The reverse implication in the stability theory
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let us consider the system of differential equation $dot x=Ax+h(t),$ where A is a constant matrix of dimension $ngeq2$ and $h$ is continuous on $[0,infty).$ All eigenvalues of $A$ have a negative real part. It is known, that $h(t)to 0$ for $ttoinfty$ implies that all solutions $x(t)$ of $dot x=Ax+h(t)$ converge to $0$ for $ttoinfty.$
Is the converse implication true too? (All solutions $x(t)to 0$ implies $h(t)to 0$).
Thank you.
differential-equations stability-in-odes
asked Nov 23 at 18:27
Robert
112
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let us consider the system of differential equation $dot x=Ax+h(t),$ where A is a constant matrix of dimension $ngeq2$ and $h$ is continuous on $[0,infty).$ All eigenvalues of $A$ have a negative real part. It is known, that $h(t)to 0$ for $ttoinfty$ implies that all solutions $x(t)$ of $dot x=Ax+h(t)$ converge to $0$ for $ttoinfty.$
Is the converse implication true too? (All solutions $x(t)to 0$ implies $h(t)to 0$).
Thank you.
differential-equations stability-in-odes
asked Nov 23 at 18:27
Robert
112
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let us consider the system of differential equation $dot x=Ax+h(t),$ where A is a constant matrix of dimension $ngeq2$ and $h$ is continuous on $[0,infty).$ All eigenvalues of $A$ have a negative real part. It is known, that $h(t)to 0$ for $ttoinfty$ implies that all solutions $x(t)$ of $dot x=Ax+h(t)$ converge to $0$ for $ttoinfty.$
Is the converse implication true too? (All solutions $x(t)to 0$ implies $h(t)to 0$).
Thank you.
differential-equations stability-in-odes
asked Nov 23 at 18:27
Robert
112
Let us consider the system of differential equation $dot x=Ax+h(t),$ where A is a constant matrix of dimension $ngeq2$ and $h$ is continuous on $[0,infty).$ All eigenvalues of $A$ have a negative real part. It is known, that $h(t)to 0$ for $ttoinfty$ implies that all solutions $x(t)$ of $dot x=Ax+h(t)$ converge to $0$ for $ttoinfty.$
Is the converse implication true too? (All solutions $x(t)to 0$ implies $h(t)to 0$).
Thank you.
differential-equations stability-in-odes
differential-equations stability-in-odes
asked Nov 23 at 18:27
Robert
112
asked Nov 23 at 18:27
Robert
112
asked Nov 23 at 18:27
Robert
112
asked Nov 23 at 18:27
Robert
112
asked Nov 23 at 18:27
Robert
112
112
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
More precisely, the equivalence holds if for some vector norm $leftVertcdotrightVert,$
begin{equation}
suplimits_{0leq uleq1}leftVertintlimits_{t}^{t+u}h(s)dsrightVertto 0
end{equation}
as $ttoinfty.$
For the details and (long) proof see Theorem B in:
Strauss, A.; Yorke, J. A., Perturbing uniform asymptotically stable nonlinear systems, J. Differ. Equations 6, 452-483 (1969). ZBL0182.12103.
answered Nov 24 at 9:54
Robert
112
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
No. Consider $h$ which is $0$ everywhere except near $n^2$ for $ninmathbb N$ where it has bumps of height $1$ and width $1/n$:
$$
h(t) = sum_{ninmathbb N} 1_{[n^2-1/n,n^2+1/n]}(t).
$$
Consider now for instance $x'(t)=-x(t)+h(t)$.
All trajectories become eventually positive. Then it's clear that the effect of $h$ perturbs $x$ by at most $2/n$ when $t$ passes the time $n$:
$$
x(n+1/n)-x(n-1/n) leq int_{n^2-1/n}^{n^2+1/n} h(t),dt=2/n.
$$
From this you should be able to conclude that $x$ goes to $0$ nonetheless, because in the interval $[n^2,(n+1)^2]$ of length $sim n$ it has plenty of time to become exponentially close to $0$.
answered Nov 23 at 18:51
Federico
4,184512
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3010682%2fthe-reverse-implication-in-the-stability-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
More precisely, the equivalence holds if for some vector norm $leftVertcdotrightVert,$
begin{equation}
suplimits_{0leq uleq1}leftVertintlimits_{t}^{t+u}h(s)dsrightVertto 0
end{equation}
as $ttoinfty.$
For the details and (long) proof see Theorem B in:
Strauss, A.; Yorke, J. A., Perturbing uniform asymptotically stable nonlinear systems, J. Differ. Equations 6, 452-483 (1969). ZBL0182.12103.
answered Nov 24 at 9:54
Robert
112
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
More precisely, the equivalence holds if for some vector norm $leftVertcdotrightVert,$
begin{equation}
suplimits_{0leq uleq1}leftVertintlimits_{t}^{t+u}h(s)dsrightVertto 0
end{equation}
as $ttoinfty.$
For the details and (long) proof see Theorem B in:
Strauss, A.; Yorke, J. A., Perturbing uniform asymptotically stable nonlinear systems, J. Differ. Equations 6, 452-483 (1969). ZBL0182.12103.
