2

In most books and literature on feedback control systems, such as

Desoer and Vidyasagar, "Feedback systems: Input-output output properties" Brogiliato et al, "Dissipative systems analysis and control - theory and applications"

input-output descriptions of dynamical systems are taken as maps between appropriate extended $\mathcal{L}_p$ spaces.

For example, $H : \mathcal{L}_{2e} \rightarrow \mathcal{L}_{2e} : u \mapsto H(u)$.

While I understand the definition of the extended spaces, I am wondering why these spaces are the appropriate setting for input-output maps.

Any insights will be much appreciated.

Siva
  • 403

1 Answers1

1

If we first start with the set: \begin{align} \left\{f: \left[-T, T\right] \to \mathbb{R}^{n} \ | \ \text{f is continuous on } [-T,T]\right\} \end{align} we end up with a gigantic set that is not complete (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_metric_space).

If we restrict this space too, \begin{align} \left\{f: \left[-T, T\right] \to \mathbb{R}^{n} \ | \ ||f||_{\mathcal{L}_{2}} < \infty, \text{f is continuous on } [-T,T]\right\} \end{align} then the space is complete.

We (usually) only deal with causal signals (https://blog.oureducation.in/classification-of-signals/), i.e., a function $f(t)$ where $f(t) = 0$ for all $t<0$. Here is a post talking about LTI systems that highlights that if the signal isn't causal then the output is dependent on future values of the input (https://dsp.stackexchange.com/a/35265). This is a reason for looking at causal signals.

We are also interested in functions that are defined from $[0,\infty)$ and not just the interval $[0,T]$. Therefore, if we consider the space

\begin{align} \mathcal{L}_{2}^{n}[0,\infty ) := \left\{ f: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}^{n} \ | \ ||f||_{\mathcal{L}_{2}} < \infty, (\forall t <0) f(t) = 0 \right\} \end{align}

where $\left< f, g \right>_{\mathcal{L}_2} = \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} \left< f(t), g(t) \right>_{2}dt$ and $||f||_{\mathcal{L}_{2}} = \sqrt{\left< f,f\right>}$. Then $\mathcal{L}_{2}^{n}[0,\infty )$ is a Hilbert space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_space). Being a Hilbert space comes with many nice properties that allow us to take the Fourier transform of $f$ and move between time and frequency domain (also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plancherel_theorem).

Unfortunately, this space is a little too restrictive because it doesn't include commonly used signals such as the unit step, i.e., $f(t) = 1(t)$. Therefore, to include these other signals we extend the $\mathcal{L}_{2}$ space to,

\begin{align} \mathcal{L}_{2e}^{n}[0,\infty ) := \left\{ f: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}^{n} \ | \ (\forall T>0)\ ||f_{T}||_{\mathcal{L}_{2}} < \infty, (\forall t <0) f(t) = 0 \right\} \end{align} where $f_T(t) = f(t)$ for $t\in[0,T]$ and $0$ otherwise.

By extending the space we pay a price. $\mathcal{L}_{2e}^{n}[0,\infty )$ is not a normed vector space. Fortunately, it does maintain some useful properties so all is not lost. When looking at systems we are interested in their gain. There is a result that states that:

An operator $M$ is $\mathcal{L}_{2}$ stable with finite gain iff $M$ is $\mathcal{L}_{2e}$ stable with finite gain.

This provides a bridge for looking at $\mathcal{L}_2$ and $\mathcal{L}_{2e}$ signals.

dgadjov
  • 1,349
  • 1
    Great concise answer, thank you. What was unsettling was why this particular way to extend the signal space using function truncations so as to include desirable signals and not some other way. I guess that is answered by there being the result, $\mathcal{L}2$ stable with finite gain $\iff$ $\mathcal{L}{2e}$ with finite gain? Is this for causal $M$? Is this the discussion for example in Section 1.2 (page 4), particularly Proposition 1.2.3 of van Der Schaft's book? – Siva Dec 23 '21 at 18:45
  • 2
    Yes, Proposition 1.2.3 and Definition 1.2.4. is the result, and yes this is for causal $M$. – dgadjov Dec 23 '21 at 19:16
  • Thank you for the clarification. – Siva Dec 24 '21 at 03:41