1. INTRODUCTION
The notion of uniformly Lipschitz stability (ULS) was introduced by Dannan and Elaydi [8] . For linear systems, the notions of uniformly Lipschitz stability and that of uniformly stability are equivalent. However, for nonlinear systems, the two notions are quite distinct. In fact, uniformly Lipschitz stability lies somewhere between uniformly stability on one side and the notions of asmptotic stability in variation of Brauer[4] and uniformly stability in variation of Brauer and Strauss[3] on the other side. Gonzalez and Pinto[9] proved theorems which relate the asymptotic behavior and boundedness of the solutions of nonlinear differential systems.
In this paper, we investigate Lipschitz and asymptotic stability for solutions of the nonlinear differential systems. To do this we need some integral inequalities. The method incorporating integral inequalities takes an important place among the methods developed for the qualitative analysis of solutions to linear and nonlinear system of differential equations. In the presence the method of integral inequalities is as efficient as the direct Lyapunov’s method.
2. PRELIMINARIES
We consider the nonlinear nonautonomous differential system
where and is the Euclidean n-space. We assume that the Jacobian matrix fx = ∂ f / ∂x exists and is continuous on and f(t, 0) = 0. Also, consider the perturbed differential system of (2.1)
where , g(t, 0) = 0. For , let For an n × n matrix A, define the norm |A| of A by |A| = sup|x|≤1 |Ax|.
Let x(t, t0, x0) denote the unique solution of (2.1) with x(t0, t0, x0) = x0, existing on [t0,∞). Then we can consider the associated variational systems around the zero solution of (2.1) and around x(t), respectively,
and
The fundamental matrix Φ(t, t0, x0) of (2.4) is given by
and Φ(t, t0, 0) is the fundamental matrix of (2.3).
Before giving further details, we give some of the main definitions that we need in the sequel[8].
Definition 2.1. The system (2.1) (the zero solution x = 0 of (2.1)) is called
(S) stable if for any 𝜖 > 0 and t0 ≥ 0, there exists 𝛿 = 𝛿(t0, 𝜖) > 0 such that if |x0| < 𝛿, then |x(t)| < 𝜖 for all t ≥ t0 ≥ 0,
(US) uniformly stable if the 𝛿 in (S) is independent of the time t0,
(ULS) uniformly Lipschitz stable if there exist M > 0 and 𝛿 > 0 such that |x(t)| ≤ M|x0| whenever |x0| ≤ 𝛿 and t ≥ t0 ≥ 0
(ULSV) uniformly Lipschitz stable in variation if there exist M > 0 and 𝛿 > 0 such that |Φ(t, t0, x0)| ≤ M for |x0| ≤ 𝛿 and t ≥ t0 ≥ 0,
(EAS) exponentially asymptotically stable if there exist constants K > 0 , c > 0, and 𝛿 > 0 such that
|x(t)| ≤ K |x0|e-c(t-t0), 0 ≤ t0 ≤ t
provided that |x0| < 𝛿,
(EASV) exponentially asymptotically stable in variation if there exist constants K > 0 and c > 0 such that
|Φ(t,t0,x0)| ≤ K e-c(t-t0), 0 ≤ t0 ≤ t
provided that |x0| < ∞.
We give some related properties that we need in the sequel.
We need Alekseev formula to compare between the solutions of (2.1) and the solutions of perturbed nonlinear system
where and g(t, 0) = 0. Let y(t) = y(t, t0, y0) denote the solution of (2.5) passing through the point (t0, y0) in × .
The following is a generalization to nonlinear system of the variation of constants formula due to Alekseev [1].
Lemma 2.2. Let x and y be a solution of (.1) and (.5), respectively. If then for all t such that
Lemma 2.3 ([7]). Let u, λ1, λ2, w(u) be nondecreasing in u and w(u) ≤ w() for some v > 0. If , for some c > 0,
then
where u > 0, u0 > 0 W-1(u) is the inverse of W(u) and
Lemma 2.4 ([10]). Let u, p, q,w, and r ∈ C () and suppose that, for some c ≥ 0, we have
Then
Lemma 2.5 ([15]). Let u(t), f(t), and g(t) be real-valued nonnegative continuous functions defined on , for which the inequality
holds, where u0 is a nonnegative constant. Then,
Lemma 2.6 ([12]). Let u, λ1, λ2, λ3 ∈ C(), w ∈ C((0,∞)) and w(u) be nondecreasing in u, u ≤ w(u). Suppose that for some c > 0,
Then
where W, W -1 are the same functions as in Lemma 2.3 and
Lemma 2.7 ([13]). Let u, p, q,w, r ∈ C(), w ∈ C((0,∞)) and w(u) be nondecreasing in u. Suppose that for some c ≥ 0,
Then
where and
Lemma 2.8 ([14]). Let the following condition hold for functions u(t), v(t) ∈ C[[t0,∞)) and k(t, u) ∈ C[[t0,∞) × , ):
t ≥ t0 and k(s, u) is strictly increasing in u for each fixed s ≥ 0. If u(t0) < v(t0), then u(t) < v(t), t ≥ t0 ≥ 0.
