A Fractal Fractional Sex Structured Syphilis Model With Three - 2023 - Results

Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107098
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Results in Physics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rinp
A fractal-fractional sex structured syphilis model with three stages of

infection and loss of immunity with analysis and modeling
Muhammad Farman a,b,c , Aamir Shehzad c , Ali Akgül a,b,d , Evren Hincal a , Dumitru Baleanu b ,
Sayed M. El Din e ,∗
a
Mathematical Research Center, Department of Mathematics, Near East University, 99138 Nicosia Cyprus, Turkey
b Department of Computer Science and Mathematics, Lebanese American University, 1107-2020, Beirut, Lebanon
c Institute of Mathematics, Khwaja Fareed University of Engineering and Information Technology, Rahim Yar Khan 64200, Pakistan
d Art and Science Faculty, Department of Mathematics, Siirt University, 56100 Siirt, Turkey
e
Center of Research, Faculty of Engineering, Future University in Egypt, New Cairo 11835, Egypt
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
MSC: Treponema pallidum, a spiral-shaped bacterium, is responsible for the sexually transmitted disease syphilis.
37C75 Millions of people in less developed countries are getting the disease despite the accessibility of effective
93B05 preventative methods like condom use and effective and affordable treatment choices. The disease can be
65L07
fatal if the patient does not have access to adequate treatment. Prevalence has hovered between endemic levels
Keywords: in industrialized countries for decades and is currently rising. Using the Mittag-Leffler kernel, we develop a
Syphilis disease model fractal-fractional model for the syphilis disease. Qualitative as well as quantitative analysis of the fractional
Qualitative analysis
order system are performed. Also, fixed point theory and the Lipschitz condition are used to fulfill the criteria
Ulam–Hyers stability
for the existence and uniqueness of the exact solution. We illustrate the system’s Ulam–Hyers stability for
Two-step lagrange polynomial
Mittag-Leffler kernel disease-free and endemic equilibrium. The analytical solution is supported by numerical simulations that show
how the dynamics of the spread of syphilis within the population are influenced by fractional-order derivatives.
The outcomes show that the suggested methods are effective in delivering better results. Overall, this research
helps to develop more precise and comprehensive approaches to understanding and regulating syphilis disease
transmission and progression.
Introduction
Treponema pallidum, a bacterium classified under the Spirochaets phylum, Spirochaetales order, and Spirochaetaceae circle of relatives, causes
the sexually transmitted disease syphilis. Treponema pertenue, which causes yawns; Treponema carateum, which causes pinta; and Treponema
pallidum, which is responsible for bejel or endemic syphilis, are three of the more well-known species that cause human treponemal disorders. The
four members of the bacterial family cannot be identified by morphological, chemical, or immunological methods. The other treponemal diseases
are transferred through direct contact with an infected individual, while syphilis is the easiest disease to contract through sexual intercourse [1].
Syphilis causes sores, blisters, or ulcers to appear on the mouth, bottom, or genitalia of the affected person [2]. Syphilis is one of the most contagious
diseases. It can be spread through sexual contact, for instance, when a susceptible person engages in unprotected sex or shares sex toys with an
infected person. The majority of those lesions vanished without anyone noticing them, despite the fact that the disease is spread through sores.
Males who engage in risky sexual activity with several partners and who have sex with other males account for the majority of the rise. Additionally,
new ways of finding sexual partners are emerging, including the Internet, pubs, and saunas [3]. Any stage of syphilis can result in neurosyphilis,
ocular syphilis, and otosyphilis, but the early stages are when these manifestations are most common. Regardless of their immunological health,
any patient is susceptible to these complex syphilis infections. HIV-positive patients are more likely to develop neurosyphilis and ocular syphilis
quickly, especially if their CD4 counts are low [4]. Congenital syphilis is another type of syphilis that can affect a newborn or fetus and is contracted
during pregnancy by a mother who has syphilis that has not been appropriately treated. Infants with congenital syphilis may endure permanent
physical and neurological issues as well as early infant death, stillbirth, or other complications [5].
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sayed.eldin22@fue.edu.eg (S.M. El Din).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2023.107098
Received 4 May 2023; Received in revised form 10 October 2023; Accepted 17 October 2023
Available online 31 October 2023
2211-3797/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. Farman et al. Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107098
Untreated syphilis infections often manifest their symptoms over the course of several stages, with the primary stage being marked by the
presence of a single chancre at the site of inoculation. The secondary stage is characterized by a variety of symptoms, most of which are nonspecific
and generally present as copper-colored skin lesions. The early latent stage and the late latent stage are the two distinct phases of the syphilis latency
period. Late latency refers to the remaining time until advancement to the tertiary stage in 1–46 years, while early latency refers to the first year
of latency. Syphilis-related mortality occurs at this stage in tolerable cases, which can appear in a variety of ways, ranging from neurosyphilis to
cardiovascular syphilis [6]. In the twenty-first century, syphilis has become more common. The WHO estimates that 36.4 million cases of syphilis
infection have been reported globally. Out of an estimated population of over 12 million new syphilis infections documented every year in the
world, approximately 90% of new syphilis cases are identified in countries with minimal resources. According to the WHO, there are 3.4 million
new cases of syphilis among adults aged 15 to 49 each year on the African continent. In 2012, there were 1.5 cases of syphilis per 1000 females and
1.5 cases per 1000 males worldwide. Syphilis is thought to affect 0.5 percent of females and 0.5 percent of males aged 15 to 49 worldwide, with the
WHO African Region having the highest frequency. Between 1968 and 2015, there were 6498 syphilis-related deaths in the United States, including
4149 men and 2349 women. Adult syphilis deaths are now extremely rare. Congenital syphilis causes around 492,000 baby deaths annually in
sub-Saharan Africa [7]. Antibiotics like penicillin can be used to treat syphilis. Individuals who have undergone treatment and recovered from the
infection may temporarily develop immunity to reinfection before reverting to susceptibility [8].
Epidemiological models are crucial for understanding the dynamics of infectious diseases and expanding effective prevention actions. To be
more specific, research on these models predicts essential elements that may be critical to the spread and management of contamination. In order
to research syphilis, Garnett et al. [9] developed a mathematical model that took into account all disease stages. They thought that once an
infected person had recovered from latent and secondary illnesses, they would only temporarily obtain immunity. In a different investigation [10],
scientists used 210 differential equations to simulate the spread of heterosexual syphilis in East Vancouver. Although they divided the population
into numerous categories depending on sex, sexual activity, and age, they mixed the later stages of syphilis. Grassly et al. [11] predicted an epidemic
period of 8 to 11 years by fitting real-world data to a SIRS syphilis model utilizing data from 68 localities across the United States between 1941
and 2002. Researchers in [12] studied the same model but found no proof of cyclic recurrence. Milner and Zhao [13] created a mathematical model
based on the idea that subsequent infections can lead to partial immunity and that behavioral patterns and inoculation might be effective syphilis
control measures. To qualitatively evaluate the impact of loss of temporary immunity in the transmission process, researchers provided a new
multistage deterministic model for the dynamics of syphilis transmission [14]. They demonstrate that backward bifurcation can be caused by loss
of temporary immunity. In order to study the dynamics of the spread of syphilis in a sexually active population with some level of disease control,
Andrawus and Eguda [15] developed a compartmental model. Effective syphilis treatment options for both primary and secondary infected people
are suggested by the model, which experiences the phenomenon of backward bifurcation. Using a mathematical model, an inquiry was conducted
in [16] to ascertain how HIV and syphilis interact synergistically. They suggested that if a concerted effort is made to treat primary and secondary
syphilis, particularly with high treatment rates for primary syphilis, it will lead to a decrease in the incidence of HIV and its co-infection with
syphilis in the general population. Since the majority of research used an integer derivative to explain the dynamics of this infection, a non-integer
framework is the best choice for doing so.
Due to its numerous applications across numerous academic fields, fractional calculus has gained a lot of popularity in recent years [17–
20]. It has the capacity to take the memory influence into account, which usually happens in biological models. As a result, when compared
to typical integer order models, fractional order models appear to be more factual and empirical. A mathematical model of syphilis using the
Caputo–Fabrizio and Mittag-Leffler functions was developed and examined in [21]. To achieve a numerical simulation to support the analytical
solution, respective numerical schemes for each operator were carried out. For HPV and syphilis, a mathematical model utilizing the Caputo–
Fabrizio fractional derivative was discussed in [22]. The numerical simulations used the predictor–corrector method with convergence analysis.
Atangana–Baleanu fractional derivative was proposed in another study paper [23] as a novel method for simulating the complex dynamics of
syphilis infection. The fractional order model was iteratively solved using a unique numerical technique. The chaotic behavior of the system was
also shown for specific input factor values. Atangana [24] just created the novel concept of fractal-fractional derivative. In many circumstances,
this novel concept is highly useful for solving some challenging issues. The operator has two orders: the fractional order, which is the first, and
the fractal dimension, which is the second. The fractal fractional derivative is a new concept that is superior than fractional derivatives and the
conventional one. This is because working with fractal-fractional derivatives allows us to simultaneously examine the fractional operator and
fractal dimension. Using a fractal fractional derivative, Farman et al. [25] studied a sustainable method to observe the dynamics of infection
in the plant. Solutions were produced using a two-step Lagrange polynomial in the generalized form of the Mittag-Leffler kernel to represent a
time-fractional-order plant virus model with disease effects. In [26], a fractional-order mathematical model for both type 1 diabetes and normal
blood sugar is studied. Another article [27] looks into an economical fractional derivative-based approach to the mechanisms of HIV/AIDS. The
analysis of how it impacts the fractional operator is carried out using a two-step Lagrange polynomial in the extended version of the Mlittag-Lefler
kernel, which depicts the detrimental effect of HIV/AIDS on the community. With the goal of dealing with the resolution of the variable-order
time-space fractional KdV–Burgers–Kuramoto problem, Sadri K et al. [28] presented a pseudo-operational collocation approach. With a linear
arrangement of two-dimensional Jacobi polynomials to be foundational functions, computational solutions are explored. A mathematical model for
chemotherapy-assisted treatment of cancer was created by Farman et al. [29] utilizing a non-integer order fractal fractional Mittag-Leffler operator.
To demonstrate theoretical findings, numerical simulations were performed and the system’s controllability and visibility were checked for linear
control. There are some fresh findings in [30,31] on the existence, uniqueness, stability, and bifurcation analysis of a fractional order model. For
more details see [32–37].
We create a fractal-fractional model for syphilis transmission with controls in this study, motivated by the description given above. The remaining
parts of this document are structured as follows:
• In ‘‘Preliminaries’’, we give a brief introduction to the fractal fractional operator.

• A study of the suggested model’s description is found in ‘‘Formulation of Model’’, along with a generalized version of the model.
• The well-posedness, qualitative attributes such as equilibrium points, existence, uniqueness, and Ulam–Hyers stability of the suggested model
are all examined in ‘‘Analysis of proposed model’’.
• We examine the numerical structure of the Mittag-Leffler kernel in ‘‘Numerical scheme’’.
• Numerical simulations, outcomes, and conclusions will be covered in ‘‘Result and Discussion’’ and ‘‘Conclusion’’, respectively.
2
Preliminaries
Here, we give a few key definitions that might be useful to analyze the system.
Definition 1 ([38]). Let M(𝑡) be continuous function in (a,b) and fractal differentiable on (a,b) with order 𝜌. Then for 0 ≤ 𝜌, 𝜐 ≤ 1, the
Fractal-Fractional derivative of order ‘‘𝜌’’ in the Riemann–Liouville terms
• with a power law kernel is provided as:

𝑡
𝐹 𝐹 𝑃 𝛼,𝛽 1 𝑑
0
D𝑡 M(𝑡) = (𝑡 − 𝜛)𝑛−𝛼−1 M(𝜛)𝑑𝜛. (1)
𝛤 (𝑛 − 𝛼) 𝑑𝑡𝛽 ∫0
Where 𝑛 − 1 < 𝛼, 𝛽 < 𝑛 ∈ N. And
DM(𝜛) M(𝑡) − M(𝜛)
= lim (2)
D𝜛 𝛽 𝑡→𝜛 𝑡𝛽 − 𝜛 𝛽
• with an exponential decay kernel is expressed as:
Q(𝛼) 𝑡 [ ]
𝐹 𝐹 𝐸 𝛼,𝛽 𝑑 𝛼
0
D𝑡 M(𝑡) = exp − (𝑡 − 𝜛) M(𝜛)𝑑𝜛 (3)
𝛤 (𝑛 − 𝛼) 𝑑𝑡 ∫0
𝛽 1−𝛼
Where 𝛼 > 0, 𝛽 ≤ 𝑛 ∈ 𝑁, and Q(0) = 1 = Q(1).
• for the Mittag-Leffler kernel is given as:
AB(𝛼) 𝑑 𝑡 [ ]
𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽 𝛼
0
D𝑡 M(𝑡) = M(𝜛)𝐸𝛼 − (𝑡 − 𝜛)𝛼 𝑑𝜛. (4)
1 − 𝛼 𝑑𝑡𝛽 ∫0 1−𝛼
𝛼
where 0 < 𝛼, 𝛽 ≤ 1, 𝐸𝛼 is the Mittag-Leffler function and AB(𝛼) = 1 − 𝛼 + 𝛤 (𝛼)
represents a normalization function.
Definition 2 ([38]). Let M(𝑡) be continuous function on (a,b) and 0 ≤ 𝛼, 𝛽 ≤ 1, then the Fractal-Fractional integral of M(𝑡) with fractional order 𝛼
and fractal order 𝛽
• with a power law kernel is defined as:

𝑡
1
𝐹 𝐹 𝑃 𝛼,𝛽
0
I M(𝑡) = (𝑡 − 𝜛)𝛼−1 𝜛 1−𝛽 M(𝜛)𝑑𝜛. (5)
𝛤 (𝛼) ∫0
• for exponential decay kernel is given as:

𝑡
𝐹 𝐹 𝐸 𝛼,𝛽 𝛽(1 − 𝛼)𝑡𝛽−1 M(𝑡) 𝛼𝛽
I M(𝑡) = + 𝜛 𝛼−1 M(𝜛)𝑑𝜛. (6)
0 Q(𝛼) Q(𝛼) 0
∫
• for the Mittag-Leffler kernel is given as:

