></p><p>This implies Infimum (CP) ≥ Supremum (M – WCD).</p><p>Theorem 2. (Strong Duality): If <img src="3-1040140\89d2300b-3716-43ba-b308-a4b43a9193f8.jpg" /> is an optimal solution of (CP) and is also normal, then there exist piecewise smooth function y: I → R<sup>m</sup> and z: I → R<sup>n</sup> such that <img src="3-1040140\834673fb-633e-4614-8e31-c349dd7cd9a5.jpg" /> is a feasible solution of (M – WCD) and the two objective values are equal. Furthermore, if the hypotheses of Theorem 1 hold, then <img src="3-1040140\80e245fe-c977-4f73-8267-ea558298a1ad.jpg" /> is an optimal solution of the problem (M – WCD).</p><p>Proof: From Proposition 1, there exist piecewise smooth functions<img src="3-1040140\f4162c70-ed7b-475e-af8f-91817ee7d683.jpg" />: I → R<sup>m</sup> and<img src="3-1040140\027ab6e8-f19f-4622-b6c9-eec08891bce3.jpg" />: I → R<sup>n</sup> such that</p><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72656"><label>(9)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\ad521c56-07b9-4dda-9e3e-1f4044dd8f54.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72657"><label>(10)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\36f93b78-2722-4fa1-a5e5-a70557563ea3.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72658"><label>(11)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\7a6fbd55-f67c-48af-bdea-6cb82ed3e544.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72659"><label>(12)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\c471d042-d96f-4786-9f6c-a29f26065911.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72660"><label>(13)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\f0a5f3fb-8f60-4f85-a042-42fb4fbc3e07.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>The relation (10) along with (12) gives</p><p><img src="3-1040140\7c0cdcbb-2212-4014-80cb-e978a800825a.jpg" /></p><p>Hence <img src="3-1040140\07c92e1a-7dde-4a1f-9c98-6bf826e80748.jpg" /> satisfies the constraints of the problem (M – WCD) Using (10), (11) and<img src="3-1040140\ad70f2cc-a188-4393-bb62-e4ca3c645b77.jpg" />, we have</p><p><img src="3-1040140\1f7fc678-e677-42b5-8cee-0c5611f5a546.jpg" /></p><p>In view of the hypothesis of Theorem 1, it implies that <img src="3-1040140\ad632add-b18d-4578-b613-239da7a75f7e.jpg" /> is an optimal solution of (M – WCD).</p><p>Theorem 3. (Converse Duality): Assume that</p><p><img src="3-1040140\5c97f65c-8855-4a2b-be74-1a2260a9e8be.jpg" />is an optimal solution of (M – WCD).</p><p>(A<sub>2</sub>) The vector {F<sub>i</sub>, G<sub>i</sub>, i = 1, 2, 3, &#183;&#183;&#183;, n} are linearly independent. Where F<sub>i</sub> and G<sub>i</sub> are the i<sup>th</sup> row of F and G respectively</p><p>(A<sub>3</sub>)<img src="3-1040140\6d674486-2089-48e8-bd30-eb1079b762d5.jpg" />, and</p><p>(A<sub>4</sub>) either <img src="3-1040140\d640169b-9a7c-49dc-8b7f-83c38548e008.jpg" /></p><p>and&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160; <img src="3-1040140\d8616302-2e0e-440c-b6ab-13aedb210df4.jpg" /></p><p>or&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160; <img src="3-1040140\ec181cb2-1add-4fbb-8a8b-340dd1750e40.jpg" /></p><p>and&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160; <img src="3-1040140\effc107b-c08e-4a38-8249-edda4ff41c05.jpg" />.</p><p>Then <img src="3-1040140\307f4e86-8434-4111-a1f0-b6409bf9ae91.jpg" />(t) is feasible for (CP) and the two objective functionals have the same value. Also, if theorem1 holds for all feasible solution of (CP) and (M – WCD), then <img src="3-1040140\6958d108-1baa-4444-aacf-28512ba8d481.jpg" /> is an optimal solution of (CP).</p><p>Proof: Since <img src="3-1040140\7887c939-235c-42cd-821e-84cd2356a840.jpg" /> is an optimal solution of (M – WCD) by Proposition 1 there exist <img src="3-1040140\83a3ced6-74b3-447d-97b9-eaad08dae6ea.jpg" /> and piecewise smooth functions θ: I → R<sup>n</sup> and η: I → R<sup>m</sup> such that the following Fritz John optimality conditions are satisfied at<img src="3-1040140\56b17941-7fd0-49a2-a0a2-e841c28104da.jpg" />:</p><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72661"><label>(14)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\7bc3defc-b60c-4128-ae05-789fc54b7d39.