Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Consider the system of differential equations $$\dot{x}(t) = f(t,x)$$ where $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $f$ is a $C^{\infty}$ function. Suppose that every trajectory which begins in the closed unit ball tends to zero as $t \rightarrow \infty$. Does it follow that there exists a ball around the origin $\mathcal{B}$ such that every trajectory that begins in the unit ball stays in $\mathcal{B}$?

My natural inclination is to think the answer ought to be yes and one should be able to show this by picking a convergent subsequence somehow. I'm having trouble making this work, however.

Here is where I am stuck. Supposing $x_i(t)$ is a trajectory that begins from $x_i(0)$ at $t=0$ and has distance at least $i$ away from the origin at some later time; and supposing $\lim_{i \rightarrow \infty} x_i(0) = x$; then I can't see how to derive a contradiction between the fact that the trajectory beginning from $x$ approaches zero, and is consequently bounded, and the the fact that $||x_i(t_i)||_2 \geq i$ for some $t_i$. If each $t_i$ was below some $T$ a contradiction is easy to obtain, but how to deal with $t_i$'s which blow up?

Finally, this is not homework.

share|improve this question
    
There's a distinct difference between the open and closed unit ball here. If the ball is open, ask what could happen to a trajectory starting on the boundary. If the ball is closed (hence compact) ask whether maximum distance from 0 is a nice function of initial position. –  Bob Pego Mar 23 '12 at 17:29
    
Thanks for your comment. I edited the question to say explicitly that the unit ball should be closed. –  robinson Mar 23 '12 at 20:17
    
@BobPego - It sounds like you know the solution, and, if that is indeed the case, would you consider posting an answer with a sketch of the argument? Thank you. –  robinson Mar 23 '12 at 20:19
    
For the closed ball, the argument I was thinking of has sprung a leak. (The idea was, for fixed $x_0$ there is $T_0$ so $x(t,x_0)$ is small for $t>T_0$. Then for $x_1$ near $x_0$, $x(t,x_1)$ is close to $x(t,x_0)$ for $t\in[0,T_0]$. But we know nothing now for $t>T_0$!) Your subsequence idea looks more promising. Choose $(t_n,x_n)$ so $|x(t_n,x_n)|>n$, say and look at $t_*=\liminf t_n$. But I have to run just now.. –  Bob Pego Mar 23 '12 at 21:50
    
Right, but then in the case of $t_{*}=+\infty$ I am stuck :( –  robinson Mar 24 '12 at 0:24
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

In fact, the forward image $x(t,{\mathcal{B}})$ need not be uniformly bounded in ${\mathbb R}^n$ for $n>1$. We can modify any given stable vector field, say $x'=-x$, by messing with a small slice of phase space for a fixed interval of time, forcing trajectories in this slice to take large excursions. During these excursions, other trajectories can be frozen by using a smooth cutoff in time. And no trajectory ever gets messed with more than once, so ultimately every trajectory approaches the origin.

The details: Fix a smooth bump function $u:{\mathbb R}\to[0,2]$ such that $u(t)>0$ for $0<t<1$ and $u(t)=0$ otherwise, and $\int_0^1 u(t)\,dt = 1$. Let $c(t)=\sum_{k\in\mathbb Z} u(t-2k-1)$. Then $c$ is $2$-periodic and $c(t)=0$ for $t\in[2k,2k+1]$, and every solution of the system $$x'=-c(t)x$$ approaches 0 as $t\to\infty$, with $x(t+2)=e^{-1} x(t)$ for all $t$.

Now consider a modified system of the form $$ x_1' = -c(t)x_1+ \sum_{k=1}^\infty k\, u'(t-2k)v_k(x_2),\quad x_j'= -c(t)x_j \quad (j>1).$$ We choose $v_k$ to be a non-negative cutoff function supported in $[a_k,b_k]\subset (0,1)$, of the form $$ v_k(y)= u\left(\frac{y-a_k}{b_k-a_k}\right). $$ For $t\in[2k,2k+1]$, $x_2(t)$ is constant, and $x_1(t)-x_1(2k)=k\,u(t-2k)v_k(x_2).$ Thus, for $x_2(t)\in (a_k,b_k)$ at time $t=2k$, $x_1(t)$ makes an excursion of order $k$, and returns to its starting value at time $t=2k+1$.

Finally, we choose $a_k, b_k\to0$ as $k\to \infty$ with $b_k<e^{-2}a_k$. Then for any solution of the system, $x_2(2k)\in(a_k,b_k)$ for at most one $k$, hence the solution $x(t)\to0$ as $t\to\infty$. On the other hand, solutions with $x_2(2k)\in(a_k,b_k)$ correspond to initial data with $x_2(0)\in (e^ka_k,e^kb_k)$. Since $e^kb_k\to0$, the forward image $x(t,{\mathcal B})$ is not bounded uniformly in $t$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for what looks like a fantastic answer. Please give me a few days to think about what you wrote before I accept it. –  robinson Mar 26 '12 at 0:23
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.