𝑡
𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽 𝛽(1 − 𝛼)𝑡𝛽−1 M(𝑡) 𝛼𝛽
I M(𝑡) = + (𝑡 − 𝜛)𝛼−1 𝜛 𝛽−1 M(𝜛)𝑑𝜛. (7)
0 AB(𝛼) AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼) 0
∫
Formulation of model
We look at a sex-structured syphilis model [7] with three stages of infection and immune loss. 𝐍(𝑡) represents the total population at time t,
which is subdivided into ten smaller classes:
• Susceptible males and females have been designated as 𝐒𝑚 (𝑡) and 𝐒𝑓 (𝑡), respectively.
• 𝐈𝑚𝑝 (𝑡) and 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (𝑡) are males and females with primary-stage syphilis infection, respectively.
• Males and females with secondary-stage syphilis are referred to as 𝐈𝑚𝑠 (𝑡) and 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (𝑡), respectively.
• Males and females with latent-stage syphilis are referred to as 𝐋𝑚 (𝑡) and 𝐋𝑓 (𝑡), respectively.
• 𝐑𝑚 (𝑡) and 𝐑𝑓 (𝑡) denote recovered males and females, respectively.
Model’s assumptions
• At time t, a rise in the proportion of sexually active people who have never been exposed to syphilis at a rate of ‘‘𝛱𝑚 ’’ results in recruitment into
susceptible males ‘‘𝐒𝑚 (𝑡)’’. The rate ‘‘𝜆𝑚 ’’ of males who recovered from syphilis infection after losing immunity is another factor contributing
to the population growth. The population of susceptible males decreases as a result of newly infected males with syphilis progressing to males
𝐈 +𝐈 +𝐋
with primary stage syphilis via a function ‘‘𝜔𝑓 𝜙( 𝑓 𝑝 𝐍𝑓 𝑠 𝑓 )𝐒𝑚 ’’, where ‘‘𝜔𝑓 ’’ represents the transmission probability of syphilis females and
is the average number of sexual partners per unit time. Natural death has a net effect of reducing the vulnerable male population at a rate of
‘‘𝜈’’. Recruitment into the vulnerable females ‘‘𝐒𝑓 (𝑡)’’ at time t is brought on by a rise in the proportion of sexually active females who have
never had syphilis at rate ‘‘𝛱𝑓 ’’. Females who are susceptible to syphilis increase at a rate of ‘‘𝜆𝑓 ’’ due to immune loss later on and recovery
𝐈 +𝐈 +𝐋
from infection. By becoming infected with syphilis at a quantity of ‘‘𝜔𝑚 𝜙( 𝑚𝑝 𝐍𝑚𝑠 𝑚 )𝐒𝑓 ’’ and migrating to females who are already infected
with the disease during the first stage, where ‘‘𝜔𝑚 ’’ is the likelihood that a man with syphilis would transmit the disease to a female, this
population is diminished. Death as a result of a natural phenomenon reduces the population at a rate of ‘‘𝜈’’.
3
• Males with primary stage syphilis ‘‘𝐈𝑚𝑝 (𝑡)’’ are more prevalent in the community at time t due to the spread of newly infected individuals from
𝐈 +𝐈 +𝐋
susceptible males at the quantity ‘‘𝜔𝑓 𝜙( 𝑓 𝑝 𝐍𝑓 𝑠 𝑓 )𝐒𝑚 ’’ and are less prevalent due to the movement of males with secondary stage syphilis at
rate ‘‘𝜁𝑚 ’’. Natural death at rate ‘‘𝜈’’ and the use of antibiotics in therapy at rate ‘‘𝜂𝑚1 ’’ significantly reduce this population. The number of
females with primary stage syphilis ‘‘𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (𝑡)’’ increases at time t as a result of the progression of newly infected women with syphilis infection
𝐈 +𝐈 +𝐋
from susceptible women at the quantity ‘‘𝜔𝑚 𝜙( 𝑚𝑝 𝐍𝑚𝑠 𝑚 )𝐒𝑓 ’’ and decreases as a result of the progression to infected women with secondary
stage syphilis at rate ‘‘𝜁𝑓 ’’. The population is declining because of natural death at rate ‘‘𝜈’’ and antibiotic treatment at rate ‘‘𝛿𝑓1 ’’.
• The progression of males with primary stage syphilis ‘‘𝐈𝑚𝑝 ’’ to males with secondary stage syphilis ‘‘𝐈𝑚𝑠 ’’ at rate ‘‘𝜁𝑚 ’’ causes an increase in
the number of infected males with secondary stage syphilis ‘‘𝐈𝑚𝑠 ’’ infection at time t. The progression of males with secondary stage syphilis
to males with latent stage syphilis ‘‘𝐋𝑚 ’’ at a rate of ‘‘𝜒𝑚 ’’ reduces the population. The population is further decreased by natural causes of
mortality at rate ‘‘𝜈’’ and by the use of antibiotics for treatment at rate ‘‘𝜂𝑚2 ’’. Due to the progression of females with primary stage syphilis
‘‘𝐈𝑓 𝑝 ’’ to females with secondary stage syphilis ‘‘𝐈𝑓 𝑠 ’’ at rate ‘‘𝜁𝑓 ’’, the number of females with secondary stage syphilis ‘‘𝐈𝑓 𝑠 ’’ is increasing at
time t. The population is decreased by the rate ‘‘𝜒𝑓 ’’ at which females with secondary stage syphilis proceed to latent stage syphilis ‘‘𝐋𝑓 ’’, by
natural mortality at rate ‘‘𝜈’’, and by antibiotic treatment at rate ‘‘𝛿𝑓2 ’’.
• The passage of infected males with secondary stage syphilis at rate ‘‘𝜒𝑚 ’’ to the population of males with latent stage syphilis at time t increases
the population of males with latent syphilis ‘‘𝐋𝑚 ’’ and decreases it due to natural death at rate ‘‘𝜈’’. The presence of treatment at a rate of
‘‘𝜂𝑚3 ’’ significantly reduces this population. The progression of infected females with secondary stage syphilis at rate ‘‘𝜒𝑓 ’’ to the population
of females with latent stage syphilis at time t increases the population of females with latent stage syphilis ‘‘𝐋𝑓 ’’, while natural death at rate
‘‘𝜈’’ decreases it. The use of treatment at a rate of ‘‘𝛿𝑓3 ’’ further reduces this group.
• The advancement of treated males from the primary, secondary, and latent stages of syphilis, respectively, at rates ‘‘𝜂𝑚1 ’’, ‘‘𝜂𝑚2 ’’ and ‘‘𝜂𝑚3 ’’,
which are the treatment rates of syphilis infection in the male population, results in an increase in the population of recovered males ‘‘𝐑𝑚 ’’
at time t. This population is declining naturally at a rate of ‘‘𝜈’’, and it is further declining at a rate of ‘‘𝜆𝑚 ’’ due to the loss of immunity these
individuals have acquired as a result of treatment and transfer to susceptible male populations. As treated females proceed from the primary,
secondary, and latent stages of syphilis infections at rates of ‘‘𝛿𝑓1 ’’, ‘‘𝛿𝑓2 ’’ and ‘‘𝛿𝑓3 ’’, respectively, the number of recovered females ‘‘𝐑𝑓 ’’ at
time t increases. This population is diminished by natural death at a rate of ‘‘𝜈’’, and it is further diminished by immunity loss brought on by
treatment and transfer of such a person to the susceptible male population at a rate of ‘‘𝜆𝑓 ’’.
To create the new fractional-order model under the fractal-fractional operator in the Atangana–Baleanu sense, the aforementioned description can
be written as the following non-linear fractional differential equations:
⎧𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽 𝐈 +𝐈 +𝐋
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐒𝑚 (𝑡) = 𝛱𝑚 + 𝜆𝑚 𝐑𝑚 − 𝜔𝑓 𝜙( 𝑓 𝑝 𝐍𝑓 𝑠 𝑓 )𝐒𝑚 − 𝜐𝐒𝑚 ,
⎪𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽 𝐈 +𝐈 +𝐋
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐈𝑚𝑝 (𝑡) = 𝜔𝑓 𝜙( 𝑓 𝑝 𝐍𝑓 𝑠 𝑓 )𝐒𝑚 − (𝜁𝑚 + 𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚1 )𝐈𝑚𝑝 ,
⎪𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐈𝑚𝑠 (𝑡) = 𝜁𝑚 𝐈𝑚𝑝 − (𝜒𝑚 + 𝜂𝑚2 + 𝜐)𝐈𝑚𝑠 ,
⎪0 𝖣 𝑡 𝐋𝑚 (𝑡) = 𝜒𝑚 𝐈𝑚𝑠 − (𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚3 )𝐋𝑚 ,
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐑𝑚 (𝑡) = 𝜂𝑚1 𝐈𝑚𝑝 + 𝜂𝑚2 𝐈𝑚𝑠 + 𝜂𝑚3 𝐋𝑚 − (𝜐 + 𝜆𝑚 )𝐑𝑚 ,
⎨𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽 𝐈 +𝐈 +𝐋
(8)
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐒𝑓 (𝑡) = 𝛱𝑓 + 𝜆𝑓 𝐑𝑓 − 𝜔𝑚 𝜙( 𝑚𝑝 𝐍𝑚𝑠 𝑚 )𝐒𝑓 − 𝜐𝐒𝑓 ,
⎪ 𝐈 +𝐈 +𝐋
⎪𝐹0 𝐹 𝑀 𝖣𝛼,𝛽
𝑡 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (𝑡) = 𝜔𝑚 𝜙(
𝑚𝑝 𝑚𝑠 𝑚
)𝐒𝑓 − (𝜁𝑓 + 𝜐 + 𝛿𝑓1 )𝐈𝑓 𝑝 ,
𝐍
⎪ 𝛼,𝛽
⎪𝐹0 𝐹 𝑀 𝖣𝑡 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (𝑡) = 𝜁𝑓 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 − (𝜒𝑓 + 𝛿𝑓2 + 𝜐)𝐈𝑓 𝑠 ,
⎪
𝑡 𝐋𝑓 (𝑡) = 𝜒𝑓 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 − (𝜐 + 𝛿𝑓3 )𝐋𝑓 ,
⎪
𝑡 𝐑𝑓 (𝑡) = 𝛿𝑓1 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 + 𝛿𝑓2 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 + 𝛿𝑓3 𝐋𝑓 − (𝜐 + 𝜆𝑓 )𝐑𝑓 .
⎩
with non-negative initial constraints,
𝐒𝑚 (0) ≥ 0, 𝐈𝑚𝑝 (0) ≥ 0, 𝐈𝑚𝑠 (0) ≥ 0, 𝐋𝑚 (0) ≥ 0, 𝐑𝑚 (0) ≥ 0,

𝐒𝑓 (0) ≥ 0, 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (0) ≥ 0, 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (0) ≥ 0, 𝐋𝑓 (0) ≥ 0, 𝐑𝑓 (0) ≥ 0. (9)
Where 0 < 𝛼, 𝛽 ≤ 1. All of parameters are supposed to be positive supported by biological consideration.
Analysis of proposed model
Positive-ness and bounded-ness of solutions
Given that they represent actual-international conditions with pertinent values, we look into the conditions necessary to guarantee the positive
outcomes of the system under consideration. For this, in the case of classical derivative, we have ∀𝑡 ≥ 0
⎧𝐈 (𝑡) ≥ 𝐈𝑚𝑝 (0)𝑒

−(𝜁𝑚 +𝜐+𝜂𝑚 )𝑡
1 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (𝑡) ≥ 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (0)𝑒
−(𝜁𝑓 +𝜐+𝛿𝑓 )𝑡
1 ,
⎪ 𝑚𝑝 −(𝜒𝑚 +𝜂𝑚 +𝜐)𝑡 −(𝜒𝑓 +𝛿𝑓 +𝜐)𝑡
⎪𝐈𝑚𝑠 (𝑡) ≥ 𝐈𝑚𝑠 (0)𝑒 2 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (𝑡) ≥ 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (0)𝑒 2 ,
⎨ −(𝜐+𝜂𝑚 )𝑡 −(𝜐+𝛿𝑓 )𝑡 (10)
⎪𝐋𝑚 (𝑡) ≥ 𝐋𝑚 (0)𝑒 3 , 𝐋𝑓 (𝑡) ≥ 𝐋𝑓 (0)𝑒 3 ,
⎪𝐑 (𝑡) ≥ 𝐑𝑚 (0)𝑒−(𝜐+𝜆𝑚 )𝑡 , 𝐑𝑓 (𝑡) ≥ 𝐑𝑓 (0)𝑒−(𝜐+𝜆𝑓 )𝑡 .
⎩ 𝑚
4
For the function 𝐒𝑚 (𝑡) and 𝐒𝑓 (𝑡) we require the norm:
∥ W ∥∞ = sup𝑡∈𝐷W |W(𝑡)| (11)
where 𝐷W is the domain of W. We find for the function 𝐒𝑚 (𝑡);

{ ( ) }
⎧𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝖣𝛼,𝛽 𝐒 (𝑡) = ≥ −𝜔 𝜙( 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 +𝐈𝑓 𝑠 +𝐋𝑓 )𝐒 − 𝜐𝐒 ≥ − 𝜔 𝜙 |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |+|𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |+|𝐋𝑓 | + 𝜐 𝐒
𝑚 𝑓 𝑚 𝑚 𝑓 𝑚
⎪0 𝑡 𝐍 |𝐍|
⎪ { ( sup𝑡∈𝐷𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |+sup𝑡∈𝐷𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |+sup𝑡∈𝐷𝐋𝑓 |𝐋𝑓 | ) }
⎨ ≥ − 𝜔𝑓 𝜙 + 𝜐 𝐒𝑚 (12)
|𝐍|
⎪ { ( |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |∞ +|𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |∞ +|𝐋𝑓 |∞ ) }
⎪ = − 𝜔𝑓 𝜙 + 𝜐 𝐒𝑚 .
⎩ |𝐍| ∞
In case of classical derivative, we get

( ( |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 | +|𝐈𝑓 𝑠 | +|𝐋𝑓 | ) )
− 𝜔 𝜙 ∞ ∞ ∞ +𝜐 𝑡
𝐒𝑚 (𝑡) ≥ 𝐒𝑚 (0) 𝑒 𝑓 |𝐍|∞ , ∀𝑡 ≥ 0 (13)
Similarly, for the function 𝐒𝑓 (𝑡) we have

( ( |𝐈𝑚𝑝 | +|𝐈𝑚𝑠 |∞ +|𝐋𝑚 |∞ ) )
− 𝜔 𝜙 ∞ +𝜐 𝑡
𝐒𝑓 (𝑡) ≥ 𝐒𝑓 (0) 𝑒 𝑚 |𝐍|∞ , ∀𝑡 ≥ 0 (14)
While Positive solutions with non-local operator are discussed below.
Positive solutions with non-local operator
If all of the initial requirements are met for fractal-fractional operator, all results of system (8) are positive [39]. In case of a Mittag-Leffler
kernel, we obtain ∀𝑡 ≥ 0:
( ( |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 | +|𝐈𝑓 𝑠 | +|𝐋𝑓 | ) )
⎧ { 𝜓 1−𝛽 𝛼 𝜔𝑓 𝜙 ∞ ∞ ∞ +𝜐 𝑡𝛼 }
|𝐍|
⎪𝐒𝑚 (𝑡) ≥ 𝐒𝑚 (0) 𝐸𝛼 − [ ( |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 | ∞+|𝐈𝑓 𝑠 | +|𝐋𝑓 | ) ] ,
⎪ AB(𝛼)−(1−𝛼) 𝜔𝑓 𝜙 ∞
|𝐍|∞
∞ ∞ +𝜐
⎪ { ( )
𝜓 1−𝛽 𝛼 𝜁𝑚 +𝜐+𝜂𝑚 𝑡𝛼 }
⎪𝐈 (𝑡) ≥ 𝐈 (0) 𝐸 − [ 1 ] ,
⎪ 𝑚𝑝 𝑚𝑝 𝛼
AB(𝛼)−(1−𝛼) 𝜁𝑚 +𝜐+𝜂𝑚
⎪ { ( ) 1
⎪ 𝜓 1−𝛽 𝛼 𝜒𝑚 +𝜂𝑚 +𝜐 𝑡𝛼 }
⎪𝐈𝑚𝑠 (𝑡) ≥ 𝐈𝑚𝑠 (0) 𝐸𝛼 − AB(𝛼)−(1−𝛼)[𝜒 +𝜂 +𝜐] ,
2
⎪ ( )
𝑚 𝑚2
⎪ { 𝜓 1−𝛽 𝛼 𝜐+𝜂𝑚 𝑡𝛼 }
⎪𝐋𝑚 (𝑡) ≥ 𝐋𝑚 (0) 𝐸𝛼 − [3 ] ,
⎪ AB(𝛼)−(1−𝛼) 𝜐+𝜂𝑚
⎪ { ( ) 3
}
𝜓 1−𝛽 𝛼 𝜐+𝜆𝑚 𝑡𝛼
⎪𝐑𝑚 (𝑡) ≥ 𝐑𝑚 (0) 𝐸𝛼 − [ ] ,
⎪ AB(𝛼)−(1−𝛼) 𝜐+𝜆𝑚
⎨ ( ( |𝐈𝑚𝑝 | +|𝐈𝑚𝑠 |∞ +|𝐋𝑚 |∞ ) ) (15)
⎪ { 𝜓 1−𝛽 𝛼 𝜔𝑚 𝜙 ∞ +𝜐 𝑡𝛼 }
|𝐍|∞
⎪𝐒𝑓 (𝑡) ≥ 𝐒𝑓 (0) 𝐸𝛼 − [ ( |𝐈𝑚𝑝 | +|𝐈𝑚𝑠 |∞ +|𝐋𝑚 |∞ ) ] ,
⎪ AB(𝛼)−(1−𝛼) 𝜔𝑚 𝜙 ∞
|𝐍|∞
+𝜐
⎪ { ( ) }
1−𝛽 𝛼
⎪𝐈 (𝑡) ≥ 𝐈 (0) 𝐸 − 𝜓 𝛼 𝜁𝑓 +𝜐+𝛿 [ 𝑓1
𝑡
] ,
⎪ 𝑓𝑝 𝑓𝑝 𝛼
AB(𝛼)−(1−𝛼) 𝜁𝑓 +𝜐+𝛿𝑓
⎪ { ( ) 1
⎪ 𝜓 1−𝛽 𝛼 𝜒𝑓 +𝛿𝑓 +𝜐 𝑡𝛼 }
⎪𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (𝑡) ≥ 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (0) 𝐸𝛼 − AB(𝛼)−(1−𝛼)[𝜒 +𝛿 +𝜐] ,
2
⎪ (
𝑓
) 2
𝑓
⎪ { 𝜓 1−𝛽 𝛼 𝜐+𝛿𝑓 𝑡𝛼 }
⎪𝐋𝑓 (𝑡) ≥ 𝐋𝑓 (0) 𝐸𝛼 − [ 3 ] ,
⎪ AB(𝛼)−(1−𝛼) 𝜐+𝛿𝑓
⎪ { ( ) 3
}
𝜓 1−𝛽 𝛼 𝜐+𝜆𝑓 𝑡𝛼
⎪𝐑𝑓 (𝑡) ≥ 𝐑𝑓 (0) 𝐸𝛼 − [ ] .
⎩ AB(𝛼)−(1−𝛼) 𝜐+𝜆𝑓
Where 𝜓 is a time component.
Positively invariant region
We show in this part that the closed set:

{ 𝛱𝑚 + 𝛱𝑓 }
℘ = (𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑝 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓 ) ∈ R10
+ ∶𝐍≤ 𝜈
yields the positively invariant feasibility zone of the system (8).
Lemma 1. The region ℘ ∈ R10

+
{ 𝛱𝑚 + 𝛱𝑓 }
+ ∶𝐍≤ (16)
𝜈
attracts all solutions of the proposed system (8) in R10
+ and is positively invariant when initial restrictions are not negative.
5
Proof. The results are provided below, and we shall demonstrate the system’s positive solutions.
⎧𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽 |
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐒𝑚 (𝑡)| = 𝛱𝑚 + 𝜆𝑚 𝐑𝑚 ≥ 0,
|𝐒𝑚 =0
⎪
𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝖣𝛼,𝛽 𝐈 (𝑡)| 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 +𝐈𝑓 𝑠 +𝐋𝑓
⎪0 𝑡 𝑚𝑝 ||𝐈 =0 = 𝜔𝑓 𝜙( 𝐍
)𝐒𝑚 ≥ 0,
⎪ 𝑚𝑝
⎪𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝖣𝛼,𝛽 𝐈 (𝑡)||
⎪0 𝑡 𝑚𝑠 |𝐈 =0 = 𝜁𝑚 𝐈𝑚𝑝 ≥ 0,
𝑚𝑠
⎪𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽 |
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐋𝑚 (𝑡)| = 𝜒𝑚 𝐈𝑚𝑠 ≥ 0,
⎪ |𝐋𝑚 =0
⎪𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝖣 𝐑𝑚 (𝑡)|
𝛼,𝛽 |
= 𝜂𝑚1 𝐈𝑚𝑝 + 𝜂𝑚2 𝐈𝑚𝑠 + 𝜂𝑚3 𝐋𝑚 ≥ 0,
⎪0 𝑡 |𝐑𝑚 =0
⎨𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽 | (17)
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐒𝑓 (𝑡)| = 𝛱𝑓 + 𝜆𝑓 𝐑𝑓 ≥ 0,
|𝐒𝑓 =0
⎪
⎪ 𝛼,𝛽 | 𝐈 +𝐈 +𝐋
𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝖣𝑡 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (𝑡)| = 𝜔𝑚 𝜙( 𝑚𝑝 𝐍𝑚𝑠 𝑚 )𝐒𝑓 ≥ 0,
⎪0 |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 =0
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (𝑡)| = 𝜁𝑓 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 ≥ 0,
|𝐈𝑓 𝑠 =0
⎪
⎪𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝖣 𝐋𝑓 (𝑡)|
𝛼,𝛽 |
= 𝜒𝑓 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 ≥ 0,
⎪0 𝑡 |𝐋𝑓 =0
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐑𝑓 (𝑡)| = 𝛿𝑓1 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 + 𝛿𝑓2 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 + 𝛿𝑓3 𝐋𝑓 ≥ 0.
⎩ |𝐑𝑓 =0
The vector field is said to be located in the region R10