answered Nov 24 at 9:54
Robert
112
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
More precisely, the equivalence holds if for some vector norm $leftVertcdotrightVert,$
begin{equation}
suplimits_{0leq uleq1}leftVertintlimits_{t}^{t+u}h(s)dsrightVertto 0
end{equation}
as $ttoinfty.$
For the details and (long) proof see Theorem B in:
Strauss, A.; Yorke, J. A., Perturbing uniform asymptotically stable nonlinear systems, J. Differ. Equations 6, 452-483 (1969). ZBL0182.12103.
answered Nov 24 at 9:54
Robert
112
More precisely, the equivalence holds if for some vector norm $leftVertcdotrightVert,$
begin{equation}
suplimits_{0leq uleq1}leftVertintlimits_{t}^{t+u}h(s)dsrightVertto 0
end{equation}
as $ttoinfty.$
For the details and (long) proof see Theorem B in:
Strauss, A.; Yorke, J. A., Perturbing uniform asymptotically stable nonlinear systems, J. Differ. Equations 6, 452-483 (1969). ZBL0182.12103.
answered Nov 24 at 9:54
Robert
112
answered Nov 24 at 9:54
Robert
112
answered Nov 24 at 9:54
Robert
112
answered Nov 24 at 9:54
Robert
112
112
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
No. Consider $h$ which is $0$ everywhere except near $n^2$ for $ninmathbb N$ where it has bumps of height $1$ and width $1/n$:
$$
h(t) = sum_{ninmathbb N} 1_{[n^2-1/n,n^2+1/n]}(t).
$$
Consider now for instance $x'(t)=-x(t)+h(t)$.
All trajectories become eventually positive. Then it's clear that the effect of $h$ perturbs $x$ by at most $2/n$ when $t$ passes the time $n$:
$$
x(n+1/n)-x(n-1/n) leq int_{n^2-1/n}^{n^2+1/n} h(t),dt=2/n.
$$
From this you should be able to conclude that $x$ goes to $0$ nonetheless, because in the interval $[n^2,(n+1)^2]$ of length $sim n$ it has plenty of time to become exponentially close to $0$.
answered Nov 23 at 18:51
Federico
4,184512
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
No. Consider $h$ which is $0$ everywhere except near $n^2$ for $ninmathbb N$ where it has bumps of height $1$ and width $1/n$:
$$
h(t) = sum_{ninmathbb N} 1_{[n^2-1/n,n^2+1/n]}(t).
$$
Consider now for instance $x'(t)=-x(t)+h(t)$.
All trajectories become eventually positive. Then it's clear that the effect of $h$ perturbs $x$ by at most $2/n$ when $t$ passes the time $n$:
$$
x(n+1/n)-x(n-1/n) leq int_{n^2-1/n}^{n^2+1/n} h(t),dt=2/n.
$$
From this you should be able to conclude that $x$ goes to $0$ nonetheless, because in the interval $[n^2,(n+1)^2]$ of length $sim n$ it has plenty of time to become exponentially close to $0$.
answered Nov 23 at 18:51
Federico
4,184512
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
No. Consider $h$ which is $0$ everywhere except near $n^2$ for $ninmathbb N$ where it has bumps of height $1$ and width $1/n$:
$$
h(t) = sum_{ninmathbb N} 1_{[n^2-1/n,n^2+1/n]}(t).
$$
Consider now for instance $x'(t)=-x(t)+h(t)$.
All trajectories become eventually positive. Then it's clear that the effect of $h$ perturbs $x$ by at most $2/n$ when $t$ passes the time $n$:
$$
x(n+1/n)-x(n-1/n) leq int_{n^2-1/n}^{n^2+1/n} h(t),dt=2/n.
$$
From this you should be able to conclude that $x$ goes to $0$ nonetheless, because in the interval $[n^2,(n+1)^2]$ of length $sim n$ it has plenty of time to become exponentially close to $0$.
answered Nov 23 at 18:51
Federico
4,184512
No. Consider $h$ which is $0$ everywhere except near $n^2$ for $ninmathbb N$ where it has bumps of height $1$ and width $1/n$:
$$
h(t) = sum_{ninmathbb N} 1_{[n^2-1/n,n^2+1/n]}(t).
$$
Consider now for instance $x'(t)=-x(t)+h(t)$.
All trajectories become eventually positive. Then it's clear that the effect of $h$ perturbs $x$ by at most $2/n$ when $t$ passes the time $n$:
$$
x(n+1/n)-x(n-1/n) leq int_{n^2-1/n}^{n^2+1/n} h(t),dt=2/n.
$$
From this you should be able to conclude that $x$ goes to $0$ nonetheless, because in the interval $[n^2,(n+1)^2]$ of length $sim n$ it has plenty of time to become exponentially close to $0$.
answered Nov 23 at 18:51
Federico
4,184512
answered Nov 23 at 18:51
Federico
4,184512
answered Nov 23 at 18:51
Federico
4,184512
answered Nov 23 at 18:51
Federico
4,184512
4,184512
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3010682%2fthe-reverse-implication-in-the-stability-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