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72662"><label>(15)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\45b41b62-7c83-4a68-af14-64cf98d75ba7.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72663"><label>(16)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\91c89f0a-c3c4-4a7c-8e3e-57ce6e222b21.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72664"><label>(17)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\76c546d4-c8ab-41da-a215-7d7ce6be16eb.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72665"><label>(18)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\a8c9c824-2a8b-44b4-b318-b9bf7582a616.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72666"><label>(19)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\a7d35d4f-b31e-4891-87e4-e419fdca58c7.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72667"><label>(20)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\367a48e4-5596-41cc-a7aa-daee9e30a298.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72668"><label>(21)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\0e47bb88-17b0-4fbc-9363-aba21a19f6a2.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72669"><label>(22)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\a4089569-5623-49bd-a7bb-85ea14f84478.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Using the hypothesis (A<sub>1</sub>), the Equation (3) yields</p><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72670"><label>(23)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\18a30eac-ca5b-4407-9504-947f9cf7eb5b.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72671"><label>(24)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\fe6d9943-4cac-472e-a6f0-cb3188e4cc36.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Using (5), (23) and (24) in (14), we have</p><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72672"><label>(25)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\f2d4a2be-0b60-4aae-a61a-d2b3ba1baa54.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Let γ = 0, then (24) implies θ(t) = 0,<img src="3-1040140\2b00de8e-62c5-4bc1-8b68-bf36e586c919.jpg" /> and (10) implies τp(t) = 0,<img src="3-1040140\c8dbffeb-6d56-4720-8b8a-c9a6a103ce81.jpg" />. Thus (25) gives</p><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72673"><label>(26)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\58a9f3de-c5b0-4955-9012-36f933c79c1a.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>This, because of the hypothesis (A<sub>5</sub>), gives t = 0.The equation (15) implies η(t) = 0, t &#206; I. Using t = 0 and θ(t) = 0, t &#206; I in (17), we have θ(t)B(t)ω(t) = 0, t &#206; I, which together with (20) yields <img src="3-1040140\703e5b11-5579-4d19-b31f-c1a4da0554bb.jpg" /></p><p>Consequently, <img src="3-1040140\47321b5e-743b-4c81-b3be-7767998da7b5.jpg" />a contradicttion to (22). Hence t = g &gt; 0.</p><p>Premultiplying (15) by y(t) and using (19), we have</p><p><img src="3-1040140\050d8b5f-e677-4a5e-8772-50aa02384e01.jpg" /></p><p>Using (18), this gives</p><p><img src="3-1040140\595a1b28-ff78-439c-8b96-8b3ebea407ab.jpg" /></p><p>which reduces to</p><p><img src="3-1040140\74d88c5e-42d5-419d-8776-03ad67b19b1b.jpg" /></p><p>This in view of the hypothesis in (A<sub>4</sub>) implies, p(t) = 0, t &#206; I.</p><p>Consequently (23) or (24) gives θ(t) = 0, t &#206; I.</p><p>Using θ(t) = 0 along with t &gt; 0, (17) implies</p><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72674"><label>(27)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\03d68d83-31a7-48ba-8238-bd393cc74a26.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Hence the Schwartz inequality (1) along with (27) gives</p><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72675"><label>(28)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\87cf4628-6be4-4832-ab2c-7d50b6f937b7.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>If <img src="3-1040140\34463dc0-988c-4a1c-bebe-e9b5dc3a28f7.jpg" />Then<img src="3-1040140\801f6dee-3ff7-4b74-a567-3be43b9a2c26.jpg" /><img src="3-1040140\d0b868e9-8ce2-4c99-bcdf-c7d2d7796059.jpg" />.</p><p>So, (28) gives,</p><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72676"><label>(29)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\d45868ab-1919-4682-8d3e-deaf614fd204.