+ on each hyperplane encompassing the non-negative orthant with 𝑡 ≥ 0, according to the
system (17). Model (8)’s component elements of the population are added together to yield the following total population:
𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽
0
𝖣𝑡 𝐍(𝑡) = 𝐹0 𝐹 𝑀 𝖣𝛼,𝛽 𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽
𝑡 𝐒𝑚 (𝑡) + 0 𝖣𝑡 𝐈𝑚𝑝 (𝑡) + 𝐹0 𝐹 𝑀 𝖣𝛼,𝛽 𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽
𝑡 𝐈𝑚𝑠 (𝑡) + 0 𝖣𝑡 𝐋𝑚 (𝑡) + 𝐹0 𝐹 𝑀 𝖣𝛼,𝛽
𝑡 𝐑𝑚 (𝑡)
+ 0
𝖣𝑡 𝐒𝑓 (𝑡) + 𝐹0 𝐹 𝑀 𝖣𝛼,𝛽 𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽
𝑡 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (𝑡) + 0 𝖣𝑡 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (𝑡) + 𝐹0 𝐹 𝑀 𝖣𝛼,𝛽 𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽
𝑡 𝐋𝑓 (𝑡) + 0 𝖣𝑡 𝐑𝑓 (𝑡)
0
𝖣𝑡 𝐍(𝑡) = 𝛱𝑚 + 𝛱𝑓 − 𝜐𝐍 (18)
𝛱𝑚 +𝛱𝑓
Suppose that 𝐍(0) ≤ 𝜐
𝛱𝑚 + 𝛱𝑓
⇒ 𝐍(𝑡) ≤ (19)
𝜐
Therefore, a fractional model solution (8) continues to exist in ℘ for all 𝑡 > 0. In light of the fractional model, the closed set ℘ is a positively
invariant. As a result, we may test our model, (8), in the realm of possibility;
{ 𝛱𝑚 + 𝛱𝑓 }
+ ∶𝐍≤ □ (20)
𝜐
Disease-free equilibrium
We find the disease-free equilibrium states (E0 ) as follows:

{𝛱 𝛱𝑓 }
𝑚
E0 = {𝐒0𝑚 , 𝐈0𝑚𝑝 , 𝐈0𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋0𝑚 , 𝐑0𝑚 , 𝐒0𝑓 , 𝐈0𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈0𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋0𝑓 , 𝐑0𝑓 } = , 0, 0, 0, 0, , 0, 0, 0, 0 (21)
𝜐 𝜐
This suggests that, in the absence of syphilis infection, the mortality rate of susceptible males and females affects the recruitment rate of those
individuals.
Endemic equilibrium
Endemic equilibrium occurs when an infection is present. We must set the right side of the system’s Eqs. (8) to zero in order to attain the
endemic equilibrium values (E∗ ).
⎧ ∗ 𝐴1 𝐴2 𝐈∗𝑚𝑠 𝑍1 𝑍2 𝐈∗𝑓 𝑠
⎪𝐒𝑚 = 𝜁𝑚 (𝛯𝑓∗ +𝜈) , 𝐒∗𝑓 = ∗ +𝜈)
𝜁𝑓 (𝛯𝑚
,
⎪ ∗ 𝑍2 𝐈∗𝑓 𝑠
⎪𝐈∗ = 𝐴2 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐈∗𝑓 𝑝 = ,
⎪ 𝑚𝑝 𝜁𝑚 𝜁𝑓
⎪ 𝛱 𝜁𝑚 𝐴3 𝐴4 𝛱𝑓 𝜁𝑓 𝑍3 𝑍4
E∗ = ⎨𝐈∗𝑚𝑠 = 𝐴 𝐴 𝐴 𝐴 −(𝜂 𝜒 𝜁 𝜆𝑚 +𝐴 , 𝐈∗𝑓 𝑠 = , (22)
3 𝜂𝑚2 𝜁𝑚 𝜙𝑚 +𝜆𝑚 𝜂𝑚1 𝐴2 𝐴3 ) 𝑍1 𝑍2 𝑍3 𝑍4 −(𝛿𝑓 𝜒𝑓 𝜁𝑓 𝜆𝑓 +𝑍3 𝛿𝑓 𝜁𝑓 𝜙𝑓 +𝜆𝑓 𝛿𝑓 𝑍2 𝑍3 )
⎪ 1 2 3 4 𝑚3 𝑚 𝑚 𝑚 3 2 1
⎪ ∗ ∗
𝜒𝑚 𝐈𝑚𝑠 𝜒𝑓 𝐈∗𝑓 𝑠
⎪𝐋𝑚 = 𝐴3 , 𝐋∗𝑓 = 𝑍3
,
⎪ 𝐴 𝐴 𝐈∗ −𝜁 𝛱 𝑍1 𝑍2 𝐈∗𝑓 𝑠 −𝜁𝑓 𝛱𝑓
⎪𝐑∗𝑚 = 1 2 𝑚𝑠 𝑚 𝑚 , 𝐑∗𝑓 = .
⎩ 𝜁𝑚 𝜆𝑚 𝜁 𝑓 𝜆𝑓
Where,
𝜔𝑚 𝜙(𝐈∗𝑚𝑝 + 𝐈∗𝑚𝑠 + 𝐋∗𝑚 ) 𝜔𝑓 𝜙(𝐈∗𝑓 𝑝 + 𝐈∗𝑓 𝑠 + 𝐋∗𝑓 )
𝛯𝑚∗ = , 𝛯𝑓∗ = ,
𝐍∗ 𝐍∗
𝐴1 = 𝜁𝑚 + 𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚1 , 𝑍1 = 𝜁𝑓 + 𝜐 + 𝛿𝑓1 ,
𝐴2 = 𝜒𝑚 + 𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚2 , 𝑍2 = 𝜒𝑓 + 𝜐 + 𝛿𝑓2 ,
𝐴3 = 𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚3 , 𝑍3 = 𝜐 + 𝛿𝑓3 ,
𝐴 4 = 𝜐 + 𝜆𝑚 , 𝑍4 = 𝜐 + 𝜆𝑓 .
6
Reproductive number
We use the next generation matrix approach [40] on system (8) to get the reproductive number ℛ0 as follows:
𝛱𝑚 𝛱𝑓 𝜔𝑓 𝜔𝑚 𝜙2 (𝜒𝑚 𝜁𝑚 + 𝜁𝑚 𝜅2 + 𝜅2 𝜅3 )(𝜒𝑓 𝜁𝑓 + 𝜁𝑓 𝜅5 + 𝜅5 𝜅6 )
ℛ0 = (23)
(𝛱𝑚 + 𝛱𝑓 )2 𝜅1 𝜅2 𝜅3 𝜅4 𝜅5 𝜅6
where,
𝜅1 = 𝜁𝑚 + 𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚1 , 𝜅2 = 𝜒𝑚 + 𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚2 , 𝜅3 = 𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚3 ,

𝜅4 = 𝜁𝑓 + 𝜐 + 𝛿𝑓1 , 𝜅5 = 𝜒𝑓 + 𝜐 + 𝛿𝑓2 , 𝜅6 = 𝜐 + 𝛿𝑓3 .
Existence and uniqueness of the solutions to the proposed model
In this section, we examine the validity of the equational framework that underlies the survival of fractional calculus. The following theorem
needs to be established in order to achieve this.
Theorem 2. Assume the existence of positive constants, 𝜍𝑘 , ̂

𝜍𝑘 such that
• |M𝑘 (𝑞𝑘 , 𝑡) − M𝑘 (𝑞𝑘′ , 𝑡)| ≤ 𝜍𝑘 |𝑞𝑘 − 𝑞𝑘′ |, ∀𝑘 ∈ {1, 2, … , 10}

• |M𝑘 (𝑞𝑘 , 𝑡)|2 ≤ 𝜍̂𝑘 (1 + |𝑞𝑘 |), ∀(𝑞, 𝑡) ∈ R10 × [0, T]
Proof. Recalling our model now
⎪
⎪𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝖣𝛼,𝛽 𝐈 (𝑡) = 𝜔 𝜙( 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 +𝐈𝑓 𝑠 +𝐋𝑓 )𝐒 − (𝜁 + 𝜐 + 𝜂 )𝐈 ,
⎪0 𝑡 𝑚𝑝 𝑓 𝐍 𝑚 𝑚 𝑚1 𝑚𝑝
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐋𝑚 (𝑡) = 𝜒𝑚 𝐈𝑚𝑠 − (𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚3 )𝐋𝑚 ,
⎪
⎪𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝖣𝛼,𝛽 𝐑𝑚 (𝑡) = 𝜂𝑚 𝐈𝑚𝑝 + 𝜂𝑚 𝐈𝑚𝑠 + 𝜂𝑚 𝐋𝑚 − (𝜐 + 𝜆𝑚 )𝐑𝑚 ,
⎨0 𝑡 1 2 3 (24)
⎪𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝖣𝛼,𝛽 𝐒 (𝑡) = 𝛱 + 𝜆 𝐑 − 𝜔 𝜙( 𝐈𝑚𝑝 +𝐈𝑚𝑠 +𝐋𝑚 )𝐒 − 𝜐𝐒 ,
⎪0 𝑡 𝑓 𝑓 𝑓 𝑓 𝑚 𝐍 𝑓 𝑓
⎪𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝖣𝛼,𝛽 𝐈 (𝑡) = 𝜔 𝜙( 𝐈𝑚𝑝 +𝐈𝑚𝑠 +𝐋𝑚 )𝐒 − (𝜁 + 𝜐 + 𝛿 )𝐈 ,
⎪0 𝑡 𝑓𝑝 𝑚 𝐍 𝑓 𝑓 𝑓1 𝑓 𝑝
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (𝑡) = 𝜁𝑓 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 − (𝜒𝑓 + 𝛿𝑓2 + 𝜐)𝐈𝑓 𝑠 ,
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐋𝑓 (𝑡) = 𝜒𝑓 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 − (𝜐 + 𝛿𝑓3 )𝐋𝑓 ,
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐑𝑓 (𝑡) = 𝛿𝑓1 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 + 𝛿𝑓2 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 + 𝛿𝑓3 𝐋𝑓 − (𝜐 + 𝜆𝑓 )𝐑𝑓 .
⎩
where ℧ = {𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑝 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓 }.

We start with the function M1 (𝑡, ℧). Then, we will show that
| |2 | |2
|M1 (𝐒1𝑚 , 𝑡) − M1 (𝐒2𝑚 , 𝑡)| ≤ 𝜍1 |𝐒1𝑚 − 𝐒2𝑚 | (25)
| | | |
Then, we write
⎧| |2 | 𝐈 +𝐈 +𝐋 |2
⎪||M1 (𝐒𝑚 , 𝑡) − M1 (𝐒𝑚 , 𝑡)||
1 2 = | − 𝜔𝑓 𝜙( 𝑓 𝑝 𝐍𝑓 𝑠 𝑓 )(𝐒1𝑚 − 𝐒2𝑚 ) − (𝜐)(𝐒1𝑚 − 𝐒2𝑚 )|
| |
⎪| | { }
⎪|M1 (𝐒1𝑚 , 𝑡) − M1 (𝐒2𝑚 , 𝑡)|| |2
2 𝐈 +𝐈 +𝐋
= | − 𝜔𝑓 𝜙( 𝑓 𝑝 𝐍𝑓 𝑠 𝑓 ) + 𝜐 (𝐒1𝑚 − 𝐒2𝑚 )|
⎪| | | |
⎪||M (𝐒1 , 𝑡) − M (𝐒2 , 𝑡)||2 |{ 𝐈 +𝐈 +𝐋 } |2
= | 𝜔𝑓 𝜙( 𝑓 𝑝 𝐍𝑓 𝑠 𝑓 ) + 𝜐 (𝐒1𝑚 − 𝐒2𝑚 )|
⎪| 1 𝑚 1 𝑚 | | |
⎪| |2 { |𝐈 |+|𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |+|𝐋𝑓 | 2 }| |2
⎨||M1 (𝐒𝑚 , 𝑡) − M1 (𝐒𝑚 , 𝑡)||
1 2 ≤ 2𝜔2𝑓 𝜙2 ( 𝑓 𝑝 |𝐍| ) + 2𝜐2 |(𝐒1𝑚 − 𝐒2𝑚 )| (26)
| |
⎪ { }|
⎪||M1 (𝐒1𝑚 , 𝑡) − M1 (𝐒2𝑚 , 𝑡)|| |2
2 sup |𝐈 |+sup |𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |+sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐋𝑓 | 2
≤ 2𝜔2𝑓 𝜙2 ( 0≤𝑡≤𝑇 𝑓 𝑝 sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐍| ) + 2𝜐2 |(𝐒1𝑚 − 𝐒2𝑚 )|
⎪| | 0≤𝑡≤𝑇 | |
⎪| |2 { 2 2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |∞ +|𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |∞ +|𝐋𝑓 |∞ 2 }| 1 |2
⎪||M1 (𝐒𝑚 , 𝑡) − M1 (𝐒𝑚 , 𝑡)|| ) + 2𝜐 |(𝐒𝑚 − 𝐒𝑚 )|
1 2 ≤ 2𝜔𝑓 𝜙 ( 2 2
|𝐍|∞ | |
⎪
⎪||M1 (𝐒1𝑚 , 𝑡) − M1 (𝐒2𝑚 , 𝑡)|| | 1 |
2 2
≤ 𝜍1 |(𝐒𝑚 − 𝐒2𝑚 )|
⎩| | | |
|𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |∞ +|𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |∞ +|𝐋𝑓 |∞ 2
where 𝜍1 = 2𝜔2𝑓 𝜙2 ( |𝐍|∞
) + 2𝜐2 .
7
⎧||M (𝐈1 , 𝑡) − M (𝐈2 , 𝑡)| |2 |

= | − (𝜁𝑚 + 𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚1 )(𝐈1𝑚𝑝 − 𝐈2𝑚𝑝 )|
|2
⎪| 2 𝑚𝑝 2 𝑚𝑝 | | |
⎪| 1 , 𝑡) − M (𝐈2 , 𝑡)|
2 | |2
|M (𝐈
⎪| 2 𝑚𝑝 | = |(𝜁𝑚 + 𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚1 )(𝐈1𝑚𝑝 − 𝐈2𝑚𝑝 )|
2 𝑚𝑝 | | | (27)
⎨|
⎪|M2 (𝐈1𝑚𝑝 , 𝑡) − M2 (𝐈2𝑚𝑝 , 𝑡)|| | 1 |2
2
≤ (2𝜁𝑚 + 2𝜐 + 2𝜂𝑚 )|(𝐈𝑚𝑝 − 𝐈2𝑚𝑝 )|
2 2 2
⎪| | 1 | |
⎪||M (𝐈1 , 𝑡) − M (𝐈2 , 𝑡)||2 | |2
≤ 𝜍2 |(𝐈1𝑚𝑝 − 𝐈2𝑚𝑝 )|
⎩| 2 𝑚𝑝 2 𝑚𝑝 | | |
where 𝜍2 = 2𝜁𝑚2 + 2𝜐2 + 2𝜂𝑚2 .

1
⎧||M (𝐈1 , 𝑡) − M (𝐈2 , 𝑡)||2 | |2

= | − (𝜒𝑚 + 𝜂𝑚2 + 𝜐)(𝐈1𝑚𝑠 − 𝐈2𝑚𝑠 )|
⎪| 3 𝑚𝑠 3 𝑚𝑠 | | |
⎪| 1 , 𝑡) − M (𝐈2 , 𝑡)|
2 | |2
⎪|| 3 𝑚𝑠
M (𝐈 3 𝑚𝑠 |
|
= |(𝜒𝑚 + 𝜂𝑚2 + 𝜐)(𝐈1𝑚𝑠 − 𝐈2𝑚𝑠 )|
| |
⎨| (28)
⎪|M3 (𝐈1𝑚𝑠 , 𝑡) − M3 (𝐈2𝑚𝑠 , 𝑡)|| | |2
2
≤ (2𝜒𝑚2 + 2𝜂𝑚2 + 2𝜐2 )|(𝐈1𝑚𝑠 − 𝐈2𝑚𝑠 )|
⎪| | 2 | |
⎪||M (𝐈1 , 𝑡) − M (𝐈2 , 𝑡)||2 | |2
≤ 𝜍3 |(𝐈1𝑚𝑠 − 𝐈2𝑚𝑠 )|
⎩| 3 𝑚𝑠 3 𝑚𝑠 | | |
where 𝜍3 = 2𝜒𝑚2 + 2𝜂𝑚2 + 2𝜐2 .

2
⎧||M (𝐋1 , 𝑡) − M (𝐋2 , 𝑡)||2 | |2

= | − (𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚3 )(𝐋1𝑚 − 𝐋2𝑚 )|
⎪| 4 𝑚 4 𝑚 | | |
⎪| |2 | |2
⎪||M4 (𝐋𝑚 , 𝑡) − M4 (𝐋𝑚 , 𝑡)|| = |(𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚3 )(𝐋𝑚 − 𝐋𝑚 )|
1 2 1 2
| | (29)
⎨|
⎪|M4 (𝐋1𝑚 , 𝑡) − M4 (𝐋2𝑚 , 𝑡)|| | |2
2
≤ (2𝜐2 + 2𝜂𝑚2 )|(𝐋1𝑚 − 𝐋2𝑚 )|
⎪ | | 3 | |
⎪||M (𝐋1 , 𝑡) − M (𝐋2 , 𝑡)||2 | |2
≤ 𝜍4 |(𝐋1𝑚 − 𝐋2𝑚 )|
⎩| 4 𝑚 4 𝑚 | | |
where 𝜍4 = 2𝜐2 + 2𝜂𝑚2 .

