10

Consider the following system of differential equations $$\begin{cases} x' = y \\ y' = -w^2 \sin(x)-ay \end{cases}$$

with $w > 0 $ and $ a \ge 0$. I know that $V(x,y) = \frac{y^2}{2} + w^2(1-\cos x) $ is a strict Ljapunov function.

I am looking for a proof that every solution $(x,y)$ to the initial value $(x_0,y_0) \in \mathbb{R}^2$ is bounded for $ t \ge 0$.

One can show that $y$ is bounded using a proof by contradiction and the properties of the Ljapunov function. Further I know one way to prove that $x$ is bounded but this one is very long and counterintuitive. (cf. Gewöhnliche Differentialgleichungen und dynamischen Systeme written by Prüss/Wilke)

Therefore I ask you to provide another short/beautiful proof of the above claim.

To clarify: I am looking for an rigorous proof and not an physical idea which somehow shows the boundedness of solutions. While these are the differential equations for the damped pendulum. It is nowhere stated that one of this variables is only an angle. So $(x,y)$ are both in $\mathbb{R}^2$ and I want them to be bounded as such.

user1868607
  • 6,243
  • Maybe I am misunderstanding your question but the fact that you have a Lyapunov function that is strictly decreasing is proof that the solutions are bounded, no? You give me a bound on the solution and I give you a bound on the initial state such that the solution corresponding to an initial state within the latter bound stays within the former bound. Alternatively, you could consider a physics-based approach based on conservation of energy. – Calculon Jan 18 '18 at 09:31
  • For this two work i think one needs the additional assumption that $\lim\limits_{| x| \to \infty } V(x) = \infty$ which clearly is not true for the given LF. With this assumption one could conclude that if the solution is not bounded we get the contradiction $\infty = \lim_{k \to \infty} V(u(t_k)) \le V(u_0)$ for a sequence $t_k \to \infty $. Do you know another way to conclude without the mentioned assumption? –  Jan 18 '18 at 09:57
  • Since this is a pendulum, $x$ is always bounded in a sense. The angle is always between $0$ and $2\pi$. – Calculon Jan 18 '18 at 10:02
  • 1
    You have to look at the structure of Lyapunov's function's level sets, not at whether they unbounded or not. – Evgeny Jan 19 '18 at 10:04
  • The phase space of the pendulum is a cylinder. The boundedness of the trajectories follows trivially from that and the Lyapunov function. – tst Jan 20 '18 at 20:51
  • 1
    Oops. I posted a very hasty and incorrect answer, which I deleted. Now, looking more carefully, the claim doesn't actually hold for $a=0$. You should change your assumption to $a>0$. – Taneli Huuskonen Jan 25 '18 at 10:33

4 Answers4

6

Let $x=x(t)$, $y=y(t)$ be a solution satisfying the given initial conditions $x(0)=x_0$, $y(0)=y_0$. Let $$ V(t)=\frac{y(t)^2}{2}+w^2(1-\cos x(t)).$$ Now for all $t$ it holds that $V(t)\ge 0$ and $V'(t)=-ay(t)^2\le 0$. So, it follows that the $V(t)$ has a limit at infinity. Let $W=\lim_{t\to\infty}V(t)$. Assume toward a contradiction that $x(t)$ is unbounded. It follows that $\cos(x(t))=-1$ for arbitrarily large $t$, and therefore $W\ge 2w^2$. Thus $$ y(t)^2=2(V(t)-w^2(1-\cos x(t)))\ge 2w^2(1+\cos x(t)).$$ Consider now $t_1$ such that $\cos x(t_1)=1$ and $V(t_1)<W+2aw$. Let $t_2$ be the smallest $t$ such that $t>t_1$ and $\cos x(t)=0$. Then $|y(t)|\ge\sqrt{2}w$ for $t\in[t_1,t_2]$, and so $$V(t_1)-V(t_2)=a\int_{t_1}^{t_2}y(t)^2\,dt\ge\sqrt{2}aw\int_{t_1}^{t_2}|y(t)|\,dt\ge\frac{\sqrt{2}\pi aw}{2}>2aw,$$ and consequently $V(t_2)<V(t_1)-2aw<W$, contradicting the choice of $W$. Thus, $x(t)$ is bounded.