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>If ϕ(t) = 0, then (27) implies B(t)x(t) = 0, t &#206; I.</p><p>So we still obtain</p><p><img src="3-1040140\de80c4a8-aab6-4060-b12c-4b00d5b32fb8.jpg" /></p><p>Therefore from (29) and p(t) = 0, we have</p><p><img src="3-1040140\6768dc79-141f-4008-b296-9db8181bf1f3.jpg" /></p><p>If, for all feasible (x, u, y, ω, p),</p><p><img src="3-1040140\2d5e5264-679b-470d-a8fe-e99517146659.jpg" /></p><p>is second-order pseudoinvex and</p><p><img src="3-1040140\ca8aa280-0258-414d-953d-7299de6a1610.jpg" /></p><p>is second-order quasi-invex with respect to the same η by Theorem 1 it implies that <img src="3-1040140\1ffa690d-a0c7-4893-b122-9cfd5ae1baec.jpg" /> is an optimal solution of the problem (CP).</p><p>Theorem 4. (Strict Converse Duality): Assume that</p><p>(C<sub>1</sub>): <img src="3-1040140\2ec6e53b-18c5-41d3-b541-fb636dcd8818.jpg" /></p><p>is second-order strictly pesudoinvex and</p><p><img src="3-1040140\63e7a558-6ed4-445f-aea2-0259e2e4dce8.jpg" /></p><p>is second-order quasi-invex with respect to the same η. and</p><p>(C<sub>2</sub>): x is an optimal solution for (CP).</p><p>If <img src="3-1040140\c4ab0204-77d3-449f-8439-6d50a86dc365.jpg" /> is an optimal solution of (M – WCD) then <img src="3-1040140\30d1c8c4-8336-4aed-bfa9-6c16126fade0.jpg" /> is an optimal solution of (CP) and<img src="3-1040140\d3333823-59e5-4d34-8479-04ab69397696.jpg" />.</p><p>Proof: We assume that <img src="3-1040140\e6765a70-89e0-4c92-b310-fc90d5af2900.jpg" /> and exhibit a contradiction. Since x is an optimal solution of (CP) it follows for theorem 2 that there exist <img src="3-1040140\8e0d6956-ec4a-4b0b-8a87-2297bf542920.jpg" /> and <img src="3-1040140\83c7ac66-3db7-479c-93df-997aab167fee.jpg" /> such that (u, y, w, p) is optimal solution of (M – WCD). Since (u, y, w, p) is also an optimal solution for (M – WCD), it follows that</p><p><img src="3-1040140\ba5a02a9-7a39-4ae5-82cf-53357951d11f.jpg" /></p><p>This, because of second-order strict pseudo-invexity of</p><p><img src="3-1040140\df2442d8-8988-417c-990f-f7327be91ca3.jpg" />for all <img src="3-1040140\43f7757b-eab5-432f-83e7-f76841bcf9c0.jpg" /></p><p>gives</p><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72677"><label>(30)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\f3d25b70-3b38-4088-be22-62ae8c2a6919.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Also from the Constraint of (CP) and (M – WCD).</p><p><img src="3-1040140\1e704837-da3f-4966-af41-8cbcc40d51f7.jpg" /></p><p>From the second-order quasi-invexity of</p><p><img src="3-1040140\827755e6-45c6-41fe-9316-9be8fb39efc0.jpg" /></p><p>the above inequality implies</p><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72678"><label>(31)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\36df1e75-576d-4133-9c88-873c3bd8ffb1.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Combining (30) and (31)</p><p><img src="3-1040140\8ff0a527-c285-48dc-ab1c-9dc116c7a927.jpg" /></p><p>That is,</p><p><img src="3-1040140\f22ed0b1-614b-4fb8-b66d-0d658d495978.jpg" /></p><p>which contradicts the equality constraints of (M – WCD). Hence <img src="3-1040140\b5723960-a591-477b-946d-56ffea7171e8.jpg" /></p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Natural Boundary Values</title><p>In this section, we formulate a pair of nondifferentiable second-order dual variational problems with natural boundary values rather than fixed end points.</p><p>(CP<sub>0</sub>): Minimize</p><p><img src="3-1040140\6fc0ae53-fe06-4d4a-9685-223f5bfac4e9.jpg" /></p><p>Subject to <img src="3-1040140\7f691a97-b48a-4a9b-b6ff-05d14ea50104.jpg" /></p><p>(CD<sub>0</sub>): Maximize</p><p><img src="3-1040140\f2b92a84-a4de-4438-b992-8c60398cd380.jpg" /></p><p>Subject to</p><p><img src="3-1040140\200c5bcb-d14d-4500-9d8a-4dd7ef8c0f81.jpg" /><img src="3-1040140\2a4f65a3-ff1a-41e8-9679-c32ca479738c.jpg" /> (32)</p><disp-formula id="scirp.22412-formula72679"><label>(33)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="3-1040140\b1a25df3-8812-45be-8f00-11e6503f11b1.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>The conditions (32) and (33) are popularly known as natural boundary conditions in calculus of variations.