3
⎧||M (𝐑1 , 𝑡) − M (𝐑2 , 𝑡)||2 | |2

= | − (𝜐 + 𝜆𝑚 )(𝐑1𝑚 − 𝐑2𝑚 )|
⎪| 5 𝑚 5 𝑚 | | |
⎪| |2 | |2
⎪||M5 (𝐑𝑚 , 𝑡) − M5 (𝐑𝑚 , 𝑡)|| = |(𝜐 + 𝜆𝑚 )(𝐑1𝑚 − 𝐑2𝑚 )|
1 2
| | (30)
⎨|
⎪|M5 (𝐑1𝑚 , 𝑡) − M5 (𝐑2𝑚 , 𝑡)|| | |2
2
≤ (2𝜐2 + 2𝜆2𝑚 )|(𝐑1𝑚 − 𝐑2𝑚 )|
⎪ | | | |
⎪||M (𝐑1 , 𝑡) − M (𝐑2 , 𝑡)||2 | |2
≤ 𝜍5 |(𝐑1𝑚 − 𝐑2𝑚 )|
⎩| 5 𝑚 5 𝑚 | | |
where 𝜍5 = 2𝜐2 + 2𝜆2𝑚 . Similarly, we have
⎧||M6 (𝐒1 , 𝑡) − M6 (𝐒2 , 𝑡)|| ≤ 𝜍6 ||(𝐒1 − 𝐒2 )|| ,

2 2
⎪| 𝑓 𝑓 | | 𝑓 𝑓 |
⎪| 1 2 |2 | 1 2 |
2
⎪||M7 (𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝑡) − M7 (𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝑡)|| ≤ 𝜍7 ||(𝐈𝑓 𝑝 − 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 )|| ,
⎪| |2 | |2
⎨||M8 (𝐈1𝑓 𝑠 , 𝑡) − M8 (𝐈2𝑓 𝑠 , 𝑡)|| ≤ 𝜍8 ||(𝐈1𝑓 𝑠 − 𝐈2𝑓 𝑠 )|| , (31)
⎪
⎪||M9 (𝐋1 , 𝑡) − M9 (𝐋2 , 𝑡)|| ≤ 𝜍9 ||(𝐋1 − 𝐋2 )|| ,
2 2
⎪| 𝑓 𝑓 | | 𝑓 𝑓 |
⎪| 1 2 |2 | 1 2 |
2
⎩||M10 (𝐑𝑓 , 𝑡) − M10 (𝐑𝑓 , 𝑡)|| ≤ 𝜍10 ||(𝐑𝑓 − 𝐑𝑓 )|| .
|𝐈 | +|𝐈 | +|𝐋 |
Where 𝜍6 = 2𝜔2𝑚 𝜙2 ( 𝑚𝑝 ∞ |𝐍|
𝑚𝑠 ∞ 𝑚 ∞ 2
) + 2𝜐2 . Where 𝜍7 = 2𝜁𝑓2 + 2𝜐2 + 2𝛿𝑓2 . Where 𝜍8 = 2𝜒𝑓2 + 2𝛿𝑓2 + 2𝜐2 . Where 𝜍9 = 2𝜐2 + 2𝛿𝑓2 . Where 𝜍10 = 2𝜐2 + 2𝜆2𝑓 .
∞ 1 2 3
We checked each function’s initial condition twice. Now, the second requirement of our model will be verified.
⎧ | 𝐈 +𝐈 +𝐋 |2
⎪|M1 (𝐒𝑚 , 𝑡)|2 = |𝛱𝑚 + 𝜆𝑚 𝐑𝑚 − 𝜔𝑓 𝜙( 𝑓 𝑝 𝐍𝑓 𝑠 𝑓 )𝐒𝑚 − 𝜐𝐒𝑚 |
| |
⎪ ( )
⎪|M1 (𝐒𝑚 , 𝑡)|2 | 𝐈 +𝐈 +𝐋 |2
= |𝛱𝑚 + 𝜆𝑚 𝐑𝑚 − 𝜔𝑓 𝜙( 𝑓 𝑝 𝐍𝑓 𝑠 𝑓 ) + 𝜐 𝐒𝑚 |
⎪ | |
⎪ ( |𝐈 |+|𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |+|𝐋𝑓 |
)2
⎪|M1 (𝐒𝑚 , 𝑡)|
2 ≤ 2{𝛱𝑚2 + 𝜆2𝑚 |𝐑𝑚 |2 } + 2 𝜔𝑓 𝜙( 𝑓 𝑝 |𝐍| ) + 𝜐 |𝐒𝑚 |2
⎪ ( )2
⎨|M (𝐒 , 𝑡)|2 sup |𝐈 |+sup |𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |+sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐋𝑓 | (32)
≤ 2{𝛱𝑚2 + 𝜆2𝑚 sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐑𝑚 |2 } + 2 𝜔𝑓 𝜙( 0≤𝑡≤𝑇 𝑓 𝑝 sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐍| ) + 𝜐 |𝐒𝑚 |2
⎪ 1 𝑚 0≤𝑡≤𝑇
⎪ ( |𝐈 | +|𝐈 | +|𝐋 |
)2
⎪|M1 (𝐒𝑚 , 𝑡)|2 ≤ 2{𝛱𝑚2 + 𝜆2𝑚 |𝐑𝑚 |2∞ } + 2 𝜔𝑓 𝜙( 𝑓 𝑝 ∞ |𝐍|𝑓 𝑠 ∞ 𝑓 ) + 𝜐 |𝐒𝑚 |2
⎪ (
∞
)2
⎪ {
|𝐈𝑓 𝑝 | +|𝐈𝑓 𝑠 | +|𝐋𝑓 |
∞ ∞ }
⎪ 𝜔𝑓 𝜙( |𝐍|∞
)+𝜐
⎪|M1 (𝐒𝑚 , 𝑡)|
2 ≤ 2{𝛱𝑚2 + 𝜆2𝑚 |𝐑𝑚 |2∞ } 1 + 2 2 2 |𝐒𝑚 |2
𝛱𝑚 +𝜆𝑚 |𝐑𝑚 |∞
⎩
8
( |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 | +|𝐈𝑓 𝑠 | +|𝐋𝑓 | 2 )
{ 𝜔𝑓 𝜙( ∞
|𝐍|∞
∞ )+𝜐 }
under the condition 2 +𝜆2 |𝐑 |2 <1
𝛱𝑚 𝑚 𝑚 ∞
⎧|M (𝐈 , 𝑡)|2 | 𝐈 +𝐈 +𝐋 |2
= |𝜔𝑓 𝜙( 𝑓 𝑝 𝐍𝑓 𝑠 𝑓 )𝐒𝑚 − (𝜁𝑚 + 𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚1 )𝐈𝑚𝑝 |
⎪ 2 𝑚𝑝 | |
⎪ ( |𝐈 |+|𝐈 |+|𝐋 | )2
2
⎪|M2 (𝐈𝑚𝑝 , 𝑡)|
2
≤ 2𝜔𝑓 𝜙 2 𝑓𝑝 𝑓𝑠
|𝐍|
𝑓
|𝐒𝑚 | + 2(𝜁𝑚 + 𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚1 )2 |𝐈𝑚𝑝 |2
2
⎪ ( sup )2
⎪|M (𝐈 , 𝑡)|2 0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |+sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |+sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐋𝑓 |
≤ 2𝜔2𝑓 𝜙2 sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐒𝑚 |2 + 2(𝜁𝑚 + 𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚1 )2 |𝐈𝑚𝑝 |2 (33)
⎨ 2 𝑚𝑝 sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐍|
⎪ ( |𝐈 | +|𝐈 | +|𝐋 | )2
⎪|M2 (𝐈𝑚𝑝 , 𝑡)|2 ≤ 2𝜔2𝑓 𝜙2 𝑓 𝑝 ∞ |𝐍| |𝐒𝑚 |2∞ + 2(𝜁𝑚 + 𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚1 )2 |𝐈𝑚𝑝 |2
𝑓𝑠 ∞ 𝑓 ∞
⎪ ∞
( |𝐈 | +|𝐈 | +|𝐋 | )2 { }
⎪ 2 (𝜁𝑚 +𝜐+𝜂𝑚 )2
⎪|M2 (𝐈𝑚𝑝 , 𝑡)| ≤ 2𝜔2𝑓 𝜙2 𝑓 𝑝 ∞ |𝐍| 𝑓𝑠 ∞ 𝑓 ∞
|𝐒𝑚 |2∞ 1 + 1
( |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 | +|𝐈𝑓 𝑠 | +|𝐋 )2 |𝐈𝑚𝑝 |2
𝑓|
⎩ ∞ 𝜔2𝑓 𝜙2 ∞
|𝐍|∞
∞ ∞ |𝐒𝑚 |2∞
{ (𝜁𝑚 +𝜐+𝜂𝑚 )2
1
}
under the condition ( |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 | +|𝐈𝑓 𝑠 | +|𝐋𝑓 | )2 <1
𝜔2𝑓 𝜙2 ∞
|𝐍|∞
∞ ∞ |𝐒𝑚 |2∞
⎧|M (𝐈 , 𝑡)|2 | |2
⎪ 3 𝑚𝑠 = |𝜁𝑚 𝐈𝑚𝑝 − (𝜒𝑚 + 𝜂𝑚2 + 𝜐)𝐈𝑚𝑠 |
| |
⎪ 2
⎪|M3 (𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝑡)| ≤ 2𝜁𝑚2 |𝐈𝑚𝑝 |2 + 2(𝜒𝑚 + 𝜂𝑚2 + 𝜐)2 |𝐈𝑚𝑠 |2
⎪ 2
⎨|M3 (𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝑡)| ≤ 2𝜁𝑚2 sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐈𝑚𝑝 |2 + 2(𝜒𝑚 + 𝜂𝑚2 + 𝜐)2 |𝐈𝑚𝑠 |2 (34)
⎪ 2
⎪|M3 (𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝑡)| ≤ 2𝜁𝑚2 |𝐈𝑚𝑝 |2∞ + 2(𝜒𝑚 + 𝜂𝑚2 + 𝜐)2 |𝐈𝑚𝑠 |2
⎪ { (𝜒𝑚 +𝜂𝑚 +𝜐)2 }
⎪|M3 (𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝑡)|2 ≤ 2𝜁𝑚2 |𝐈𝑚𝑝 |2∞ 1 + 2
|𝐈𝑚𝑠 |2
⎩ 𝜁𝑚2 |𝐈𝑚𝑝 |2∞
{ (𝜒𝑚 +𝜂𝑚2 +𝜐)2 }

under the condition <1
𝜁𝑚2 |𝐈𝑚𝑝 |2∞
⎧ 2 | |2
⎪|M4 (𝐋𝑚 , 𝑡)| = |𝜒𝑚 𝐈𝑚𝑠 − (𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚3 )𝐋𝑚 |
| |
⎪ 2
⎪|M4 (𝐋𝑚 , 𝑡)| ≤ 2𝜒𝑚2 |𝐈𝑚𝑠 |2 + 2(𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚3 )2 |𝐋𝑚 |2
⎪ 2
⎨|M4 (𝐋𝑚 , 𝑡)| ≤ 2𝜒𝑚2 sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐈𝑚𝑠 |2 + 2(𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚3 )2 |𝐋𝑚 |2 (35)
⎪ 2
⎪|M4 (𝐋𝑚 , 𝑡)| ≤ 2𝜒𝑚2 |𝐈𝑚𝑠 |2∞ + 2(𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚3 )2 |𝐋𝑚 |2
⎪ { (𝜐+𝜂𝑚 )2 }
⎪|M4 (𝐋𝑚 , 𝑡)|2 ≤ 2𝜒𝑚2 |𝐈𝑚𝑠 |2∞ 1 + 2 3 2 |𝐋𝑚 |2
⎩ 𝜒𝑚 |𝐈𝑚𝑠 |∞
{ (𝜐+𝜂𝑚3 )2 }
under the condition 2 |𝐈 |2 <1
𝜒𝑚 𝑚𝑠 ∞
⎧|M (𝐑 , 𝑡)|2 | |2
= |𝜂𝑚1 𝐈𝑚𝑝 + 𝜂𝑚2 𝐈𝑚𝑠 + 𝜂𝑚3 𝐋𝑚 − (𝜐 + 𝜆𝑚 )𝐑𝑚 |
⎪ 5 𝑚 | |
⎪|M (𝐑 , 𝑡)|2 ≤ 2𝜂𝑚2 |𝐈𝑚𝑝 |2 + 2𝜂𝑚2 |𝐈𝑚𝑠 |2 + 2𝜂𝑚2 |𝐋𝑚 |2 + 2(𝜐 + 𝜆𝑚 )2 |𝐑𝑚 |2
⎪ 5 𝑚 1 2 3
⎪ 2
{ }
⎨|M5 (𝐑𝑚 , 𝑡)| ≤ 2 𝜂𝑚2 sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐈𝑚𝑝 |2 + 𝜂𝑚2 sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐈𝑚𝑠 |2 + 𝜂𝑚2 sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐋𝑚 |2 + 2(𝜐 + 𝜆𝑚 )2 |𝐑𝑚 |2 (36)
1 2 3
⎪ 2
{ 2 }
⎪|M5 (𝐑𝑚 , 𝑡)| ≤ 2 𝜂𝑚 |𝐈𝑚𝑝 |2∞ + 𝜂𝑚2 |𝐈𝑚𝑠 |2∞ + 𝜂𝑚2 |𝐋𝑚 |2∞ + 2(𝜐 + 𝜆𝑚 )2 |𝐑𝑚 |2
}{ }
1 2 3
⎪ { (𝜐+𝜆𝑚 )2
⎪|M5 (𝐑𝑚 , 𝑡)|2 ≤ 2 𝜂𝑚2 |𝐈𝑚𝑝 |2∞ + 𝜂𝑚2 |𝐈𝑚𝑠 |2∞ + 𝜂𝑚2 |𝐋𝑚 |2∞ 1 + 2 2 |𝐑𝑚 |
2
⎩ 1 2 2 32 2 2 𝜂𝑚 |𝐈𝑚𝑝 |∞ +𝜂𝑚 |𝐈𝑚𝑠 |∞ +𝜂𝑚 |𝐋𝑚 |∞
1 2 3
{ (𝜐+𝜆𝑚 )2 }
under the condition 2 |𝐈 |2 +𝜂 2 |𝐈 |2 +𝜂 2 |𝐋 |2 <1
𝜂𝑚
1 𝑚𝑝 ∞ 𝑚2 𝑚𝑠 ∞ 𝑚3 𝑚 ∞
⎧ 2 | 𝐈 +𝐈 +𝐋 |2
⎪|M6 (𝐒𝑓 , 𝑡)| = |𝛱𝑓 + 𝜆𝑓 𝐑𝑓 − 𝜔𝑚 𝜙( 𝑚𝑝 𝐍𝑚𝑠 𝑚 )𝐒𝑓 − 𝜐𝐒𝑓 |
| |
⎪ ( )
⎪|M6 (𝐒𝑓 , 𝑡)|2 | 𝐈 +𝐈 +𝐋 |2
= |𝛱𝑓 + 𝜆𝑓 𝐑𝑓 − 𝜔𝑚 𝜙( 𝑚𝑝 𝐍𝑚𝑠 𝑚 ) + 𝜐 𝐒𝑓 |
⎪ | |
⎪ ( |𝐈 |+|𝐈𝑚𝑠 |+|𝐋𝑚 |
)2
2
⎪|M6 (𝐒𝑓 , 𝑡)| ≤ 2{𝛱𝑓2 + 𝜆2𝑓 |𝐑𝑓 |2 } + 2 𝜔𝑚 𝜙( 𝑚𝑝 |𝐍| ) + 𝜐 |𝐒𝑓 |2
⎪ ( sup |𝐈 |+sup |𝐈𝑚𝑠 |+sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐋𝑚 |
)2
⎨|M6 (𝐒𝑓 , 𝑡)|2 ≤ 2{𝛱𝑓2 + 𝜆2𝑓 sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐑𝑓 |2 } + 2 𝜔𝑚 𝜙( 0≤𝑡≤𝑇 𝑚𝑝 sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐍| ) + 𝜐 |𝐒𝑓 |2 (37)
⎪ 0≤𝑡≤𝑇
⎪ ( |𝐈 | +|𝐈 | +|𝐋 |
)2
⎪|M6 (𝐒𝑓 , 𝑡)|2 ≤ 2{𝛱𝑓2 + 𝜆2𝑓 |𝐑𝑓 |2∞ } + 2 𝜔𝑚 𝜙( 𝑚𝑝 ∞ |𝐍|𝑚𝑠 ∞ 𝑚 ) + 𝜐 |𝐒𝑓 |2
⎪ (
∞
)2
⎪ { 𝜔𝑚 𝜙(
|𝐈𝑚𝑝 |∞ +|𝐈𝑚𝑠 |∞ +|𝐋𝑚 |
)+𝜐 }
⎪ 2 2 |𝐍|∞
⎪|M6 (𝐒𝑓 , 𝑡)| ≤ 2{𝛱𝑓 + 𝜆𝑓 |𝐑𝑓 |∞ } 1 +
2 2
2 2 2 |𝐒𝑓 |2
𝛱𝑓 +𝜆𝑓 |𝐑𝑓 |∞
⎩
9
( |𝐈𝑚𝑝 |∞ +|𝐈𝑚𝑠 |∞ +|𝐋𝑚 | 2 )
{ 𝜔𝑚 𝜙( |𝐍|∞
)+𝜐 }
𝛱𝑓2 +𝜆2𝑓 |𝐑𝑓 |2∞
⎧|M7 (𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝑡)|2 | 𝐈 +𝐈 +𝐋 |2