  • $\lim_{t\to\infty}V(t)\ge2\omega^2$ does not conclude $V(t)\ge 2\omega^2$ which invalidates the reasoning. Furthermore, how did you conclude that $\lim_{t\to\infty}V(t)=V|_{x=(2k+1)\pi}$? – Arash Jan 26 '18 at 04:03
  • $V$ is decreasing, so $V(t)\ge W$ for all $t$. Moreover, for every $t$ there is $s>t$ such that $\cos(x(s))=-1$, so $V(t)\ge V(s)\ge 2w^2$. Consequently, $W\ge 2w^2$. – Taneli Huuskonen Jan 26 '18 at 10:26
  • $V(t_1) < W+2aw$? What if $a = 0$, then $V(t_1) < W$ but since $V$ is decreasing then it would be impossible for $W$ to be the limit...Am I right? – user1868607 May 21 '18 at 17:52
  • 3
    @Javier: The claim does not hold for $a=0$. Under that condition, $\exists t\ni y(t)^2>2w^2(1+\cos x(t))$, then $x(t)$ is a sum of a linear function and a periodic function and thus unbounded. You should change the premise to $a>0$. Taneli Huuskonen's proof is complete. +1 to him. – Hans May 11 '19 at 01:48
2

I will prove a more general proposition with a relaxed premise and a sharper conclusion.

Proposition: $H_1(x)\in C^1(R)$. $h_2(y)\in C(R)$ is a strictly increasing function, and $h_2(0)=0$. $\lim\sup_{x\to\infty}H_1(x)>\lim\inf_{x\to\infty} H_1(x)\ge 0=H_1(0)$. $\lim\sup_{x\to-\infty}H_1(x)>\lim\inf_{x\to-\infty} H_1(x)\ge 0=H_1(0)$. $h_1(x):=H_1'(x)$ is bounded. $g$ is a continuous strictly increasing function defined on all $R$ with $g(0)=0$. Consider
$$\begin{cases} x' = h_2(y) \\ y' = -h_1(x)-g(y) \end{cases}$$ For any initial condition, as $t\to\infty$, $y(t)\to0$; $x(t)$ is bounded and its set of accumulation points is nonempty, contained in the set of stationary points of $H_1(x)$ ($h_1(x)=0$) and is in fact a closed interval. If we further assume $h_1(x)=0$ only at isolated points, $x(t)$ to some stationary point of $H_1(x)$ where $X$ is the set of stationary points of $H_1$.

We need the following lemma.

Lemma: $f\in C(R)$, $f(0)=0$. $f(y)$ is positive away from $y=0$. $y:R^+\to R$ is differentiable and $|y'(t)|<M$. $$\int_0^\infty f(y(t))<\infty.$$ Then $y(t)\to 0$ as $t\to\infty$.

Proof of the Lemma: Suppose the contrary. Without loss of generality, assume $y(t)$ has a positive accumulation point. That is $\exists y_0>0$ and $\{t_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ where $t_{n+1}-t_n\ge1 \ni |y(t_n)-4y_0|< y_0$. Since $y'(t)$ is bounded by $M$, $\forall n\in\mathbf N$ and $|t-t_n|<\frac{y_0}M$, we have $|y(t)-y(t_n)|< y_0$ implying $|y(t)-4y_0|< 2y_0$. Let $T:= \bigcup_n \big\{t\,\big|\,|t-t_n|< \frac{y_0}M\big\}$. $y(T)$ is contained in a compact set $Y:=\big\{y\,\big|\,|y-4y_0|\le2y_0\big\}$. The property of $f(y)$ implies that $f(y(T))>f_0:=\min_Yf(Y)>0$.

Let $l=\min\big(\frac12,\frac{y_0}M\big)$ Consider the integration of $f(y(t))$ over intervals $(t_n-l,t_n+l)$ over all $n$ which are all disjoint. We have $$\int_0^\infty f(y(t))dt>\sum_{n=1}^\infty f_0 2l=\infty.$$ We have a contradiction.

Therefore, $y(t)\to0$ as $t\to\infty$, as desired.

