Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In ODE where $x'=f(x(t))$ and $x(0)=x_0$,

Let $S_\delta$= connected component of the set {x in S|$V(x)\leq \delta$} that contains $x_0$. It's also closed.

Lemma: for every $\epsilon>0$ there exists a $\delta>0$ such that:

(1) $B(x_0,\epsilon)$ $\subseteq$ $S_\delta$.

(2)$S_\epsilon$ $\subseteq$ $B(x_0,\delta)$

I want to prove (1) by contradiction using Lyapunov Function $V(x(t))$. My professor asked me to assume that $V'(x)<0$ so that $x_0$ is asymptotically stable and that it's a strictly Lyapunov function ($V(x(t_1))$ $<$ $V(x(t_0))$). He also said $V(x_0)=0$ and that i should fix $\epsilon=1/n$. Because he proved (2) exactly that way!

But I'm still confused as both parts are incomparable. (I don't know about this material outside ODE!)

Thank you for the help!

share|cite|improve this question
Usually when you define a set to be a connected component, you say it is a connected component of some set. For example, if $A = (-1,0)\cup(1,2)$, then $(-1,0)$ and $(1,2)$ are the connected components of $A$. So when you say $S_\delta$ is a connected component set, it is a connected component of what? Also, is $S_\delta$ meant to be an open set? If it is, your lemma is immediate, and does not need to use the Lyapunov function. Hope these questions help! – froggie Dec 25 '12 at 13:21
S-delta is a connected component of S-epsilon. regarding the openness, from my notes Sdelta is actually compact implying its closed, so im not quite sure about the proof. – d13 Dec 25 '12 at 13:29
What is $S_\epsilon$? – froggie Dec 25 '12 at 13:38
I recommend editing your question to include this definition! It will make the question more clear, and will make it more likely that someone will help you. Good luck! – froggie Dec 25 '12 at 14:16
I'm sorry but the reason you've been waiting for long for an answer is that your question does not make sense. It's a mess of symbols with few relations between them. // What does $B$ have to do with the rest of the problem? // Trying to define $S_\epsilon$, you wrote "{x(t) in S | V(x)<=S}" in a comment but "$\{x \text{ in } S | V(x)\ge \delta \}$" in the question. These are different, and neither version makes sense without a relation between $\epsilon$ and $\delta$. // Your best chance to get an answer would be to provide a reference, or a precise copy of the problem as you saw it. – user53153 Jan 5 '13 at 5:20
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Assume the contradiction: For every $\delta$ $>$ $0$ there exist $\epsilon$ $>$ $0$ such that $B_\epsilon(x_0)$ $\not\subset$ $S_\delta$.

Let $\epsilon=1/n$ then $\exists$ {$x_n$} $\in$ $B_\epsilon(x_0)$ but {$x_n$} $\not\in$ $S_\delta$ $\implies$ $V(x_n$) $\geq$ $\delta$ $>$ $0$ and {$x_n$} is not contained in any of the disconnected components as well.

then $|x_n$ - $x_0$| $<$ $1/n$ $\implies$ $x_n$ converges to $x_0$. Therefore $V(x_n)$ converges to $V(x_0)$ $\implies$ $V(x_n)$=$V(x_0)$=$0$

Therefore a contradiction!

According to my professor.

share|cite|improve this answer
i was confused all the way and my professor was confusing me as well. so finally i sat down with him to solve this proof and he did prove it and answering to all my confusions as well. I thank him for giving me this proof! it belongs to him – d13 Jan 9 '13 at 9:41
+1 for taking the right step. Math.SE can be helpful, but it will never replace your professor. – user53153 Jan 10 '13 at 0:15

Your Answer


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.