So, I am slightly confused about something that is written on Wikipedia regarding Lyapunov stability, namely: it says that if some function $V(x)$ is such that $\dot{V}(x) < 0$ $\forall \ x \in B$, where $B$ is some set excluding the origin, then the equilibrium point is locally asymptotically stable. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyapunov_function#Locally_asymptotically_stable_equilibrium)

Am I to understand this that if you can only show that $\dot{V(x)} < 0$ within some set containing the equilibrium point, then this point is locally stable, but not globally stable. For global stability, one needs to show that $B = \mathbb{R}^{n}$?

Thanks. Thomas


Correct. Looking down two headings on the wikipedia page, you have:

If the Lyapunov-candidate-function $ V$ is globally positive definite, radially unbounded and the time derivative of the Lyapunov-candidate-function is globally negative definite: $\dot {V}(x)<0 ~\forall x\in \mathbb {R} ^{n}\setminus \{0\}$, then the equilibrium is proven to be globally asymptotically stable. The Lyapunov-candidate function $V(x)$ is radially unbounded if $\|x\|\to \infty \implies V(x)\to \infty $. (This is also referred to as norm-coercivity.)

Roughly speaking, the maximal set $\mathcal{B}$ (w.r.t. inclusion) on which you can show $\dot V (x) < 0$ would be the basin of attraction for the equilibrium. Note that this isn't quite precise due to some topological concerns (certainly everything within $\mathcal{B}$ approaches the equilibrium, but there could be other points in the basin of attraction for which there is no such $V$ and $\mathcal{B}$).

  • $\begingroup$ Hi. Thanks for that.. I guess I'm still slightly confused because Boyce and diPrima say the following: "If V is positive-definite and $\dot{V}$ is negative-definite on Some domain D containing the origin, then the origin is an asymptotically stable critical point, which is a much stronger result than just being stable. But, here they just use a domain "D", not all of R^n. $\endgroup$ – Thomas Moore Mar 23 '17 at 3:02
  • $\begingroup$ Two Points: "Stable" translates to "perturbations don't run away" while "asymptotically stable" translates to "perturbations decay" and we approach the equilibrium point. For example, a center is generally considered stable but not asymptotically stable. $\endgroup$ – erfink Mar 23 '17 at 3:15
  • $\begingroup$ Second point: $\dot V(x) <0$ tells us that "solutions flow downhill"--think of water running downhill and collecting in basins. If we show $\dot V (x) <0$ on a domain $D$, then solutions in $D$ must approach our equilibrium point, but there might be other solutions outside of $D$ that go elsewhere (drop of water fell on the other side of a ridge and flows towards a different lake). If we can show that $\dot V(x) <0$ on $D=\mathbb{R}^n$ (as well as other listed hypotheses), then every initial condition "runs downhill" to our globally stable equilibrium point. $\endgroup$ – erfink Mar 23 '17 at 3:18
  • $\begingroup$ Ahh. I see. So, if you can show for a center for example that $\dot{V} < 0$ on a domain $D$, then would that center be asymptotically stable by this theorem in Boyce and di Prima? $\endgroup$ – Thomas Moore Mar 23 '17 at 3:22
  • $\begingroup$ Right, except that you've shown that it actually can't be a center and must actually be a spiral sink (upon consideration for higher order terms if you were looking at the linearization). A center is Lyapunov stable, but not asymptotically stable. $\endgroup$ – erfink Mar 23 '17 at 3:23

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.