1
$\begingroup$

Given $A$ is a $n\times n$ matrix, and $f: R\rightarrow R^n$ is continuous and bounded.

(a) If $A$ has no eigenvalues on the imaginary axis, prove that $\dot{x} = Ax + f(t)$ has a unique solution which is bounded on $R$.

(b) Show the counterexample to (a) when $A$ has eigenvalues on the imaginary axis.

My attempt: (a) Since $A$ has no eigenvalues on the imaginary axis, $A$ is infinitesimally hyperbolic. By a well-know theorem, we can rewrite a Jordan canonical form $J$ of $A$ such that $J = [A_s\ 0, 0\ A_u]^T$ where eigenvalues of matrix $A_s$ all have negative real parts and eigenvalues of $A_u$ all have positive real parts. Then the given ODE is equivalent to: $\dot{x} = PJP^{-1}x + f(t)$ where $P$ is matrix whose columns are eigenvectors associated with each eigenvalues of $A_s, A_u$ in the same order.

My question is: how to show that $PJP^{-1}$ transforms $A$ into 2 block matrices: one with all eigenvalues having positive real part, and one with all eigenvalues having negative real parts?

(b) I haven't been able to get this, despite spending several hours trying to find $A$ so that the solutions would have resonance effect. Can someone please give some thought about this?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (b) what if $A = \left[ \begin {array}{cc} 0&0\\ 1&0\end {array} \right]$ and $f(t) = [ 1 \ \ \ 1]^T$ ? $\endgroup$ – Smilia Oct 17 '15 at 8:59
  • $\begingroup$ @Guignol: Such a slick example! Although I'm not sure if $\lambda = 0$ counts as "on the imaginary axis," but I guess the origin still counts:) Many thanks! Can you try part (a) as well? $\endgroup$ – user177196 Oct 17 '15 at 18:10
  • $\begingroup$ nobody wants to help me with part (a), after transforming $A$ into the Jordan form? I just need to prove if there exists a relationship between the solution of $\dot{x} = Ax + f(t)$ and $\dot{x} = A_sx + f(t)$ or $\dot{x} = A_ux + f(t)$. $\endgroup$ – user177196 Oct 18 '15 at 0:51
0
$\begingroup$

The assertion in (a) is wrong. You need to have eigenvalues with negative real part for a bounded solution for all possible bounded $f(t)$.

As for the Jordan form you can write $$ A = \begin{bmatrix}P_s & P_u\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}A_s & 0 \\ 0 & A_u \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}P_s & P_u\end{bmatrix}^{-1} $$

where columns of $P_s$ and $P_u$ contains the (generalized) eigenvectors of the stable and unstable eigenvalues respectively. You can see this fact from the spectral decomposition of a matrix.

Now define $P = \begin{bmatrix}P_s & P_u\end{bmatrix}$ and $y = P^{-1} x$.

$$\dot{y} = P^{-1} \dot{x} = P^{-1} A x + P^{-1} f(t) = P^{-1} A P y + P^{-1} f(t)$$

$$\begin{bmatrix}\dot{y}_s \\ \dot{y}_u\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}A_s & 0 \\ 0 & A_u \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}y_s \\ y_u\end{bmatrix} + P^{-1} \begin{bmatrix}f_s(t) \\ f_u(t) \end{bmatrix}$$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure why (a) is wrong from your explanation. Can you clarify with a counterexample? Yes, I can see how you rewrite A in that form, but I need to show that from that form, i can break the original ODEs into 2 sub-ODEs, each correspond to either $A_s$ or $A_u$. It's quite hard:( $\endgroup$ – user177196 Oct 18 '15 at 21:18
  • $\begingroup$ For counter example select $A=1$ and $f(t)=1$. Ok, I understand the question now, see updated answer. $\endgroup$ – obareey Oct 18 '15 at 21:31
  • $\begingroup$ Absolutely beautiful! The transformation is so simple that I should have thought of it:(( Many thanks for your great help. Btw, is the last term still bounded, as the columns of $P^{-1}$ might contain unstable eigenvalues? $\endgroup$ – user177196 Oct 18 '15 at 21:57
  • $\begingroup$ Multiplication with a constant never changes the boundedness of a function. The bound might be bigger but still finite and that's what is important. $\endgroup$ – obareey Oct 18 '15 at 22:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't know what else to say. Read everything I wrote carefully and do the counter examples. (a) is obviously wrong. That's it. Trying to prove a wrong expression is meaningless. Also, if boundedness means bounded by some function, the claim would be true even if $A$ has eigenvalues on the imaginary axis, i.e. for all $A$. $\endgroup$ – obareey Oct 22 '15 at 7:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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