Lemma 2.9 ([5]). Let u, λ1, λ2, λ3 ∈ C(), w ∈ C((0,∞)) and w(u) be nondecreasing in u. Suppose that for some c > 0,
Then
where u > 0, u0 > 0, W-1(u) is the inverse of W(u) and
3. MAIN RESULTS
In this section, we investigate Lipschitz and asymptotic stability for solutions of the nonlinear perturbed differential systems.
Theorem 3.1. Assume that x = 0 of (.1) is ULS. Let the following condition hold for (.):
where W(t, u) ∈ C( × , ) is monotone nondecreasing in u with W(t, 0) = 0. Suppose that u(t) is any solution of the scalar differential equation
existing on such that m(t0) < u(t0). If u = 0 of (3.1) is ULS, then y = 0 of (.) is also ULS whenever M|y0| < u0.
Proof. Let x(t) = x(t, t0, y0) and y(t) = y(t, t0, y0) be solutions of (2.1) and (2.2), respectively. Using the variation of constants formula, we have
where Φ(t, t0, y0) is the fundemental matrix of (2.4). Since x = 0 of (2.1) is ULS, it is ULSV by Corollary 3.6[5]. Thus there exist M > 0 and 𝛿 > 0 such that |Φ(t, t0, y0)| ≤ M for t ≥ t0 ≥ 0. Therefore, by the assmption, we have
Hence |y(t)| < u(t) by Lemma 2.8. Since u = 0 of (3.1) is ULS, it easily follows that y = 0 of (2.2) is ULS.
Corollary 3.2. Assume that x = 0 of (.1) is ULS. Consider the scalar differential equation
where u0 ≥ 1, K ≥ 1 and a, k ∈ C() satisfy the conditions
(a) where
(b)
Then y = 0 of (.) is ULS.
Proof. Let u(t) = u(t, t0, x0) be any solution of (3.2). Then, by Lemma 2.5 , we have
Hence u = 0 of (3.2) is ULS. This implies that the solution y = 0 of (2.2) is ULS by Theorem 3.1.
Remark 3.3. In Corollary 3.2, it is needed that b1 = ∞. The condition W(∞) = ∞ is too strong and it represents situations which are not stable. For example, if w(u) = u𝛼, then only 𝛼 ≤ 1 satisfies W(∞) = ∞ and 𝛼 < 1 is not stable. See [18].
Corollary 3.4. Assume that x = 0 of (.1) is ULS. Consider the scalar differential equation
where u0 ≥ 1, K ≥ 1, u,w ∈ C(), w(u) be nondecreasing in u and w(u)≤w() for some v > 0, and a, k ∈ C() satisfy the conditions
(a) where
(b) and a, k ∈ L1(). Then y = 0 of (.) is ULS.
Proof. Let u(t) = u(t, t0, x0) be any solution of (3.3). Then, by Lemma 2.3, we have
Hence u = 0 of (3.3) is ULS. By Theorem 3.1, the solution y = 0 of (2.2) is ULS.
Corollary 3.5. Assume that x = 0 of (.1) is ULS. Consider the scalar differential equation
where w ∈ C((0,∞), w(u) is nondecreasing on u and u ≤ w(u), u0 ≥ 1, K ≥ 1 and a, b, k ∈ C() satisfy the conditions
(a) where
(b) L1(). Then y = 0 of (.) is ULS.
Proof. Let u(t) = u(t, t0, x0) be any solution of (3.4). Then, Lemma 2.6, we have
Hence u = 0 of (3.4) is ULS, and so by Theorem 3.1, the solution y = 0 of (2.2) is ULS. □
Theorem 3.6. For the perturbed (.), we asssume that
where a, b, k ∈ C(), a, b, k ∈ L1(), w ∈ C((0,∞), and w(u) is nondecreasing in u,u ≤ w(u), and w(u) ≤ w() for some v > 0,
where M(t0) < ∞ and b1 = ∞. Then the zero solution of (.) is ULS whenever the zero solution of (.1) is ULSV.
Proof. Let x(t) = x(t, t0, y0) and y(t) = y(t, t0, y0) be solutions of (2.1) and (2.2), respectively. Since x = 0 of (2.1) is ULSV, it is ULS by Theorem 3.3[8]. Applying Lemma 2.2, we have
Set u(t) = |y(t)||y0|-1. Now an application of Lemma 2.6 yields
Hence we have |y(t)| ≤ M(t0)|y0| for some M(t0) > 0 whenever |y0| < 𝛿. This completes the proof. □
Theorem 3.7. For the perturbed (.), we asssume that
where a, b, k ∈ C(), a, b, k ∈ L1(), w ∈ C((0,∞), and w(u) is nondecreasing in u,u ≤ w(u), and w(u) ≤ w() for some v > 0,
where M(t0) < ∞ and b1 = ∞. Then the zero solution of (.) is ULS whenever the zero solution of (.1) is ULSV.