QED


Proof of the Proposition: Define $H_2(y):=\int_0^y h_2(u)\,du$, $H(x,y) := H_1(x) + H_2(y)$ and $H(t):=H(x(t),y(t))$. We have $$\dot H(t):=\frac{d}{dt}H(t)=-h_2(y(t))g(y(t)).$$ $H(x,y)\ge0$ for all $(x,y)$ and $\dot H<0, \forall y\ne0$ and $\dot H(t=0)=0$. So $H$ is a Lyapunov function. $H(t)$ decreases. Thus, together with $H_1$ being nonnegative, $H_2(y(t))=H(t)-H_1(x(t))\le H(0),\,\forall t\ge0$. Because $H_2(-\infty)=H_2(\infty)=\infty$, $H_2(y)$ is bounded implies $|y|$ is bounded. Since $|g(y)|$ is continuous it is also bounded on the compact set defined by the bounded $|y|$. $|y'(t)|\le |H_1'(x(t))|+|g(y(t))|$ is also bounded since both terms on the right hand side are bounded.

Now, since $H(t)$ is non-increasing is bounded from below by $0$, $$H(0)-H(\infty)=\int_0^\infty h_2(y(s))g(y(s))\,ds$$ is convergent. $h_2(y)g(y)$ strictly increases on $[0,\infty)$ and strictly decreases on $(-\infty,0]$, $h_2(y=0)g(y=0)=0$, since both $h_2(y)$ and $g(y)$ satisfy these conditions. Recall $|y'(t)|$ is bounded. As $t\to\infty$, by Lemma, $y(t)\to0$, consequently $H_2(y(t))\to0^+$ and $h_2(y(t))\to0$.

$H_1(x(t))$ converges as $t\to\infty$, since $H(t=\infty)=H_1(x(t=\infty))+H_2(y(t=\infty))=H_1(x(t=\infty))$. $x(t)$ is bounded. Otherwise, since $H_1$ has distinct $\lim\sup$ and $\lim\inf$, $H_1(x(t))$ assumes all values of a nonempty interval and thus diverges as $t\to\infty$. We show $x(t)$ converges as $t\to\infty$ by contradiction. Suppose $x(t)$ has two distinct accumulation points $x_1 < x_2$. As $x(t)$ is continuous, it assumes all values in $(x_1,x_2)$ as $t\to\infty$. We have two cases. We show both are impossible.

1) $H_1(x_1)\ne H_1(x_2)$. $H_1(x(t))$ diverges.

2) $H_1(x_1)=H_2(x_2)$. That would mean $H_1(x)=H_1(x_1), \forall x\in [x_1,x_2]$. Otherwise, $\exists x_3\in (x_1,x_2)\ni H_1(x_3)\ne H_1(x_1)$ and as $x(t)$ is continuous, it assumes $x_3$ infinite times and $H_1(x(t))$ assumes $H_1(x_3)$ infinite times, as $t\to\infty$. That gives at least two distinct accumulation points to $H_1(x(t))$ making $H_1(x(t))$ diverge. However, that would entail $h_1(x)=0,\,\forall x\in[x_1,x_2]$ violating the premise that $h_1$ assumes $0$ only at isolated points.

Both cases lead to contradiction. So $x(t)$ converges as claimed.

Finally, we show the limit $x_\infty$ of $x(t)$ is a stationary point of $H_1$ or $h_1(x_\infty)=0$. Suppose the contrary that $h_1(x_\infty)\ne0$. Assume without loss of generality that $h_1(x_infty)>0$. For an arbitrarily small $\epsilon>0$ and sufficiently large $T$, we have $y(T)>-\epsilon$, and $\forall t>T$, the equation of motion gives $$y'(t)=h_1(x(t))-g(y(t))>(h_1(x_\infty)-\epsilon)-\epsilon>0,$$ implying $$y(t)>-\epsilon+(h_1(x_\infty)-2\epsilon)(t-T)$$ making $y(t)\to\infty$ as $t\to\infty$, a contradiction.

So far, we have proved all the results we set out to prove.

QED

Hans
  • 10,484
1

The derivative of Lyapunov function cannot decrease for ever unless its limit is zero . $$\dot V(x,y)=y\dot y+w^2 \dot x \sin x$$ $$=y(-w^2\sin x-a y)+w^2 y\sin x =-a y^2$$

Therefore, $y(t=\infty)=0$.