</p><p>We shall not repeat the proofs of theorems of the preceding section for these problems as these proofs follow analogously except with some slight modifications.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Nondifferentiable Nonlinear Programming Problems</title><p>If all functions in the problems (CP<sub>0</sub>) and (CD<sub>0</sub>) are independent of t and b – a = 1, then these problems will reduce to following nondifferentiable dual variational problems, treated by Zhang and Mond [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.22412-ref5">5</xref>]:</p><p>(NP): Minimize <img src="3-1040140\a81c0111-afa7-49fd-adc1-d99fba4bfba9.jpg" /></p><p>Subject to</p><p><img src="3-1040140\80532cc7-0449-4e4e-904d-2d198f645bc7.jpg" /></p><p>(ND): Maximize <img src="3-1040140\07eb7132-5f2a-40e0-85e1-8876cadd5123.jpg" /></p><p>Subject to</p><p><img src="3-1040140\e6f8009e-55e9-4a3a-8bae-5b15155db4d6.jpg" /></p><p><img src="3-1040140\af9f9612-f9f9-4c4f-a811-924684ff02ed.jpg" /></p><p><img src="3-1040140\d6e8c12c-8a48-4172-9aab-a91fc9ff55c8.jpg" /></p><p>where</p><p><img src="3-1040140\7f94bd9e-5cc7-4642-a8d0-1f372f1b6510.jpg" /></p><p>and <img src="3-1040140\c567e7da-9f52-48d0-ace0-ad0bb44cff3e.jpg" /></p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>6. Conclusions</title><p>In this research, we have discussed a class of nondifferentiable continuous programming problems treated in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.22412-ref6">6</xref>] and formulated Mond-Weir type second-order dual variational problem which is in the spirit of Zhang and Mond [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.22412-ref5">5</xref>] for a nondifferentiable nonlinear programming problem.</p><p>Under second-order pseudoinvexity and second-order quasi-invexity, we established weak, strong, strict-converse and converse duality theorems. When functions, occurring in the formulations of the problems, do not depend explicit on t, our results reduce to those of Zhang and Mond [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.22412-ref5">5</xref>].</p><p>Thus our results become dynamic generalizations of the results in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.22412-ref5">5</xref>]. The problems of this research can be investigated in Multiobjective setting.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>REFERENCES</title></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.22412-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">X. Chen, “Second-Order Duality for Variational Problems,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, Vol. 286, 2003, pp. 261-270.  
doi:10.1016/S0022-247X(03)00481-5</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.22412-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">I. Husain, A. Ahmed and M. Masoodi, “Second-Order Duality for Variational Problems,” European Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2009, pp. 278-295.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.22412-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">B. Mond and T. Weir, “Generalized Convexity and High Order-Duality,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, Vol. 46, No. 1, 1974, pp. 169-174.  
doi:10.1016/0022-247X(74)90289-3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.22412-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">I. Husain and M. Masoodi, “Second-Order Duality for a Class of Nondifferentiable Continuous Programming Problems,” European Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2012, pp. 390-400.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.22412-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">J. Zhang and B. Mond, “Duality for a Nondifferentiable Programming Problem,” Bulletin Australian Mathematical Society, Vol. 55, 1997, pp. 20-44.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.22412-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">S. Chandra, B. D. Craven and I. Husain, “A Class of Nondifferentiable continuous Programming Problems,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, Vol. 107, No. 1, 1985, pp. 122-131.  
doi:10.1016/0022-247X(85)90357-9</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>