= |𝜔𝑚 𝜙( 𝑚𝑝 𝐍𝑚𝑠 𝑚 )𝐒𝑓 − (𝜁𝑓 + 𝜐 + 𝛿𝑓1 )𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |
⎪ | |
⎪ ( |𝐈 |+|𝐈 |+|𝐋 | )2
⎪|M7 (𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝑡)|2 2
≤ 2𝜔𝑚 𝜙 2 𝑚𝑝 𝑚𝑠 𝑚 2
|𝐒𝑓 | + 2(𝜁𝑓 + 𝜐 + 𝛿𝑓1 )2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |2
⎪ |𝐍|
⎪ ( sup )2
⎪|M (𝐈 , 𝑡)|2 |𝐈𝑚𝑝 |+sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐈𝑚𝑠 |+sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐋𝑚 |
≤ 2𝜔2𝑚 𝜙2 0≤𝑡≤𝑇
sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐒𝑓 |2 + 2(𝜁𝑓 + 𝜐 + 𝛿𝑓1 )2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |2 (38)
⎨ 7 𝑓𝑝 sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐍|
⎪ ( |𝐈 )2
⎪|M (𝐈 , 𝑡)|2 ≤ 2𝜔2𝑚 𝜙2 𝑚𝑝 |∞ +|𝐈𝑚𝑠 |∞ +|𝐋𝑚 |∞
|𝐒𝑓 |2∞ + 2(𝜁𝑓 + 𝜐 + 𝛿𝑓1 )2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |2
⎪ 7 𝑓𝑝 |𝐍|∞
⎪ ( |𝐈 )2 { }
⎪ 2 𝑚𝑝 |∞ +|𝐈𝑚𝑠 |∞ +|𝐋𝑚 |∞ (𝜁𝑓 +𝜐+𝛿𝑓 )2
⎪|M7 (𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝑡)| ≤ 2𝜔2𝑚 𝜙2 |𝐒𝑓 |2∞ 1 + ( |𝐈𝑚𝑝 | 1
)2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |2
|𝐍|∞ ∞ +|𝐈𝑚𝑠 |∞ +|𝐋𝑚 |∞
⎩ 𝜔2𝑚 𝜙2 |𝐍|∞
|𝐒𝑓 |2∞
{ (𝜁𝑓 +𝜐+𝛿𝑓 )2
1
}
under the condition ( |𝐈𝑚𝑝 | )2 <1
𝜔2𝑚 𝜙2 ∞ +|𝐈𝑚𝑠 |∞ +|𝐋𝑚 |∞ |𝐒𝑓 |2∞
|𝐍|∞
⎧|M8 (𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝑡)|2 | |2

= |𝜁𝑓 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 − (𝜒𝑓 + 𝛿𝑓2 + 𝜐)𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |
⎪ | |
⎪ 2
⎪|M8 (𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝑡)| ≤ 2𝜁𝑓2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |2 + 2(𝜒𝑓 + 𝛿𝑓2 + 𝜐)2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |2
⎪
⎪|M (𝐈 , 𝑡)|2 ≤ 2𝜁𝑓2 sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |2 + 2(𝜒𝑓 + 𝛿𝑓2 + 𝜐)2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |2
⎨ 8 𝑓𝑠 (39)
⎪
⎪|M8 (𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝑡)|2 ≤ 2𝜁𝑓2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |2∞ + 2(𝜒𝑓 + 𝛿𝑓2 + 𝜐)2 |𝐈 2
𝑓 𝑠|
⎪
⎪ { (𝜒𝑓 +𝛿𝑓 +𝜐)2 }
⎪|M8 (𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝑡)|2 ≤ 2𝜁𝑓2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |2∞ 1 + 2
|𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |2
⎩ 𝜁𝑓2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |2∞
{ (𝜒𝑓 +𝛿𝑓2 +𝜐)2 }

𝜁𝑓2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |2∞
⎧|M9 (𝐋𝑓 , 𝑡)|2 | |2

= |𝜒𝑓 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 − (𝜐 + 𝛿𝑓3 )𝐋𝑓 |
⎪ | |
⎪ 2
⎪|M9 (𝐋𝑓 , 𝑡)| ≤ 2𝜒𝑓2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |2 + 2(𝜐 + 𝛿𝑓3 )2 |𝐋𝑓 |2
⎪
⎪|M (𝐋 , 𝑡)|2 ≤ 2𝜒𝑓2 sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |2 + 2(𝜐 + 𝛿𝑓3 )2 |𝐋𝑓 |2
⎨ 9 𝑓 (40)
⎪
⎪|M9 (𝐋𝑓 , 𝑡)|2 ≤ 2𝜒𝑓2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |2∞ + 2(𝜐 + 𝛿𝑓3 )2 |𝐋𝑓 |2
⎪
⎪ { (𝜐+𝛿𝑓 )2 }
⎪|M9 (𝐋𝑓 , 𝑡)|2 ≤ 2𝜒𝑓2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |2∞ 1 + 3
|𝐋𝑓 |2
⎩ 𝜒𝑓2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |2∞
{ (𝜐+𝛿𝑓3 )2 }
𝜒𝑓2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |2∞
⎧|M10 (𝐑𝑓 , 𝑡)|2 | |2

= |𝛿𝑓1 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 + 𝛿𝑓2 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 + 𝛿𝑓3 𝐋𝑓 − (𝜐 + 𝜆𝑓 )𝐑𝑓 |
⎪ | |
⎪ 2
⎪|M10 (𝐑𝑓 , 𝑡)| ≤ 2𝛿𝑓2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |2 + 2𝛿𝑓2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |2 + 2𝛿𝑓2 |𝐋𝑓 |2 + 2(𝜐 + 𝜆𝑓 )2 |𝐑𝑓 |2
1 2 3
⎪
⎪|M (𝐑 , 𝑡)|2 { }
⎨ 10 𝑓 ≤ 2 𝛿𝑓2 sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |2 + 𝛿𝑓2 sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |2 + 𝛿𝑓2 sup0≤𝑡≤𝑇 |𝐋𝑓 |2 + 2(𝜐 + 𝜆𝑓 )2 |𝐑𝑓 |2 (41)
1 2 3
⎪ { }
⎪|M10 (𝐑𝑓 , 𝑡)|2 ≤ 2 𝛿𝑓2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |2∞ + 𝛿𝑓2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |2∞ + 𝛿𝑓2 |𝐋𝑓 |2∞ + 2(𝜐 + 𝜆𝑓 )2 |𝐑𝑓 |2
⎪ 1 2 3
⎪ { }{ (𝜐+𝜆𝑓 )2
}
⎪|M10 (𝐑𝑓 , 𝑡)|2 ≤ 2 𝛿𝑓2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |2∞ + 𝛿𝑓2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |2∞ + 𝛿𝑓2 |𝐋𝑓 |2∞ 1 + |𝐑𝑓 |2
⎩ 1 2 3 𝛿𝑓2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |2∞ +𝛿𝑓2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |2∞ +𝛿𝑓2 |𝐋𝑓 |2∞
1 2 3
{ (𝜐+𝜆𝑓 )2 }
under the condition < 1.
𝛿𝑓2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |2∞ +𝛿𝑓2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |2∞ +𝛿𝑓2 |𝐋𝑓 |2∞
1 2 3
10
The solution to our system therefore exists and is unique given the circumstances:
⎧{ (𝜔 𝜙( |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |∞ +|𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |∞ +|𝐋𝑓 | )+𝜐)2 }
⎪ 𝑓 |𝐍|∞
,
⎪ 𝛱𝑚2 +𝜆2 |𝐑 |2
𝑚 𝑚 ∞
⎪
⎪{ (𝜁𝑚 +𝜐+𝛿𝑚 )2
1
}
⎪ 2 2 ( |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |∞ +|𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |∞ +|𝐋𝑓 |∞ )2 2 ,
⎪ 𝜔𝑓 𝜙 |𝐍|∞
|𝐒𝑚 |∞
⎪
⎪{ (𝜒𝑚 +𝛿𝑚2 +𝜐) } 2
⎪ 𝜁𝑚2 |𝐈𝑚𝑝 |2 ,
⎪ ∞
⎪{ (𝜐+𝛿𝑚 )2 }
⎪ 2 32 ,
⎪ 𝜒𝑚 |𝐈𝑚𝑠 |∞
⎪{ (𝜐+𝜆𝑚 )2 }
⎪ 2 2 +𝛿 2 |𝐈 |2 +𝛿 2 |𝐋 |2 ,
𝛿 |𝐈 |
⎪ 𝑚1 𝑚𝑝 ∞ 𝑚2 𝑚𝑠 ∞ 𝑚3 𝑚 ∞
𝑀𝑎𝑥 ⎨ <1 □ (42)
( )
⎪{ 𝜔𝑚 𝜙( |𝐈𝑚𝑝 |∞ +|𝐈𝑚𝑠 |∞ +|𝐋𝑚 | )+𝜐 2 }
|𝐍|∞
⎪ ,
⎪ 𝛱𝑓2 +𝜆2𝑓 |𝐑𝑓 |2∞
⎪
⎪{ (𝜁𝑓 +𝜐+𝛿𝑓 )2
1
}
⎪ 2 2 ( |𝐈𝑚𝑝 |∞ +|𝐈𝑚𝑠 |∞ +|𝐋𝑚 |∞ )2 2 ,
⎪ 𝜔𝑚 𝜙 |𝐍|∞
|𝐒𝑓 |∞
⎪
{
⎪ (𝜒𝑓 +𝛿𝑓2 +𝜐) 2 }
⎪ 𝜁 2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |2 ,
⎪ 𝑓 ∞
⎪{ (𝜐+𝛿𝑓3 ) }2
⎪ 𝜒 2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |2 ,
⎪ 𝑓 ∞
⎪{ (𝜐+𝜆𝑓 )2 }
⎪ 𝛿 2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑝 |2 +𝛿 2 |𝐈𝑓 𝑠 |2 +𝛿 2 |𝐋𝑓 |2 .
⎩ 𝑓1 ∞ 𝑓2 ∞ 𝑓3 ∞
Ulam-Hyers stability
In this section, we illustrate the Ulam–Hyers stability of the proposed model.
Definition 3. The system (8) is Ulam–Hyers stable if for any positive 𝜗 and ∀ 𝐱 ∈ (𝐖[0, T], R] there exists a positive operator 𝐐𝛼,𝛽 .
|𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝖣𝛼,𝛽
𝑡 𝐱(𝑡) − 𝛬(𝑡, 𝐱(𝑡))| ≤ 𝜗 , ∀𝑡 ∈ [0, T] (43)
As a result, we obtain a special outcome 𝜉 ∈ (𝐖[0, T], R) such that
|𝐱(𝑡) − 𝜉(𝑡)| ≤ 𝐐𝛼,𝛽 𝜗 , ∀𝑡 ∈ [0, T] (44)
Consider a perturbation 𝐳 ∈ 𝐖[0, T] then 𝐳(0) = 0 and assume
• For 𝜗 > 0, we have |𝐳(𝑡)| ≤ 𝜗

• 𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝖣𝛼,𝛽
𝑡 𝐱(𝑡) = 𝛬(𝑡, 𝐱(𝑡)) + 𝐳(𝑡)
Remark 3. Result of perturbed system :

𝐹𝐹𝑀
𝖣𝛼,𝛽
𝑡 𝐱(𝑡) = 𝛬(𝑡, 𝐱(𝑡)) + 𝐳(𝑡) , 𝐱(0) = 𝐱0 (45)
ensures the subsequent relation

| { 𝛽𝑡𝛽−1 (1 − 𝛼) 𝛼𝛽 𝑡 }|
|𝐐(𝑡) − 𝐱(0) + 𝛬(𝑡, 𝐱(𝑡)) + 𝜛 𝛽−1 (𝑡 − 𝜛)𝛽−1 𝛬(𝜛, 𝐱(𝜛))𝑑𝜛 | ≤ 𝜌∗𝛼,𝛽 𝜗 (46)
| AB(𝛼) AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼) ∫0 |
where,
𝛽T𝛽−1 (1 − 𝛼) 𝛼𝛽
𝜌∗𝛼,𝛽 = + T𝛼+𝛽−1 H(𝛼, 𝛽) (47)
AB(𝛼) AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼)
Theorem 4. It has an Ulam–Hyers stable result under the condition 𝜎 < 1 if we assume the condition of with remark 3.
Proof. Let 𝜉 ∈ 𝐁 be a distinct solution, and 𝐱 ∈ 𝐁 be any solution of the system, then
|𝐱(𝑡) − 𝜉(𝑡)|
| { 𝛽𝑡𝛼−1 (1 − 𝛼) 𝛼𝛽 𝑡 }|
= |𝐱(𝑡) − 𝜉(0) + 𝛬(𝑡, 𝜉(𝑡)) + 𝜛 𝛽−1 (𝑡 − 𝜛)𝛽−1 𝛬(𝜛, 𝜉(𝜛))𝑑𝜛 |
| AB(𝛼) AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼) ∫0 |
| { 𝛽𝑡 𝛽−1 (1 − 𝛼) 𝛼𝛽 𝑡 } |
≤ |𝐱(𝑡) − 𝜉(0) + 𝛬(𝑡, 𝐱(𝑡)) + 𝜛 𝛽−1 (𝑡 − 𝜛)𝛽−1 𝛬(𝜛, 𝐱(𝜛))𝑑𝜛 |
| AB(𝛼) AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼) ∫0 |
𝑡
| 𝛽𝑡𝛽−1 (1 − 𝛼) 𝛼𝛽 𝛽−1 𝛽−1 |
≤ |𝐱(0) + 𝛬(𝑡, 𝐱(𝑡)) + 𝜛 (1 − 𝜛) 𝛬(𝜛, 𝐱(𝜛))𝑑𝜛 |
| AB(𝛼) AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼) ∫0 |
𝛽−1 𝑡
| 𝛽𝑡 (1 − 𝛼) 𝛼𝛽 |
− |𝜉(0) + 𝛬(𝑡, 𝜉(𝑡)) + 𝜛 𝛽−1 (1 − 𝜛)𝛽−1 𝛬(𝜛, 𝜉(𝜛))𝑑𝜛 |
| AB(𝛼) AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼) ∫0 |
11
{ 𝛽T𝛽−1 (1 − 𝛼) 𝛼𝛽 } | |
≤ 𝜌𝛼,𝛽 𝜗 + + T𝛼+𝛽−1 H(𝛼, 𝛽) 𝐋𝜉 |𝐱(𝑡) − 𝜉(𝑡)|
AB(𝛼) AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼) | |
≤ 𝜌𝛼,𝛽 𝜗 + 𝜎|𝐱(𝑡) − 𝜉(𝑡)| (48)
Hence,
‖𝐱 − 𝜉‖ ≤ 𝜌𝛼,𝛽 𝜗 + 𝜎|𝐱(𝑡) − 𝜉(𝑡)| (49)
Additionally, we can describe the aforementioned expression by
‖𝐱 − 𝜉‖ ≤ 𝐐𝛼,𝛽 𝜗 (50)
𝜌𝛼,𝛽
where 𝐐𝛼,𝛽 = 1−𝜎
. Therefore, it is Ulam–Hyers stable. □
Numerical scheme
In this part, we outline a numerical strategy for solving the system (8) numerically.
⎪𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽 𝐈 +𝐈 +𝐋
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐈𝑚𝑝 (𝑡) = 𝜔𝑓 𝜙( 𝑓 𝑝 𝐍𝑓 𝑠 𝑓 )𝐒𝑚 − (𝜁𝑚 + 𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚1 )𝐈𝑚𝑝 ,
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐋𝑚 (𝑡) = 𝜒𝑚 𝐈𝑚𝑠 − (𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚3 )𝐋𝑚 ,
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐑𝑚 (𝑡) = 𝜂𝑚1 𝐈𝑚𝑝 + 𝜂𝑚2 𝐈𝑚𝑠 + 𝜂𝑚3 𝐋𝑚 − (𝜐 + 𝜆𝑚 )𝐑𝑚 ,
⎨𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽 𝐈 +𝐈 +𝐋
(51)
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐒𝑓 (𝑡) = 𝛱𝑓 + 𝜆𝑓 𝐑𝑓 − 𝜔𝑚 𝜙( 𝑚𝑝 𝐍𝑚𝑠 𝑚 )𝐒𝑓 − 𝜐𝐒𝑓 ,
⎪ 𝐈𝑚𝑝 +𝐈𝑚𝑠 +𝐋𝑚
𝑡 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (𝑡) = 𝜔𝑚 𝜙( )𝐒𝑓 − (𝜁𝑓 + 𝜐 + 𝛿𝑓1 )𝐈𝑓 𝑝 ,
𝐍
⎪ 𝛼,𝛽
⎪0𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝖣𝑡 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (𝑡) = 𝜁𝑓 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 − (𝜒𝑓 + 𝛿𝑓2 + 𝜐)𝐈𝑓 𝑠 ,
⎪
𝑡 𝐋𝑓 (𝑡) = 𝜒𝑓 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 − (𝜐 + 𝛿𝑓3 )𝐋𝑓 ,
⎪ 𝛼,𝛽
⎪0𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝖣𝑡 𝐑𝑓 (𝑡) = 𝛿𝑓1 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 + 𝛿𝑓2 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 + 𝛿𝑓3 𝐋𝑓 − (𝜐 + 𝜆𝑓 )𝐑𝑓 .
⎩
For ease of use, we will write the aforementioned system as follows:
⎧𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽 ( )
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐒𝑚 (𝑡) = 𝛯1 𝑡, 𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓 ,
⎪𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽 ( )
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐈𝑚𝑝 (𝑡) = 𝛯2 𝑡, 𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓 ,
⎪𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽 ( )
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐈𝑚𝑠 (𝑡) = 𝛯3 𝑡, 𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓 ,
⎪𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽 ( )
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐋𝑚 (𝑡) = 𝛯4 𝑡, 𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓 ,
⎪𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽 ( )
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐑𝑚 (𝑡) = 𝛯5 𝑡, 𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓 ,
⎨𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽 ( ) (52)
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐒𝑓 (𝑡) = 𝛯6 𝑡, 𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓 ,
⎪𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽 ( )
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (𝑡) = 𝛯7 𝑡, 𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓 ,
⎪𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽 ( )
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (𝑡) = 𝛯8 𝑡, 𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓 ,
⎪𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽 ( )
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐋𝑓 (𝑡) = 𝛯9 𝑡, 𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓 ,
⎪𝐹 𝐹 𝑀 𝛼,𝛽 ( )
⎪0 𝖣𝑡 𝐑𝑓 (𝑡) = 𝛯10 𝑡, 𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓 .
⎩
After applying fractal-fractional integral with Mittag-Leffler kernel, we have the following
𝐒𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 + 1)
1 − 𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
= 𝐒𝑚 (0) + 𝑡 𝛯1 𝑡𝑘 , 𝐒𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑚𝑠 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐋𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐑𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐒𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐋𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐑𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 )
AB(𝛼) 𝑘
𝛼 ∑𝑘 𝑡𝑖+1 ( )
+ 𝛯1 𝑡, 𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓 𝜛 1−𝛽 (𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜛)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜛 (53)
AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼) 𝑖=2 ∫𝑡𝑖
𝐈𝑚𝑝 (𝑡𝑘 + 1)
1 − 𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
= 𝐈𝑚𝑝 (0) + 𝑡 𝛯2 𝑡𝑘 , 𝐒𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑚𝑠 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐋𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐑𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐒𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐋𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐑𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 )
AB(𝛼) 𝑘
𝛼 ∑𝑘 𝑡𝑖+1 ( )
𝐈𝑚𝑠 (𝑡𝑘 + 1)
1 − 𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
= 𝐈𝑚𝑠 (0) + 𝑡 𝛯3 𝑡𝑘 , 𝐒𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑚𝑠 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐋𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐑𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐒𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐋𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐑𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 )
AB(𝛼) 𝑘
12
𝛼 ∑𝑘 𝑡𝑖+1 ( )
AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼) 𝑖=2 𝑡𝑖
∫
𝐋𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 + 1)
1 − 𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
= 𝐋𝑚 (0) + 𝑡 𝛯4 𝑡𝑘 , 𝐒𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑚𝑠 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐋𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐑𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐒𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐋𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐑𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 )
AB(𝛼) 𝑘
𝛼 ∑𝑘 𝑡𝑖+1 ( )
𝐑𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 + 1)
1 − 𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
= 𝐑𝑚 (0) + 𝑡 𝛯5 𝑡𝑘 , 𝐒𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑚𝑠 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐋𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐑𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐒𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐋𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐑𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 )
AB(𝛼) 𝑘
𝛼 ∑𝑘 𝑡𝑖+1 ( )
𝐒𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 + 1)
1 − 𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
= 𝐒𝑓 (0) + 𝑡 𝛯6 𝑡𝑘 , 𝐒𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑚𝑠 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐋𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐑𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐒𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐋𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐑𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 )
AB(𝛼) 𝑘
𝛼 ∑𝑘 𝑡𝑖+1 ( )
𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (𝑡𝑘 + 1)
1 − 𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
= 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (0) + 𝑡 𝛯7 𝑡𝑘 , 𝐒𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑚𝑠 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐋𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐑𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐒𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐋𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐑𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 )
AB(𝛼) 𝑘
𝛼 ∑𝑘 𝑡𝑖+1 ( )
𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (𝑡𝑘 + 1)
1 − 𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
= 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (0) + 𝑡 𝛯8 𝑡𝑘 , 𝐒𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑚𝑠 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐋𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐑𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐒𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐋𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐑𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 )
AB(𝛼) 𝑘
𝛼 ∑𝑘 𝑡𝑖+1 ( )
𝐋𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 + 1)
1 − 𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
= 𝐋𝑓 (0) + 𝑡 𝛯9 𝑡𝑘 , 𝐒𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑚𝑠 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐋𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐑𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐒𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐋𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐑𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 )
AB(𝛼) 𝑘
𝛼 ∑𝑘 𝑡𝑖+1 ( )
𝐑𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 + 1)
1 − 𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
= 𝐑𝑓 (0) + 𝑡 𝛯10 𝑡𝑘 , 𝐒𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑚𝑠 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐋𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐑𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐒𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐋𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐑𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 )
AB(𝛼) 𝑘
𝛼 ∑𝑘 𝑡𝑖+1 ( )
AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼) 𝑖=2 𝑡𝑖
∫
We will now review the Newton polynomial:
⎧𝒫 (𝑡, 𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑝 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓 )

⎪
⎪ ≃ 𝒫 (𝑡𝑘−2 , 𝐒𝑚𝑘−2 , 𝐈𝑚𝑝𝑘−2 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠𝑘−2 , 𝐋𝑚𝑘−2 , 𝐑𝑚𝑘−2 , 𝐒𝑓𝑘−2 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝𝑘−2 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠𝑘−2 , 𝐋𝑓𝑘−2 , 𝐑𝑓 𝑘−2 )
⎪ {
⎪ + 1 𝒫 (𝑡𝑘−1 , 𝐒𝑚𝑘−1 , 𝐈𝑚𝑝𝑘−1 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠𝑘−1 , 𝐋𝑚𝑘−1 , 𝐑𝑚𝑘−1 , 𝐒𝑓𝑘−1 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝𝑘−1 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠𝑘−1 , 𝐋𝑓𝑘−1 , 𝐑𝑓𝑘−1 )
⎪ 𝛥𝑡
} ( )
⎪ − 𝒫 (𝑡 , 𝐒
⎪ 𝑘−2 𝑚𝑘−2 , 𝐈𝑚𝑝𝑘−2 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠𝑘−2 , 𝐋𝑚𝑘−2 , 𝐑𝑚𝑘−2 , 𝐒𝑓𝑘−2 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝𝑘−2 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠𝑘−2 , 𝐋𝑓𝑘−2 , 𝐑𝑓𝑘−2 ) × 𝜉 − 𝑡𝑘−2
⎨ { (63)
1
⎪ + 2𝛥𝑡2 𝒫 (𝑡𝑘 , 𝐒𝑚𝑘 , 𝐈𝑚𝑝𝑘 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠𝑘 , 𝐋𝑚𝑘 , 𝐑𝑚𝑘 , 𝐒𝑚𝑘 , 𝐈𝑚𝑝𝑘 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠𝑘 , 𝐋𝑚𝑘 , 𝐑𝑚𝑘 )
⎪
⎪ − 2𝒫 (𝑡𝑘−1 , 𝐒𝑚𝑘−1 , 𝐈𝑚𝑝𝑘−1 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠𝑘−1 , 𝐋𝑚𝑘−1 , 𝐑𝑚𝑘−1 , 𝐒𝑚𝑘−1 , 𝐈𝑚𝑝𝑘−1 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠𝑘−1 , 𝐋𝑚𝑘−1 , 𝐑𝑚𝑘−1 )
⎪ }
⎪ − 𝒫 (𝑡𝑘−2 , 𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑝 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑝 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 )
⎪ (
𝑘−2
)(
𝑘−2
)
𝑘−2 𝑘−2 𝑘−2 𝑘−2 𝑘−2 𝑘−2 𝑘−2 𝑘−2
⎪ × 𝜉 − 𝑡𝑘−2 𝜉 − 𝑡𝑘−1
⎩
13
Substituting the Newton polynomial (63) into Eqs. (53)–(62), we find