In addition, as Lyapunov function is monotonic, at $t=\infty$,

$$V(x,y)=\frac12y^2+w^2(1-\cos x)=0$$

or

$$(1-\cos x)=0$$

This means

$$\exists k \in \mathbb{Z},\quad x(t=\infty)=2k\pi$$

As $\dot x$ is bounded, $x$ cannot jump. Hence, $x$ is bounded.

Arash
  • 1,201
  • Well! x(t)=t is unbounded with bounded derivation... – Mostafa Ayaz Jan 24 '18 at 17:43
  • @MostafaAyaz, but it doesn't jump from one point to another with the value of $2k'\pi$. – Arash Jan 24 '18 at 22:53
  • If a differentiable function $V$ is decreasing, it has a limit. If its derivative has a limit, then this limit is indeed zero, but there are several examples of decreasing functions whose derivatives do not admit a limit. So the statement "The derivative of Lyapunov function cannot decrease for ever unless its limit is zero" is not correct, I think. – Gio67 Jan 25 '18 at 00:43
  • Neither $\dot V(x,y)=0$ nor $V(x,y)=0$ at $t=\infty$ holds under the current rationale for decreasing function. – Hans Jan 25 '18 at 00:59
  • @Gio67, Are they Lyapunov functions? do you have any example in mind? – Arash Jan 25 '18 at 03:48
  • @Hans, For an asymptotically stable system, the limit of Lyapunov function at time of infinity is zero. – Arash Jan 25 '18 at 03:58
  • Show the proof. – Hans Jan 25 '18 at 04:28
  • @Hans, summary 3. – Arash Jan 25 '18 at 04:59
  • That is just a definition of asymptotically stable. If you assert that this system fits that definition, the burden is on you to PROVE it. You are actually asserting more than the question asks for. – Hans Jan 25 '18 at 05:07
  • @Hans, The existence of Lyapunov function means the system is asymptotically stable. And the definition of asymptotically stable shows what I have claimed. – Arash Jan 25 '18 at 05:13
  • 2
    It is wrong to simply assert "the existence of Lyapunov function means the system is asymptotically stable", since $\dot V\le 0$ does not guarantee asymptotic stability, and $\dot V<0$ certainly does not hold for every $(x,y)$ in our question. Even if it does, it only guarantees local asymptotic stability rather than say anything global which is the question here. – Hans Jan 25 '18 at 08:35
1

The local LaSalle's invariant principle, stated for example here and here, guarantees $\lim_{t\to\infty}(x,y)=(k\pi,0)$ for some integer $k$ for an initial condition in some neighbourhood of $0$. The condition for the global version of the LaSalle's invariant principle is not satisfied. The global boundedness of the solution is proved by Taneli Huuskonen and me, Hans (in another answer that is more general and sharper).

In fact the wikipedia article gives precisely this very problem as an example of the application of the principle in the local sense. $0=\dot V(x,y)=-ay^2 \bigwedge a>0\Longleftrightarrow 0=y=\dot x$. The complete trajectory within should satisfy $0=\dot y=-w^2\sin(x)$ the solution set $x(t)$ of which is $\{k\pi|\,k\in\mathbf Z\}$.

In addition we have the positive definiteness of the Lyapunov function that $V(x,y)>0,\, \forall (x,y)\neq 0$. In fact so long as $\dot V\le0$ in a compact neighbourhood $A$ of the fixed point (cf. the second reference above), in this case, $(k\pi,0)$, $\lim_{t\to\infty}x(t)=k\pi$ for some integer $k$, for all initial values$(x,y)\in A$.

Hans
  • 10,484
  • The assumption ($|(x,y)|\to\infty$ concludes $V(x,y)\to\infty$) is not true. It actually depends on the direction of the limit. – Arash Jan 25 '18 at 08:52
  • @Arash: You are right. I have edited that part. It could be proved. – Hans Jan 25 '18 at 09:06
  • @Hans if you know an alternative approach without LaSalle's principle that could be worth the open bounty – user1868607 May 10 '19 at 10:06
  • @Javier: I am writing up a proof for a more general proposition. Check it out. – Hans May 12 '19 at 20:16
  • 1
    @Javier: I just want to alert you to my edition of the first paragraph regarding the local vs. the global solutions of the problem. – Hans May 17 '19 at 22:24