3
$\begingroup$

I have a problem regarding differential equations, $f$ is increasing. $x,y$ are dependent on $t$ $$ f(0)=0 $$ $$x'=f(y-x)$$ $$y'=f(x-y)$$ $$x(0)=1$$ $$y(0)=0$$ prove that when $x,y$ are the solutions of this equation then $$ \lim_{t \to \infty} x = \lim_{t \to\infty}y $$ So far I have managed to see that $x'(0)=f(-1)$ and $y'(0)=f(1)$ which implies that $x'(0)<0$ and $y'(0)>0$ and basically $x'(t)<0$, $y'(t)>0$ as $x>y$ so as $f$ is increasing and $x$ is declining with $t$ and $y$ is increasing with $t$, the derivatives of $x$ and $y$ will be declining and increasing respectivly and they will have the boundary. Can anyone help from this on?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

First we note, that $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} x = x_\infty$ indeed exists. This is because $x$ is decreasing monotone. On the other hand $y_\infty$ exists aswell. We have $x_\infty \geq y_\infty$, because if there is a $t_0$ with $x(t_0)=y(t_0)$ we have $x'(t_0)=y'(t_0)$ and this will be $x_\infty$.

Now assume that $x_\infty >y_\infty$. The genral solution of a differential equation is: $$x(t) = x(0)+ \int_0^t f(x(t)-y(t)dt$$ But we then would have $$\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} x(t) =x(0) +\int_0^t f(y-x)dt \leq\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} x(0) +\int_0^t f(y_\infty-x_\infty)dt =-\infty $$

This however contradicts that $x_\infty>y_\infty$

$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

Let $u=y-x$. Then $$ \frac{du}{dt}=\frac{dy}{dt}-\frac{dx}{dt}=f(-u)-f(u) $$

Which is automatic with an equilibrium solution $u=0$. Note that your initial conditions become $u(0)=-1$

For $u<0$ since $f$ is increasing $f(-u)-f(u)>0$ giving $u$ is increasing (for all $u<0$). Assuming $u$ is a continuous solution it would need to pass through $u=0$ but cannot actually exceed this value because of the equilibrium there. so $\lim_{t\to \infty} u=0$ Thus $\lim_{t\to \infty} y-x =0$. So if either of the limits $\lim_{t \to 0} x$ or $\lim_{t \to 0} y$ exist (and are real) they must be equal. If they're $\pm \infty$ they also must be the same one.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I dont get why it would have to go through 0, why boundary can not be -1/2? for instance u would be an arcus tangens scaled properly $\endgroup$ – ryszard eggink Jun 11 '18 at 13:35
  • $\begingroup$ That argument is not sufficient, you first have to show, that 0 is the only possible limit $\endgroup$ – Jürg Merlin Spaak Jun 11 '18 at 13:50
  • $\begingroup$ Any other limit $L<0$ would have to also be an equilibrium solution (that is $\frac{du}{dt}=0$ ) and $\frac{du}{dt}$ is strictly greater than zero for negative values of $u$ $\endgroup$ – N8tron Jun 11 '18 at 14:08
  • $\begingroup$ @ryszardeggink By "boundary" you apparently mean "limit"? $\endgroup$ – user539887 Jun 12 '18 at 6:51
  • $\begingroup$ yes, but the problem is already solved :) $\endgroup$ – ryszard eggink Jun 12 '18 at 7:18

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.