1−𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
⎧𝐒𝑚(𝑘+1) = 𝐒𝑚 (0) + AB(𝛼) 𝑡𝑘 𝛯1 X(𝑡𝑘 )
⎪ ∑𝑘 [ ]
⎪ 𝛼
+ AB(𝛼)𝛤 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑡1−𝛽
𝑖=2 𝛯1 𝑡𝑖−2 , 𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑝 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓 𝑖−2
⎪ (𝛼)
⎪ 𝑡
× ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
⎪
∑𝑘 1 { 1−𝛽
𝑖
⎪ 𝛼 [ 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1
]
+ AB(𝛼)𝛤 𝑡𝑖−1 𝛯1 𝑡𝑖−1 , 𝐒𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1
𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑝 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓
⎪ (𝛼) 𝑖=2 𝛥𝑡
⎪ [ ]}
⎪ − 𝑡1−𝛽
𝑖−2
𝛯1 𝑡𝑖−2 , 𝐒𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2
𝑖−2 𝑖−2
⎨ 𝑡
(64)
⎪ × ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−2 )(𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
⎪ 𝑖
∑𝑘 { [ ]
⎪ 𝛼
+ AB(𝛼)𝛤 1
𝑖=2 2𝛥𝑡2 𝑡1−𝛽
𝑖 𝛯1 𝑡𝑖 , 𝐒𝑖𝑚 , 𝐈𝑖𝑚𝑝 , 𝐈𝑖𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑖𝑚 , 𝐑𝑖𝑚 , 𝐒𝑖𝑓 , 𝐈𝑖𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑖𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑖𝑓 , 𝐑𝑖𝑓
⎪ (𝛼)
[ ]
⎪ − 2𝑡1−𝛽 𝛯 𝑡 , 𝐒𝑖−1 , 𝐈𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1
⎪ 𝑖−1 1 𝑖−1 𝑚 𝑚𝑝 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓
⎪ [ ]}
⎪ + 𝑡1−𝛽 𝛯 𝑡 , 𝐒𝑖−2 , 𝐈𝑖−2
𝑖−2 1 𝑖−2 𝑚
𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2
𝑚𝑝 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓
𝑖−2 𝑖−2
⎪ 𝑡
⎩ × ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−2 )(𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−1 )(𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
𝑖
where
( )
X(𝑡𝑘 ) = 𝑡𝑘 , 𝐒𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑚𝑝 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑚𝑠 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐋𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐑𝑚 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐒𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐋𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 ), 𝐑𝑓 (𝑡𝑘 ) (65)
1−𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
⎧𝐈𝑚𝑝(𝑘+1) = 𝐈𝑚𝑝 (0) + AB(𝛼) 𝑘
𝑡 𝛯2 X(𝑡𝑘 )
⎪ ∑𝑘 [ ]
⎪ + 𝛼 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑡1−𝛽
AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼) 𝑖=2 𝛯2 𝑡𝑖−2 , 𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑝 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓 𝑖−2
⎪
⎪ 𝑡
× ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
⎪ 𝑖
{ [ ]
⎪ ∑𝑘 1
+ 𝛼
𝑡1−𝛽 𝛯2 𝑡𝑖−1 , 𝐒𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1
⎪ AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼) 𝑖=2 𝛥𝑡 𝑖−1
⎪ [ ]}
⎪ − 𝑡1−𝛽
𝑖−2
𝛯2 𝑡𝑖−2 , 𝐒𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2
⎨ 𝑡
(66)
⎪ × ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−2 )(𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
⎪ 𝑖
∑𝑘 { [ ]
⎪ + 𝛼
AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼)
1
𝑖=2 2𝛥𝑡2 𝑡1−𝛽
⎪ [ ]
⎪ 1−𝛽
− 2𝑡𝑖−1 𝛯2 𝑡𝑖−1 , 𝐒𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1
⎪ 𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑝 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓
[ ] }
⎪ + 𝑡1−𝛽 𝛯 𝑡 , 𝐒𝑖−2 , 𝐈𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2
⎪ 𝑡
⎩ × ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−2 )(𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−1 )(𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
𝑖
1−𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
⎧𝐈𝑚𝑠(𝑘+1) = 𝐈𝑚𝑠 (0) + AB(𝛼) 𝑘
⎪ ∑𝑘 [ ]
⎪ + 𝛼 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑡1−𝛽
⎪
⎪ 𝑡
× ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
⎪ 𝑖
{ [ ]
⎪ ∑𝑘 1
+ 𝛼
𝑡1−𝛽 𝛯3 𝑡𝑖−1 , 𝐒𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1
𝑖−1 𝑖−1
⎪ AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼) 𝑖=2 𝛥𝑡 𝑖−1
⎪ [ ]}
⎪ − 𝑡1−𝛽
𝑖−2
𝛯3 𝑡𝑖−2 , 𝐒𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2
𝑖−2 𝑖−2
⎨ 𝑡
(67)
⎪ × ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−2 )(𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
⎪ 𝑖
∑𝑘 { [ ]
⎪ 𝛼
+ AB(𝛼)𝛤 1
𝑖=2 2𝛥𝑡2 𝑡1−𝛽
⎪ (𝛼)
[ ]
⎪ 1−𝛽
[ ] }
⎪ 𝑡
⎩ × ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−2 )(𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−1 )(𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
𝑖
1−𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
⎧𝐋𝑚(𝑘+1) = 𝐋𝑚 (0) + AB(𝛼) 𝑘
⎪ ∑𝑘 [ ]
⎪ + 𝛼 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑡1−𝛽
⎪
⎪ 𝑡
× ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
⎪ 𝑖
{ [ ]
⎪ ∑𝑘 1
+ 𝛼
𝑡1−𝛽 𝛯4 𝑡𝑖−1 , 𝐒𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1
𝑖−1 𝑖−1
⎪ AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼) 𝑖=2 𝛥𝑡 𝑖−1
⎪ [ ]}
⎪ − 𝑡1−𝛽
𝑖−2
𝛯4 𝑡𝑖−2 , 𝐒𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2
𝑖−2 𝑖−2
⎨ 𝑡
(68)
⎪ × ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−2 )(𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
⎪ 𝑖
∑𝑘 { [ ]
⎪ 𝛼
+ AB(𝛼)𝛤 1
𝑖=2 2𝛥𝑡2 𝑡1−𝛽
⎪ (𝛼)
[ ]
⎪ 1−𝛽
[ ] }
⎪ 𝑡
⎩ × ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−2 )(𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−1 )(𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
𝑖
14
1−𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
⎧𝐑𝑚(𝑘+1) = 𝐑𝑚 (0) + 𝑡 𝛯5 X(𝑡𝑘 )
AB(𝛼) 𝑘
⎪ ∑𝑘 [ ]
⎪ + 𝛼 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑡1−𝛽
⎪
⎪ 𝑡𝑖+1
× ∫𝑡 (𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉) 𝑑𝜉 𝛼−1
⎪ 𝑖
{ [ ]
⎪ ∑𝑘 1
+ 𝛼
⎪ AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼) 𝑖=2 𝛥𝑡 𝑖−1
}
⎪ [ ]
⎪ − 𝑡1−𝛽
𝑖−2
𝛯5 𝑡𝑖−2 , 𝐒𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2
⎨ 𝑡
(69)
⎪ × ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−2 )(𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
⎪ 𝑖
∑𝑘 { [ ]
⎪ + 𝛼
AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼)
1
𝑖=2 2𝛥𝑡2 𝑡1−𝛽
⎪ [ ]
⎪ 1−𝛽
[ ] }
⎪ 𝑡
⎩ × ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−2 )(𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−1 )(𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
𝑖
1−𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
⎧𝐒𝑓(𝑘+1) = 𝐒𝑓 (0) + AB(𝛼) 𝑡𝑘 𝛯6 X(𝑡𝑘 )
⎪ ∑𝑘 [ ]
⎪ + AB(𝛼)𝛤𝛼 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑡1−𝛽
𝑖=2 𝛯6 𝑡𝑖−2 , 𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑝 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓 𝑖−2
⎪ (𝛼)
⎪ 𝑡
× ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
⎪
∑𝑘 1 { 1−𝛽
𝑖
⎪ 𝛼 [ 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1
]
+ AB(𝛼)𝛤 𝑡𝑖−1 𝛯6 𝑡𝑖−1 , 𝐒𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1
⎪ (𝛼) 𝑖=2 𝛥𝑡
⎪ [ ]}
⎪ − 𝑡1−𝛽
𝑖−2
𝛯6 𝑡𝑖−2 , 𝐒𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2
𝑖−2 𝑖−2
⎨ 𝑡
(70)
⎪ × ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−2 )(𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
⎪ 𝑖
∑𝑘 { [ ]
⎪ + AB(𝛼)𝛤𝛼 1
𝑖=2 2𝛥𝑡2 𝑡1−𝛽
⎪ (𝛼)
[ ]
⎪ 1−𝛽
⎪ [ ]}
⎪ + 𝑡1−𝛽 𝛯 𝑡 , 𝐒𝑖−2 , 𝐈𝑖−2
𝑖−2 6 𝑖−2 𝑚
𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2
𝑖−2 𝑖−2
⎪ 𝑡
⎩ × ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−2 )(𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−1 )(𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
𝑖
1−𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
⎧𝐈𝑓 𝑝(𝑘+1) = 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (0) + AB(𝛼) 𝑘
⎪ ∑𝑘 [ ]
⎪ + 𝛼 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑡1−𝛽
⎪
⎪ 𝑡
× ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
⎪
∑𝑘 1 { 1−𝛽
𝑖
⎪ 𝛼 [ 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1
]
+ AB(𝛼)𝛤 𝑡𝑖−1 𝛯7 𝑡𝑖−1 , 𝐒𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1
⎪ (𝛼) 𝑖=2 𝛥𝑡
}
⎪ [ ]
⎪ − 𝑡1−𝛽
𝑖−2
𝛯7 𝑡𝑖−2 , 𝐒𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2
⎨ 𝑡
(71)
⎪ × ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−2 )(𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
⎪ 𝑖
∑𝑘 { [ ]
⎪ 𝛼
+ AB(𝛼)𝛤 1
𝑖=2 2𝛥𝑡2 𝑡1−𝛽
⎪ (𝛼)
[ ]
⎪ 1−𝛽
[ ] }
⎪ 𝑡
⎩ × ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−2 )(𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−1 )(𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
𝑖
1−𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
⎧𝐈𝑓 𝑠(𝑘+1) = 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (0) + AB(𝛼) 𝑘
⎪ ∑𝑘 [ ]
⎪ + 𝛼 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑡1−𝛽
⎪
⎪ 𝑡
× ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
⎪ 𝑖
{ [ ]
⎪ ∑𝑘 1
+ 𝛼
𝑡1−𝛽 𝛯8 𝑡𝑖−1 , 𝐒𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1
𝑖−1 𝑖−1
⎪ AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼) 𝑖=2 𝛥𝑡 𝑖−1
⎪ [ ]}
⎪ − 𝑡1−𝛽
𝑖−2
𝛯8 𝑡𝑖−2 , 𝐒𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2
𝑖−2 𝑖−2
⎨ 𝑡
(72)
⎪ × ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−2 )(𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
⎪ 𝑖
∑𝑘 { [ ]
⎪ 𝛼
+ AB(𝛼)𝛤 1
𝑖=2 2𝛥𝑡2 𝑡1−𝛽
⎪ (𝛼)
[ ]
⎪ 1−𝛽
[ ] }
⎪ 𝑡
⎩ × ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−2 )(𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−1 )(𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
𝑖
15
1−𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
⎧𝐋𝑓(𝑘+1) = 𝐋𝑓 (0) + AB(𝛼) 𝑘
⎪ ∑𝑘 [ ]
⎪ + 𝛼 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑡1−𝛽
⎪
⎪ 𝑡
× ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
⎪ 𝑖
{ [ ]
⎪ ∑𝑘 1
+ 𝛼
⎪ AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼) 𝑖=2 𝛥𝑡 𝑖−1
⎪ [ ]}
⎪ − 𝑡1−𝛽
𝑖−2
𝛯9 𝑡𝑖−2 , 𝐒𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2
⎨ 𝑡
(73)
⎪ × ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−2 )(𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
⎪ 𝑖
∑𝑘 { [ ]
⎪ + 𝛼
AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼)
1
𝑖=2 2𝛥𝑡2 𝑡1−𝛽
⎪ [ ]
⎪ 1−𝛽
[ ] }
⎪ 𝑡
⎩ × ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−2 )(𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−1 )(𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
𝑖
1−𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
⎧𝐑𝑓(𝑘+1) = 𝐑𝑓 (0) + AB(𝛼) 𝑘
⎪ ∑𝑘 [ ]
⎪ + 𝛼 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑡1−𝛽
⎪
⎪ 𝑡
× ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
⎪ 𝑖
{ [ ]
⎪ ∑𝑘 1
+ 𝛼
𝑡1−𝛽 𝛯10 𝑡𝑖−1 , 𝐒𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1
𝑖−1 𝑖−1
⎪ AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼) 𝑖=2 𝛥𝑡 𝑖−1
⎪ [ ]}
⎪ − 𝑡1−𝛽
𝑖−2
𝛯10 𝑡𝑖−2 , 𝐒𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2
𝑖−2 𝑖−2
⎨ 𝑡
(74)
⎪ × ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−2 )(𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
⎪ 𝑖
∑𝑘 { [ ]
⎪ 𝛼
+ AB(𝛼)𝛤 1
𝑖=2 2𝛥𝑡2 𝑡1−𝛽
⎪ (𝛼)
[ ]
⎪ 1−𝛽
⎪ [ ]}
⎪ + 𝑡1−𝛽 𝛯 𝑡 , 𝐒𝑖−2 , 𝐈𝑖−2
𝑖−2 10 𝑖−2 𝑚
𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2
𝑖−2 𝑖−2
⎪ 𝑡
⎩ × ∫𝑡 𝑖+1 (𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−2 )(𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−1 )(𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
𝑖
The following calculations can be made for the integral in the aforementioned Eqs. (64)–(74).
𝑡𝑖+1
(𝛥𝑡)𝛼 { }
(𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉 = (𝑘 − 𝑖 + 1)𝛼 − (𝑘 − 𝑖)𝛼 . (75)
∫𝑡𝑖 𝛼
𝑡𝑖+1
(𝛥𝑡)𝛼+1 { }
(𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−2 )(𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉 = (𝑘 − 𝑖 + 1)𝛼 (𝑘 − 𝑖 + 3 + 2𝛼) − (𝑘 − 𝑖)𝛼 (𝑘 − 𝑖 + 3 + 3𝛼) (76)
∫𝑡𝑖 𝛼(𝛼 + 1)
𝑡𝑖+1
(𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−2 )(𝜉 − 𝑡𝑖−1 )(𝑡𝑘+1 − 𝜉)𝛼−1 𝑑𝜉
∫𝑡𝑖
(𝛥𝑡)𝛼+2 { [
= × (𝑘 − 𝑖 + 1)𝛼 2(𝑘 − 𝑖)2 + (3𝛼 + 10)(𝑘 − 𝑖)
𝛼(𝛼 + 1)(𝛼 + 2)
] [ ]}
+ 2𝛼 2 + 9𝛼 + 12 − (𝑘 − 𝑖)𝛼 2(𝑘 − 𝑖)2 + (5𝛼 + 10)(𝑘 − 𝑖) + 6𝛼 2 + 18𝛼 + 12 (77)
Hence, we get finally
1−𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
⎧𝐒𝑚 = 𝐒𝑚 (0) + AB(𝛼) 𝑡𝑘 𝛯1 X(𝑡𝑘 )
⎪ (𝑘+1) 𝛼 ∑𝑘 [ ]
⎪+ 𝛼(𝛥𝑡) 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑡1−𝛽 × 𝛶
AB(𝛼)𝛤 𝑖=2 𝛯1 𝑡𝑖−2 , 𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑝 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓
⎪ (𝛼+1) 𝑖−2
⎪+ 𝛼(𝛥𝑡)𝛼 ∑𝑘 { 1−𝛽 [ 𝑖−1 , 𝐈𝑖−1 , 𝐈𝑖−1 , 𝐋𝑖−1 , 𝐑𝑖−1 , 𝐒𝑖−1 , 𝐈𝑖−1 , 𝐈𝑖−1 , 𝐋𝑖−1 , 𝐑𝑖−1
]
𝑡 𝛯 𝑡 , 𝐒
⎪ AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼+2) 𝑖=2 𝑖−1 1 𝑖−1 𝑚 𝑚𝑝 𝑚𝑠 𝑚 𝑚 𝑓 𝑓𝑝 𝑓𝑠
}
𝑓 𝑓
⎪ 1−𝛽 [ 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2
]
⎨−𝑡𝑖−2 𝛯1 𝑡𝑖−2 , 𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑝 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓 ×𝛩 (78)
⎪ 𝛼 ∑ { [ ]
𝛼(𝛥𝑡) 𝑘 1−𝛽
⎪+ 𝑖=2 𝑡𝑖 𝛯1 𝑡𝑖 , 𝐒𝑖𝑚 , 𝐈𝑖𝑚𝑝 , 𝐈𝑖𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑖𝑚 , 𝐑𝑖𝑚 , 𝐒𝑖𝑓 , 𝐈𝑖𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑖𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑖𝑓 , 𝐑𝑖𝑓
⎪ 2AB(𝛼)𝛤[(𝛼+3) ]
⎪−2𝑡1−𝛽 𝛯 𝑡 , 𝐒𝑖−1 , 𝐈𝑖−1 , 𝐈𝑖−1 , 𝐋𝑖−1 , 𝐑𝑖−1 , 𝐒𝑖−1 , 𝐈𝑖−1 , 𝐈𝑖−1 , 𝐋𝑖−1 , 𝐑𝑖−1
⎪ 𝑖−1 1 𝑖−1 𝑚 𝑚𝑝 𝑚𝑠 𝑚 𝑚 𝑓 𝑓𝑝 𝑓𝑠 𝑓 𝑓
}
⎪+𝑡1−𝛽 𝛯 [𝑡 , 𝐒𝑖−2 , 𝐈𝑖−2 , 𝐈𝑖−2 , 𝐋𝑖−2 , 𝐑𝑖−2 , 𝐒𝑖−2 , 𝐈𝑖−2 , 𝐈𝑖−2 , 𝐋𝑖−2 , 𝐑𝑖−2 ] × 𝛹
⎩ 𝑖−2 1 𝑖−2 𝑚 𝑚𝑝 𝑚𝑠 𝑚 𝑚 𝑓 𝑓𝑝 𝑓𝑠 𝑓 𝑓
16
1−𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
⎧𝐈𝑚𝑝 = 𝐈𝑚𝑝 (0) + AB(𝛼) 𝑡𝑘 𝛯2 X(𝑡𝑘 )
⎪ (𝑘+1) 𝛼 ∑𝑘 [ ]
⎪+ 𝛼(𝛥𝑡) 𝛯 𝑡 , 𝐒𝑖−2 , 𝐈𝑖−2 , 𝐈𝑖−2 , 𝐋𝑖−2 , 𝐑𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑡1−𝛽 × 𝛶
𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓
⎪ AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼+1) 𝑖=2 {2 𝑖−2 𝑚 [ 𝑚𝑝 𝑚𝑠 𝑚 𝑖−2
]
⎪+ 𝛼(𝛥𝑡)𝛼 ∑𝑘 1−𝛽 𝑖−1 , 𝐈𝑖−1 , 𝐈𝑖−1 , 𝐋𝑖−1 , 𝐑𝑖−1 , 𝐒𝑖−1 , 𝐈𝑖−1 , 𝐈𝑖−1 , 𝐋𝑖−1 , 𝐑𝑖−1
⎪ AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼+2) 𝑖=2 𝑖−1 2 𝑖−1 𝑚 𝑚𝑝 𝑚𝑠 𝑚 𝑚 𝑓
}
𝑓𝑝 𝑓𝑠 𝑓 𝑓
⎪ 1−𝛽 [ 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2
]
⎪ 𝛼(𝛥𝑡)𝛼 ∑𝑘 { 1−𝛽 [ ]
⎪+ 𝑖=2 𝑡𝑖 𝛯2 𝑡𝑖 , 𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑝 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑖𝑓
𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖
⎪ 2AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼+3)
[ ]
}
1−𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
⎧𝐈𝑚𝑠 = 𝐈𝑚𝑠 (0) + AB(𝛼) 𝑡𝑘 𝛯3 X(𝑡𝑘 )
⎪ (𝑘+1) 𝛼 ∑𝑘 [ ]
⎪ AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼+1) 𝑖=2 {3 𝑖−2 𝑚 [ 𝑚𝑝 𝑚𝑠 𝑚 𝑖−2
]
}
⎪ 1−𝛽 [ 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2
]
⎪ 𝛼 ∑ { [ ]
⎪+ 𝛼(𝛥𝑡) 𝑘
𝑖=2 𝑡1−𝛽
⎪ 2AB(𝛼)𝛤[(𝛼+3) ]
}
1−𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
⎧𝐋𝑚 = 𝐋𝑚 (0) + AB(𝛼) 𝑡𝑘 𝛯4 X(𝑡𝑘 )
⎪ (𝑘+1)
𝛼 ∑𝑘 [ ]
⎪ AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼+1) 𝑖=2 {4 𝑖−2 𝑚 [ 𝑚𝑝 𝑚𝑠 𝑚 𝑖−2
]
⎪ AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼+2) 𝑖=2 𝑖−1 4 𝑖−1 𝑚 𝑚𝑝 𝑚𝑠 𝑚 𝑚 𝑓 𝑓𝑝 𝑓𝑠 𝑓 𝑓
⎪ 1−𝛽 [ 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2
]}
⎪ 𝛼(𝛥𝑡)𝛼 ∑𝑘 { 1−𝛽 [ ]
⎪ 2AB(𝛼)𝛤[(𝛼+3) ]
}
1−𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
⎧𝐑𝑚 = 𝐑𝑚 (0) + AB(𝛼) 𝑡𝑘 𝛯5 X(𝑡𝑘 )
⎪ (𝑘+1) 𝛼 ∑𝑘 [ ]
⎪ AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼+1) 𝑖=2 {5 𝑖−2 𝑚 [ 𝑚𝑝 𝑚𝑠 𝑚 𝑖−2
]
⎪+ 𝛼(𝛥𝑡)𝛼 ∑𝑘 1−𝛽
𝑡𝑖−1 𝛯5 𝑡𝑖−1 , 𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑝 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑖−1
𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1 𝑖−1
⎪ AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼+2) 𝑖=2 𝑓
⎪ 1−𝛽 [ 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2
]}
⎪ 𝛼(𝛥𝑡)𝛼 ∑𝑘 { 1−𝛽 [ ]
⎪ 2AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼+3)
[ ]
}
1−𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
⎧𝐒𝑓 = 𝐒𝑓 (0) + AB(𝛼) 𝑡𝑘 𝛯6 X(𝑡𝑘 )
⎪ (𝑘+1) 𝛼 ∑𝑘 [ ]
⎪ AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼+1) 𝑖=2 {6 𝑖−2 𝑚 [ 𝑚𝑝 𝑚𝑠 𝑚 𝑖−2
]
}
⎪ 1−𝛽 [ 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2
]
⎪ 𝛼(𝛥𝑡)𝛼 ∑𝑘 { 1−𝛽 [ ]
⎪ 2AB(𝛼)𝛤[(𝛼+3) ]
}
1−𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
⎧𝐈𝑓 𝑝 = 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (0) + AB(𝛼) 𝑡𝑘 𝛯7 X(𝑡𝑘 )
⎪ (𝑘+1) 𝛼 ∑𝑘 [ ]
⎪+ 𝛼(𝛥𝑡) 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑡1−𝛽 × 𝛶
AB(𝛼)𝛤 𝑖=2 𝛯7 𝑡𝑖−2 , 𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑝 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓
⎪ (𝛼+1) 𝑖−2
⎪+ 𝛼(𝛥𝑡)𝛼 ∑𝑘 { 1−𝛽 [ 𝑖−1 , 𝐈𝑖−1 , 𝐈𝑖−1 , 𝐋𝑖−1 , 𝐑𝑖−1 , 𝐒𝑖−1 , 𝐈𝑖−1 , 𝐈𝑖−1 , 𝐋𝑖−1 , 𝐑𝑖−1
]
}
⎪ 1−𝛽 [ 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2
]
⎪ 𝛼 ∑ { [ ]
𝛼(𝛥𝑡) 𝑘 1−𝛽
⎪ 2AB(𝛼)𝛤[(𝛼+3) ]
}
17
Fig. 1. Simulation of 𝐒𝑚 under different fractal dimension 𝛽 and fractional order 𝛼.
1−𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
⎧𝐈𝑓 𝑠 = 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (0) + AB(𝛼) 𝑡𝑘 𝛯8 X(𝑡𝑘 )
⎪ (𝑘+1)
𝛼 ∑𝑘 [ ]
⎪ AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼+1) 𝑖=2 {8 𝑖−2 𝑚 [ 𝑚𝑝 𝑚𝑠 𝑚 𝑖−2
]
⎪ 1−𝛽 [ 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2
]}
⎪ 𝛼(𝛥𝑡)𝛼 ∑𝑘 { 1−𝛽 [ ]
⎪ 2AB(𝛼)𝛤[(𝛼+3) ]
}
1−𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
⎧𝐋𝑓 = 𝐋𝑓 (0) + AB(𝛼) 𝑡𝑘 𝛯9 X(𝑡𝑘 )
⎪ (𝑘+1)
𝛼 ∑𝑘 [ ]
⎪ AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼+1) 𝑖=2 {9 𝑖−2 𝑚 [ 𝑚𝑝 𝑚𝑠 𝑚 𝑖−2
]
⎪ 1−𝛽 [ 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2
]}
⎪ 𝛼(𝛥𝑡)𝛼 ∑𝑘 { 1−𝛽 [ ]
⎪ 2AB(𝛼)𝛤[(𝛼+3) ]
}
1−𝛼 1−𝛽 ( )
⎧𝐑𝑓 = 𝐑𝑓 (0) + AB(𝛼) 𝑡𝑘 𝛯10 X(𝑡𝑘 )
⎪ (𝑘+1)
𝛼 ∑𝑘 [ ]
⎪ AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼+1) 𝑖=2 {10 𝑖−2 𝑚 [ 𝑚𝑝 𝑚𝑠 𝑚 𝑖−2
]
⎪ 1−𝛽 [ 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2 𝑖−2
]}
⎪ 𝛼(𝛥𝑡)𝛼 ∑𝑘 { 1−𝛽 [ ]
⎪ 2AB(𝛼)𝛤 (𝛼+3)[ ]
}
[
⎪+𝑡1−𝛽 𝛯 𝑡 , 𝐒𝑖−2 , 𝐈𝑖−2 , 𝐈𝑖−2 , 𝐋𝑖−2 , 𝐑𝑖−2 , 𝐒𝑖−2 , 𝐈𝑖−2 , 𝐈𝑖−2 , 𝐋𝑖−2 , 𝐑𝑖−2 ]
×𝛹
where
⎧𝛶 = (𝑘 − 𝑖 + 1)𝛼 − (𝑘 − 𝑖)𝛼 ,
⎪
⎪𝛩 = (𝑘 − 𝑖 + 1)𝛼 (𝑘 − 𝑖 + 3 + 2𝛼) − (𝑘 − 𝑖)𝛼 (𝑘 − 𝑖 + 3 + 3𝛼),
⎨ 𝛼
[ 2 2
] (88)
⎪𝛹 = (𝑘 − 𝑖 + 1) 2(𝑘 − 𝑖) + (3𝛼 + 10)(𝑘 − 𝑖) + 2𝛼 + 9𝛼 + 12
⎪ [ ]
⎩ − (𝑘 − 𝑖)𝛼 2(𝑘 − 𝑖)2 + (5𝛼 + 10)(𝑘 − 𝑖) + 6𝛼 2 + 18𝛼 + 12 .
18
Fig. 2. Simulation of 𝐈𝑚𝑝 under different fractal dimension 𝛽 and fractional order 𝛼.
Fig. 3. Simulation of 𝐈𝑚𝑠 under different fractal dimension 𝛽 and fractional order 𝛼.
Result and discussion
In this step, the simulation of the model under discussion is shown in the figures. The basic parameter values from [7] are as follows: 𝛱𝑚 = 0.3,
𝛱𝑓 = 0.45, 𝜔𝑚 = 0.2, 𝜔𝑓 = 0.5, 𝜙 = 2, 𝜁𝑚 = 0.01, 𝜁𝑓 = 0.627, 𝜒𝑚 = 𝜒𝑓 = 0.618, 𝜂𝑚1 = 𝛿𝑓1 = 0.05, 𝜂𝑚2 = 𝛿𝑓2 = 0.1, 𝜂𝑚3 = 𝛿𝑓3 = 0.2, 𝜆𝑚 = 𝜆𝑓 = 0.1,
and 𝜐 = 5.48 × 10−5 . We used initial values: 𝐒𝑚 (0) = 10230, 𝐈𝑚𝑝 (0) = 7048, 𝐈𝑚𝑠 (0) = 6067, L𝑚 (0) = 2600, R𝑚 (0) = 0, 𝐒𝑓 (0) = 10960, 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 (0) = 7998,
𝐈𝑓 𝑠 (0) = 4113, L𝑓 (0) = 2416, and R𝑓 (0) = 0. Numerical simulations are done for the suggested scheme inside the fractional order range to give an
explanation for the outcomes of the various combinations of fractional and fractal orders in order to support the theoretical conclusions. Figures
Figs. 1–10 show the results for male and female groups with syphilis at various phases using different parameters invalidating the model at fractal
dimension 𝛽 = 1, 0.8. To better comprehend the syphilis disease dynamics, we employed several fractional orders 𝛼 = 1, 0.95, 0.90, 0.85. In Fig. 1,
vulnerable males are simulated for various fractional orders and fractal dimensions. As more people become infected with syphilis, the number of
susceptible males would drastically decrease. An equilibrium is reached after around 30 days as recovered individuals start to relapse in the absence
of treatment. Similarly Fig. 6 illustrates how the proportion of vulnerable females would rapidly decline as more persons contracted syphilis. The
situation reaches equilibrium as recovered individuals start to relapse in the absence of treatment. The simulation of males with primary stage
syphilis is shown in Fig. 2. It increases when more susceptible males become infected with the disease and reaches steady state. Fig. 7 depicts a
simulation of females with primary stage syphilis that declines as a result of infection becoming secondary stage syphilis, natural mortality, and
antibiotic therapy. Fig. 3 depicts a simulation of males with secondary stage syphilis, which declines as a result of treatment, natural death, and the
passage of males with secondary stage syphilis to males with latent stage syphilis. Fig. 8 demonstrates a simulation of a population of females with
secondary stage syphilis, which grows initially quickly as primary stage syphilis patients move to secondary stage syphilis patients. The population
is decreased due to a natural death factor, therapy, and the passage of females with secondary stage syphilis to latent stage syphilis. Figs. 4 and 9
19
Fig. 4. Simulation of 𝐋𝑚 under different fractal dimension 𝛽 and fractional order 𝛼.
Fig. 5. Simulation of 𝐑𝑚 under different fractal dimension 𝛽 and fractional order 𝛼.
respectively illustrate the simulation of a population of males and females with latent stage syphilis, which at first grows quickly as a result of the
spread of the secondary stage syphilis population to the latent stage syphilis population. After some time, the population of both males and females
with latent syphilis is continuously decreased by therapy and the natural mortality rate as a result of treatment, and eventually reaches steady
state. We can see from Figs. 5 and 10 that as treated males and females advance through the primary, secondary, and latent stages of syphilis,
the population of recovered males and females is continuously growing. The behavior illustrated in all of the figures changes when the fractional
values are reduced, indicating that the solution would be more accurate if the fractional values were lower than those of the classical derivative.
These simulations demonstrate how different values affect the proposed model’s behavior. They also demonstrate how infected patients’ conditions
can change over time, making the information considerably more relevant for making decisions and enforcing boundaries.
Conclusion
This study presents a fractional-order syphilis model with three infection stages, three prevention methods, and immune loss. The model is
created using the Mittag-Leffler kernel and analyzed for positivity, boundedness, positive invariant region, equilibrium points, threshold quantity,
existence, and uniqueness. The model’s Ulam–Hyers stability is determined through non-linear analysis. Numerical simulations show the impact
of the disease on males and females due to different parameters. The fractal-fractional derivatives significantly influence the dynamics of the
spread of syphilis disease, potentially reducing its spread in the population. For examining memory and genetic characteristics of numerous
physical and biological mechanisms, fractional derivatives are an advantageous tool. This study demonstrates the reliability and strength of
the proposed technique in finding the optimal solution for fractal-fractional models in biological and medical systems. This research is crucial
for understanding syphilis disease spread and limiting outbreaks in communities. Real data can be used to evaluate the model’s reliability,
20
Fig. 6. Simulation of 𝐒𝑓 under different fractal dimension 𝛽 and fractional order 𝛼.
Fig. 7. Simulation of 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 under different fractal dimension 𝛽 and fractional order 𝛼.
demonstrating its potential for future research and prevention initiatives. We advise readers to use additional pertinent mathematical techniques, for
example, stochastic differential equations, fractal-fractional derivatives using power-law kernels, modified Atangana–Baleanu fractional derivatives,
generalized proportional fractional derivatives, etc., for further examination of this literary work.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Muhammad Farman: Conceptualization. Aamir Shehzad: Formal analysis, Data curation. Ali Akgül: Methodology, Investigation. Evren
Hincal: Software, Resources. Dumitru Baleanu: Visualization, Validation. Sayed M. El Din: Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
There is no conflict of interest between the authors.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
21
Fig. 8. Simulation of 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 under different fractal dimension 𝛽 and fractional order 𝛼.
Fig. 9. Simulation of 𝐋𝑓 under different fractal dimension 𝛽 and fractional order 𝛼.
22
Fig. 10. Simulation of 𝐑𝑓 under different fractal dimension 𝛽 and fractional order 𝛼.
References
[1] Tampa M, Sarbu I, Matei C, Benea V, Georgescu SR. Brief history of syphilis. J Med Life 2014;7(1):4–10.
[2] Plagens-Rotman K, Jarzabek-Bielecka G, Merks P, Kedzia W, Czarnecka-Operacz M. Syphilis: then and now. Adv Dermatol Allergol 2021;38(4):550–4.
[3] Garcia Garcia L, Gonzalez-Escalada A, Carmen Ariza Megia M, Gil de Miguel A, Gil Prieto R. Syphilis: An epidemiological review. Curr Womens Health Rev 2012;8(3):231–41.
[4] Jones-Vanderleest JG. Neurosyphilis, ocular syphilis, and otosyphilis: Detection and treatment. Am Fam Physician 2022;106(2):122–3.
[5] Kimball A, Torrone E, Miele K, Bachmann L, Thorpe P, Weinstock H, Bowen V. Missed opportunities for prevention of congenital syphilis-United States. MMWR Morb Mortal
Wkly Rep 2020;69(22):661.
[6] Saad-Roy CM, Shuai Z, Van den Driessche P. A mathematical model of syphilis transmission in an MSM population. Math Biosci 2016;277:59–70.
[7] Momoh AA, Bala Y, Washachi DJ, Déthié D. Mathematical analysis and optimal control interventions for sex structured syphilis model with three stages of infection and
loss of immunity. Adv Differential Equations 2021;2021(1):1–26.
[8] Aadland D, Finnoff DC, Huang KX. Syphilis cycles. BE J Econ Anal Policy 2013;13(1):297–348.
[9] Garnett GP, Aral SO, Hoyle DV, Cates Jr W, Anderson RM. The natural history of syphilis: implications for the transmission dynamics and control of infection. Sex Transm
Dis 1997;185–200.
[10] Pourbohloul B, Rekart ML, Brunham RC. Impact of mass treatment on syphilis transmission: a mathematical modeling approach. Sex Transm Dis 2003;297–305.
[11] Grassly NC, Fraser C, Garnett GP. Host immunity and synchronized epidemics of syphilis across the United States. Nature 2005;433(7024):417–21.
[12] Breban R, Supervie V, Okano JT, Vardavas R, Blower S. Is there any evidence that syphilis epidemics cycle? Lancet Infect Dis 2008;8(9):577–81.
[13] Milner FA, Zhao R. A new mathematical model of syphilis. Math Model Nat Phenom 2010;5(6):96–108.
[14] Iboi E, Okuonghae D. Population dynamics of a mathematical model for syphilis. Appl Math Model 2016;40(5–6):3573–90.
[15] Andrawus J, Eguda FY. Mathematical analysis of a model for syphilis endemicity. Int J Sci Eng Appl Sci 2017;3(8):48–72.
[16] Nwankwo A, Okuonghae D. Mathematical analysis of the transmission dynamics of HIV syphilis co-infection in the presence of treatment for syphilis. Bull Math Biol
2018;80(3):437–92.
[17] Farman M, Alfiniyah C, Shehzad A. Modelling and analysis tuberculosis (TB) model with hybrid fractional operator. Alex Eng J 2023;72:463–78.
[18] Dassios I, Kërçi T, Baleanu D, Milano F. Fractional-order dynamical model for electricity markets. Math Methods Appl Sci 2023;46(7):8349–61.
[19] Khader MM. Mittag-Leffler collocation optimization method for studying a physical problem in fluid flow with fractional derivatives. Math Methods Appl Sci
2023;46(7):8289–303.
[20] Nisar KS, Farman M, Hinçal E, Shehzad A. Modelling and analysis of bad impact of smoking in society with Constant Proportional-Caputo Fabrizio operator. Chaos Solitons
Fractals 2023;172:113549.
[21] Bonyah E, Chukwu CW, Juga ML, Fatmawati. Modeling fractional order dynamics of Syphilis via Mittag-Leffler law. medRxiv 2021. 2021-02.
[22] Nwajeri UK, Panle AB, Omame A, Obi MC, Onyenegecha CP. On the fractional order model for HPV and Syphilis using non–singular kernel. Results Phys 2022;37:105463.
[23] Jan R, Khurshaid A, Alotaibi H, Inc M. A robust study of the transmission dynamics of syphilis infection through non-integer derivative. globe 2023;9:11.
[24] Atangana A. Fractal-fractional differentiation and integration: connecting fractal calculus and fractional calculus to predict complex system. Chaos Solitons Fractals
2017;102:396–406.
[25] Farman M, Sarwar R, Akgül A. Modeling and analysis of sustainable approach for dynamics of infections in plant virus with fractal fractional operator. Chaos Solitons
Fractals 2023;170:113373.
[26] Akgül A, Farman M, Ahmad A, Khan A, Zahran S, Awad WS. Fractional order glucose insulin model with generalized Mittag-Leffler kernel. Appl Math 2023;17(2):365–74.
[27] Jamil S, Farman M, Akgül A. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of a fractal fractional HIV/AIDS model. Alex Eng J 2023;76:167–77.
[28] Sadri K, Hosseini K, Hinçal E, Baleanu D, Salahshour S. A pseudo-operational collocation method for variable-order time-space fractional KdV-Burgers-Kuramoto equation.
Math Methods Appl Sci 2023.
[29] Farman M, Batool M, Nisar KS, Ghaffari AS, Ahmad A. Controllability and analysis of sustainable approach for cancer treatment with chemotherapy by using the fractional
operator. Results Phys 2023;106630.
[30] Kaushik K, Kumar A, Khan A, Abdeljawad T. Existence of solutions by fixed point theorem of general delay fractional differential equation with p-Laplacian operator. AIMS
Math 2023;8(5):10160–76.
[31] Khaliq A, Mustafa I, Ibrahim TF, Osman WM, Al-Sinan BR, Dawood AA, Juma MY. Stability and bifurcation analysis of fifth-order nonlinear fractional difference equation.
Fractal Fract 2023;7(2):113.
[32] Ahmad H, Khan MN, Ahmad I, Omri M, Alotaibi MF. A meshless method for numerical solutions of linear and nonlinear time-fractional Black–Scholes models. AIMS Math
2023;8(8):19677–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.3934/math.20231003.
[33] Ullah I, Ullah A, Ahmad S, Ahmad H, Nofal TA. A survey of KdV-CDG equations via nonsingular fractional operators. AIMS Math 2023;8(8):18964–81.
[34] Hashemi MS, Mirzazadeh M, Ahmad H. A reduction technique to solve the (2+ 1)-dimensional KdV equations with time local fractional derivatives. Opt Quantum Electron
2023;55(8):721.
23
[35] Esen Handenur, Ozdemir Neslihan, Secer Aydin, Bayram Mustafa, Sulaiman Tukur Abdulkadir, Ahmad Hijaz, Yusuf Abdullahi, Daher Albalwi M. On the soliton solutions to
the density dependent space time fractional reaction–difusion equation with conformable and M truncated derivatives. Opt Quantum Electron 2023;55:923.
[36] Hashemi MS, Mirzazadeh M, Ahmad Hijaz. A reduction technique to solve the (2+1) dimensional KdV equations with time local fractional derivatives. Opt Quantum Electron
2023;55:721.
[37] Abu-Zinadah Hanaa, Alsulami MD, Ahmad Hijaz. Application of efficient hybrid local meshless method for the numerical simulation of time-fractional PDEs arising in
mathematical physics and finance. Eur Phys J Spec Top https://doi.org/10.1140/epjs/s11734-023-00946-x.
[38] Atangana A. Modelling the spread of COVID-19 with new fractal-fractional operators: can the lockdown save mankind before vaccination? Chaos Solitons Fractals
2020;136:109860.
[39] Atangana A. Mathematical model of survival of fractional calculus, critics and their impact: How singular is our world? Adv Differential Equations 2021;2021(1):1–59.
[40] Van den Driessche P, Watmough J. Reproduction numbers and sub-threshold endemic equilibria for compartmental models of disease transmission. Math Biosci
2002;180(1–2):29–48.
24