Proof. Let x(t) = x(t, t0, y0) and y(t) = y(t, t0, y0) be solutions of (2.1) and (2.2), respectively. Using the nonlinear variation of constants formula and the ULSV condition of x = 0 of (2.1), we have
Set u(t) = |y(t)||y0|-1. Now an application of Lemma 2.7 yields
Thus we have |y(t)| ≤ M(t0)|y0| for some M(t0) > 0 whenever |y0| < 𝛿, and so the proof is complete. □
Theorem 3.8. Let the solution x = 0 of (.1) be EAS. Suppose that the perturbing term g(t, y) satisfies
where 𝛼 > 0, a, b, k ∈ C(), a, b, k ∈ L1(), w(u) is nondecreasing in u, and w(u) ≤ w() for some v > 0. If
where c = |y0|Me𝛼t0 , then all solutions of (.) approch zero as t → ∞
Proof. Let x(t) = x(t, t0, y0) and y(t) = y(t, t0, y0) be solutions of (2.1) and (2.2), respectively. Since the solution x = 0 of (2.1) is EAS, we have |Φ(t, t0, x0)| ≤ Me-𝛼(t-t0) for some M > 0 and c > 0(Theorem 2[2]). Using Lemma 2.2, we have
since e𝛼t is increasing. Set u(t) = |y(t)|e𝛼t. An application of Lemma 2.4 obtains
The above estimation yields the desired result. □
Theorem 3.9. Let the solution x = 0 of (.1) be EAS. Suppose that the perturbing term g(t, y) satisfies
where 𝛼 > 0, a, b, k, w ∈ C(), a, b, k ∈ L1() and w(u) is nondecreasing in u. If
where c = M|y0|e𝛼t0 , then all solutions of (.) approch zero as t → ∞
Proof. Let x(t) = x(t, t0, y0) and y(t) = y(t, t0, y0) be solutions of (2.1) and (2.2), respectively. Using Lemma 2.2 and the assmptions, we have
Set u(t) = |y(t)|e𝛼t. Since w(u) is nondecreasing, an application of Lemma 2.9 obtains
where c = M|y0|e𝛼t0 . From the above estimation, we obtains the desired result. □
References
- V.M. Alekseev: An estimate for the perturbations of the solutions of ordinary differential equations. Vestn. Mosk. Univ. Ser. I. Math. Mekh.(Russian) 2 (1961), 28-36.
- F. Brauer: Perturbations of nonlinear systems of differential equations, II. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 17 (1967), 418-434. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-247X(67)90132-1
- F. Brauer & A. Strauss: Perturbations of nonlinear systems of differential equations, III. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 31 (1970), 37-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-247X(70)90118-6
- F. Brauer. Perturbations of nonlinear systems of differential equations, IV. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 37 (1972), 214-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-247X(72)90269-7
- S.K. Choi & N.J. Koo: h-stability for nonlinear perturbed systems. Ann. Diff. Eqs. 11 (1995), 1-9.
- S.K. Choi, Y.H. Goo & N.J. Koo: Lipschitz and exponential asymptotic stability for nonlinear functional systems. Dynamic Systems and Applications 6 (1997), 397-410.
- S.K. Choi, N.J. Koo & S.M. Song: Lipschitz stability for nonlinear functional differential systems. Far East J. Math. Sci(FJMS)I 5 (1999), 689-708.
- F.M. Dannan & S. Elaydi: Lipschitz stability of nonlinear systems of differential systems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 113 (1986), 562-577. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-247X(86)90325-2
- P. Gonzalez & M. Pinto: Stability properties of the solutions of the nonlinear functional differential systems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 181 (1994), 562-573. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmaa.1994.1044
-
Y.H. Goo & S.B. Yang: h-stability of the nonlinear perturbed differential systems via
$t_{\infty}$ -similarity. J. Chungcheong Math. Soc. 24 (2011), 695-702. https://doi.org/10.7468/jksmeb.2012.19.2.171 -
Y.H. Goo & S.B. Yang: h-stability of nonlinear perturbed differential systems via
$t_{\infty}$ -similarity. J. Korean Soc. Math. Educ. Ser. B: Pure Appl. Math. 19 (2012), 171-177. https://doi.org/10.7468/jksmeb.2012.19.2.171 - Y.H. Goo: Boundedness in the perturbed differential systems. J. Korean Soc. Math. Educ. Ser. B: Pure Appl. Math. 20 (2013), 223-232. https://doi.org/10.7468/jksmeb.2013.20.3.223
- Y.H. Goo: Boundedness in perturbed nonlinear differential systems. J. Chungcheong Math. Soc. 26 (2013), 605-613. https://doi.org/10.14403/jcms.2013.26.3.605
- V. Lakshmikantham & S. Leela: Differential and Integral Inequalities: Theory and Applications Vol.I. Academic Press, New York and London, 1969.
- B.G. Pachpatte: A note on Gronwall-Bellman inequality. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 44 (1973), 758-762. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-247X(73)90014-0
- M. Pinto: Perturbations of asymptotically stable differential systems. Analysis 4 (1984), 161-175.
- M. Pinto: Integral inequalities of Bihari-type and applications. Funkcial. Ekvac. 33 (1990), 387-404.
- M. Pinto: Variationally stable differential system. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 151 (1990), 254-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-247X(90)90255-E