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

A matrix $A$ is known to converge such that $\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} A^k = \bar{A} \neq 0$. We have an iteration defined as $$x(k+1) = A x(k) + B u(k), \ \ k\in \mathbb{Z}_+.$$

$\{u(k), k=0,1,..\}$ is an infinite sequence. Under what kind of sequence $\{u(k)\}$, will $x(k)$ converge as $k \rightarrow \infty$?

I suspect the sequence converges if $\{u(k)\}$ is absolutely summable and, in that case, converges to $\bar{A}x_0 + \bar{A} B \sum_{k=0}^\infty u(k)$ where $x_0 = x(0)$. However, I am not sure how to prove it. Would really appreciate any help on this.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 0 down vote accepted

A sufficient condition is summability of $u$.

The solution to the difference equation is $x_k = A^k x_0 + \sum_{i=0}^k A^{k-i} B u_i$.

Since $A^k \to \overline{A}$, we see that $\|A^k\| \le M$ for some $M$ and for all $k \ge 0$. (It follows that $\|\overline{A}\| \le M$.)

We have$\sum_{i=0}^k \|A^{k-i}\| \|B\| \|u_i\| \le M \|B\| \sum_{i=0}^k \|u_i\| \le M \|B\| \sum_{i=0}^\infty \|u_i\|$, hence $x_1 = \lim_{k \to \infty} \sum_{i=0}^k A^{k-i} B u_i$ exists. It follows that $x_k \to \overline{A} x_0 + x_1$.

If $u$ is summable, then $\|u_k \| \le M'$ for some $M'$ and for all $k \ge 0$. Let $ \epsilon >0$ and choose $N$ such that $2 M \|B\| \sum_{i>N} \|u_i\| < \frac{1}{2} \epsilon$. Now choose $N' \ge N$ such that for $k \ge N'$, $\|B\| M' \max(\|A^k-\overline{A}\|, \|A^{k-1}-\overline{A}\|,..., \|A^{k-N}-\overline{A}\|) < \frac{1}{2(N+1)} \epsilon$.

If $k \ge N'$, then \begin{eqnarray} \| \sum_{i=0}^k (A^{k-i} - \overline{A}) B u_i \| &\le& \| \sum_{i=0}^N (A^{k-i} - \overline{A}) B u_i \| + \| \sum_{i>N} (A^{k-i} - \overline{A}) B u_i \| \\ &\le& \|B\|M' \sum_{i=0}^N \| A^{k-i} - \overline{A} \| + 2 M \|B\| \sum_{i>N} \|u_i\| \\ &<& (N+1)\frac{1}{2(N+1)} \epsilon + \frac{1}{2} \epsilon \\ &=& \epsilon \end{eqnarray} It follows that $x_1 = \lim_{k \to \infty} \sum_{i=0}^k A^{k-i} B u_i = \lim_{k \to \infty} \sum_{i=0}^k \overline{A} B u_i = \overline{A} B \sum_{i=0}^\infty u_i$, and so $\lim_{k \to \infty} x_k = \overline{A} x_0 + \overline{A} B \sum_{i=0}^\infty u_i$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks for the proof. So, the proof shows that for arbitrarily small positive $\epsilon$, there exists an $N'$ such that the sum $\| \sum_{i=0}^k(A^{k-i} - \bar{A})B u_i\| is bounded by $\epsilon$. – Gemmi May 31 '13 at 15:42
Just a query - is the sufficient condition the absolute summability or just summability of u? Its seems we assume $\sum_{i=0}^\infty\|u(i)\|$ to be bounded. On a different note, any idea about some book that can be referred to for this kind of results? – Gemmi May 31 '13 at 15:58
The sufficient condition is absolute summability. Without that I'm not sure how to show $\sum_{i=0}^k A^{k-i} B u_i$ converges (I imagine it is true, since $A^k \to \overline{A}$, but would need to rethink the proof). – copper.hat May 31 '13 at 17:14
The latter part of the proof is just showing that $\lim_{k \to \infty} \| \sum_{i=0}^k (A^{k-i} - \overline{A}) B u_i \| = 0$. – copper.hat May 31 '13 at 17:16

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.