A Fractal Fractional Sex Structured Syphilis Model With Three - 2023 - Results

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

A Fractal Fractional Sex Structured Syphilis Model With Three - 2023 - Results

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

A Fractal Fractional Sex Structured Syphilis Model With Three - 2023 - Results

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107098

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

A fractal-fractional sex structured syphilis model with three stages of

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

• In ‘‘Preliminaries’’, we give a brief introduction to the fractal fractional operator.

• with a power law kernel is provided as:

• with a power law kernel is defined as:

• for exponential decay kernel is given as:

• for the Mittag-Leffler kernel is given as:

𝐒𝑚 (0) ≥ 0, 𝐈𝑚𝑝 (0) ≥ 0, 𝐈𝑚𝑠 (0) ≥ 0, 𝐋𝑚 (0) ≥ 0, 𝐑𝑚 (0) ≥ 0,

Analysis of proposed model

Positive-ness and bounded-ness of solutions

⎧𝐈 (𝑡) ≥ 𝐈𝑚𝑝 (0)𝑒

For the function 𝐒𝑚 (𝑡) and 𝐒𝑓 (𝑡) we require the norm:

∥ W ∥∞ = sup𝑡∈𝐷W |W(𝑡)| (11)

where 𝐷W is the domain of W. We find for the function 𝐒𝑚 (𝑡);

In case of classical derivative, we get

Similarly, for the function 𝐒𝑓 (𝑡) we have

While Positive solutions with non-local operator are discussed below.

Positive solutions with non-local operator

Where 𝜓 is a time component.

Positively invariant region

We show in this part that the closed set:

Lemma 1. The region ℘ ∈ R10

The vector field is said to be located in the region R10

We find the disease-free equilibrium states (E0 ) as follows:

𝜅1 = 𝜁𝑚 + 𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚1 , 𝜅2 = 𝜒𝑚 + 𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚2 , 𝜅3 = 𝜐 + 𝜂𝑚3 ,

Existence and uniqueness of the solutions to the proposed model

Theorem 2. Assume the existence of positive constants, 𝜍𝑘 , ̂

• |M𝑘 (𝑞𝑘 , 𝑡) − M𝑘 (𝑞𝑘′ , 𝑡)| ≤ 𝜍𝑘 |𝑞𝑘 − 𝑞𝑘′ |, ∀𝑘 ∈ {1, 2, … , 10}

Proof. Recalling our model now

where ℧ = {𝐒𝑚 , 𝐈𝑚𝑝 , 𝐈𝑚𝑠 , 𝐋𝑚 , 𝐑𝑚 , 𝐒𝑓 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝐋𝑓 , 𝐑𝑓 }.

⎧||M (𝐈1 , 𝑡) − M (𝐈2 , 𝑡)| |2 |

where 𝜍2 = 2𝜁𝑚2 + 2𝜐2 + 2𝜂𝑚2 .

⎧||M (𝐈1 , 𝑡) − M (𝐈2 , 𝑡)||2 | |2

where 𝜍3 = 2𝜒𝑚2 + 2𝜂𝑚2 + 2𝜐2 .

⎧||M (𝐋1 , 𝑡) − M (𝐋2 , 𝑡)||2 | |2

where 𝜍4 = 2𝜐2 + 2𝜂𝑚2 .

⎧||M (𝐑1 , 𝑡) − M (𝐑2 , 𝑡)||2 | |2

where 𝜍5 = 2𝜐2 + 2𝜆2𝑚 . Similarly, we have

⎧||M6 (𝐒1 , 𝑡) − M6 (𝐒2 , 𝑡)|| ≤ 𝜍6 ||(𝐒1 − 𝐒2 )|| ,

{ (𝜒𝑚 +𝜂𝑚2 +𝜐)2 }

⎧|M7 (𝐈𝑓 𝑝 , 𝑡)|2 | 𝐈 +𝐈 +𝐋 |2

⎧|M8 (𝐈𝑓 𝑠 , 𝑡)|2 | |2

{ (𝜒𝑓 +𝛿𝑓2 +𝜐)2 }

⎧|M9 (𝐋𝑓 , 𝑡)|2 | |2

⎧|M10 (𝐑𝑓 , 𝑡)|2 | |2

In this section, we illustrate the Ulam–Hyers stability of the proposed model.

As a result, we obtain a special outcome 𝜉 ∈ (𝐖[0, T], R) such that

|𝐱(𝑡) − 𝜉(𝑡)| ≤ 𝐐𝛼,𝛽 𝜗 , ∀𝑡 ∈ [0, T] (44)

Consider a perturbation 𝐳 ∈ 𝐖[0, T] then 𝐳(0) = 0 and assume

• For 𝜗 > 0, we have |𝐳(𝑡)| ≤ 𝜗

Remark 3. Result of perturbed system :

ensures the subsequent relation

‖𝐱 − 𝜉‖ ≤ 𝜌𝛼,𝛽 𝜗 + 𝜎|𝐱(𝑡) − 𝜉(𝑡)| (49)

Additionally, we can describe the aforementioned expression by

We will now review the Newton polynomial: