Proving that limit of a solution approaches equilibrium












3












$begingroup$


I have been given the following system of equations:
$$begin{cases}
x'=y-2x^2\ y'=x(3-y-x^2)end{cases}$$
The equilibrium points of this system are $(0,0), (1,2), (-1,2)$. The system has nullclines $y=2x^2, x=0, x=3-x^2$. After determining that the equilibrium solution $(-1,2)$ is stable and drawing the phase portrait. I've been given the following question:



Let $(x_0, y_0)in mathcal{S}_1$ ($mathcal{S}_1$ denotes the area $0<x<sqrt{3}$, $0<y<2x^2, 3-x^2$. In this area, $x'<0$ and $y'>0$.) and let $(x_o(t), y_0(t))$ be a solution for the system, which starts in $(x_0, y_0)$. Show that:
$$limlimits_{ttoinfty}(x_0(t), y_0(t))=(1,2)$$



After drawing that phase portrait and determining the sign of $x'$ and $y'$, I understand that this is very likely. However, I do not know how to prove this explicitly. I hope someone can give me an idea as to how to prove this. Thanks is advance






ordinary-differential-equations systems-of-equations dynamical-systems







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    3












    $begingroup$


    I have been given the following system of equations:
    $$begin{cases}
    x'=y-2x^2\ y'=x(3-y-x^2)end{cases}$$
    The equilibrium points of this system are $(0,0), (1,2), (-1,2)$. The system has nullclines $y=2x^2, x=0, x=3-x^2$. After determining that the equilibrium solution $(-1,2)$ is stable and drawing the phase portrait. I've been given the following question:



    Let $(x_0, y_0)in mathcal{S}_1$ ($mathcal{S}_1$ denotes the area $0<x<sqrt{3}$, $0<y<2x^2, 3-x^2$. In this area, $x'<0$ and $y'>0$.) and let $(x_o(t), y_0(t))$ be a solution for the system, which starts in $(x_0, y_0)$. Show that:
    $$limlimits_{ttoinfty}(x_0(t), y_0(t))=(1,2)$$



    After drawing that phase portrait and determining the sign of $x'$ and $y'$, I understand that this is very likely. However, I do not know how to prove this explicitly. I hope someone can give me an idea as to how to prove this. Thanks is advance






    ordinary-differential-equations systems-of-equations dynamical-systems







    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      3












      3








      3





      $begingroup$


      I have been given the following system of equations:
      $$begin{cases}
      x'=y-2x^2\ y'=x(3-y-x^2)end{cases}$$
      The equilibrium points of this system are $(0,0), (1,2), (-1,2)$. The system has nullclines $y=2x^2, x=0, x=3-x^2$. After determining that the equilibrium solution $(-1,2)$ is stable and drawing the phase portrait. I've been given the following question:



      Let $(x_0, y_0)in mathcal{S}_1$ ($mathcal{S}_1$ denotes the area $0<x<sqrt{3}$, $0<y<2x^2, 3-x^2$. In this area, $x'<0$ and $y'>0$.) and let $(x_o(t), y_0(t))$ be a solution for the system, which starts in $(x_0, y_0)$. Show that:
      $$limlimits_{ttoinfty}(x_0(t), y_0(t))=(1,2)$$



      After drawing that phase portrait and determining the sign of $x'$ and $y'$, I understand that this is very likely. However, I do not know how to prove this explicitly. I hope someone can give me an idea as to how to prove this. Thanks is advance






      ordinary-differential-equations systems-of-equations dynamical-systems







      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      I have been given the following system of equations:
      $$begin{cases}
      x'=y-2x^2\ y'=x(3-y-x^2)end{cases}$$
      The equilibrium points of this system are $(0,0), (1,2), (-1,2)$. The system has nullclines $y=2x^2, x=0, x=3-x^2$. After determining that the equilibrium solution $(-1,2)$ is stable and drawing the phase portrait. I've been given the following question:



      Let $(x_0, y_0)in mathcal{S}_1$ ($mathcal{S}_1$ denotes the area $0<x<sqrt{3}$, $0<y<2x^2, 3-x^2$. In this area, $x'<0$ and $y'>0$.) and let $(x_o(t), y_0(t))$ be a solution for the system, which starts in $(x_0, y_0)$. Show that:
      $$limlimits_{ttoinfty}(x_0(t), y_0(t))=(1,2)$$



      After drawing that phase portrait and determining the sign of $x'$ and $y'$, I understand that this is very likely. However, I do not know how to prove this explicitly. I hope someone can give me an idea as to how to prove this. Thanks is advance






      ordinary-differential-equations systems-of-equations dynamical-systems




      ordinary-differential-equations systems-of-equations dynamical-systems






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Dec 28 '18 at 13:43









      Sander KortewegSander Korteweg

      225




      225






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4












          $begingroup$

          Let's check how vector field defined by this system of ODEs behaves on the boundary of the rectangle $0 leqslant x leqslant sqrt{3}, ; 0 leqslant y leqslant 4$. Let's denote it by $mathcal{R}$. It's quite easy to see that along the boundary the vector field points to the inside of $mathcal{R}$ (vector field is actuallytangent at a few points, but that doesn't spoil the picture). Due to this property, no trajectory that starts in the inside of a rectangle can escape it, hence $omega$-limit set of any point (including points from $mathcal{S}_1$) must be in $mathcal{R}$.



          We already have one stable equilibrium at $(1, 2)$ as a candidate for $omega$-limit set of points from $mathcal{R}$. Let's prove that there is nothing else. By Poincaré–Bendixson theorem, there are only three possibilities for a limit set of trajectory on plane: an equilibrium point, a limit cycle and an attracting homoclinic loop or heteroclinic contour. There is only one saddle in this system at $(0, 0)$, so no possibility for heteroclinic contour. If you check the eigenvector of this saddle that corresponds to negative eigenvalue, it points to the outside of the rectangle, hence stable manifold of saddle doesn't lie in $mathcal{R}$ and there is no homoclinic loop in the $mathcal{R}$. Due to Bendixson–Dulac theorem there is no limit cycles in $mathcal{R}$: divergence of system is $frac{d}{dx}left(y-2x^2right) + frac{d}{dy}left(x(3-y-x^2)right) = -5x$ which is negative in the interior of $mathcal{R}$ (and limit cycle has to lie in the interior of $mathcal{R}$ if it exists). Thus, we ruled out all possible variants except the unique stable equilibrium.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3054893%2fproving-that-limit-of-a-solution-approaches-equilibrium%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            4












            $begingroup$

            Let's check how vector field defined by this system of ODEs behaves on the boundary of the rectangle $0 leqslant x leqslant sqrt{3}, ; 0 leqslant y leqslant 4$. Let's denote it by $mathcal{R}$. It's quite easy to see that along the boundary the vector field points to the inside of $mathcal{R}$ (vector field is actuallytangent at a few points, but that doesn't spoil the picture). Due to this property, no trajectory that starts in the inside of a rectangle can escape it, hence $omega$-limit set of any point (including points from $mathcal{S}_1$) must be in $mathcal{R}$.



            We already have one stable equilibrium at $(1, 2)$ as a candidate for $omega$-limit set of points from $mathcal{R}$. Let's prove that there is nothing else. By Poincaré–Bendixson theorem, there are only three possibilities for a limit set of trajectory on plane: an equilibrium point, a limit cycle and an attracting homoclinic loop or heteroclinic contour. There is only one saddle in this system at $(0, 0)$, so no possibility for heteroclinic contour. If you check the eigenvector of this saddle that corresponds to negative eigenvalue, it points to the outside of the rectangle, hence stable manifold of saddle doesn't lie in $mathcal{R}$ and there is no homoclinic loop in the $mathcal{R}$. Due to Bendixson–Dulac theorem there is no limit cycles in $mathcal{R}$: divergence of system is $frac{d}{dx}left(y-2x^2right) + frac{d}{dy}left(x(3-y-x^2)right) = -5x$ which is negative in the interior of $mathcal{R}$ (and limit cycle has to lie in the interior of $mathcal{R}$ if it exists). Thus, we ruled out all possible variants except the unique stable equilibrium.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$


















              4












              $begingroup$

              Let's check how vector field defined by this system of ODEs behaves on the boundary of the rectangle $0 leqslant x leqslant sqrt{3}, ; 0 leqslant y leqslant 4$. Let's denote it by $mathcal{R}$. It's quite easy to see that along the boundary the vector field points to the inside of $mathcal{R}$ (vector field is actuallytangent at a few points, but that doesn't spoil the picture). Due to this property, no trajectory that starts in the inside of a rectangle can escape it, hence $omega$-limit set of any point (including points from $mathcal{S}_1$) must be in $mathcal{R}$.



              We already have one stable equilibrium at $(1, 2)$ as a candidate for $omega$-limit set of points from $mathcal{R}$. Let's prove that there is nothing else. By Poincaré–Bendixson theorem, there are only three possibilities for a limit set of trajectory on plane: an equilibrium point, a limit cycle and an attracting homoclinic loop or heteroclinic contour. There is only one saddle in this system at $(0, 0)$, so no possibility for heteroclinic contour. If you check the eigenvector of this saddle that corresponds to negative eigenvalue, it points to the outside of the rectangle, hence stable manifold of saddle doesn't lie in $mathcal{R}$ and there is no homoclinic loop in the $mathcal{R}$. Due to Bendixson–Dulac theorem there is no limit cycles in $mathcal{R}$: divergence of system is $frac{d}{dx}left(y-2x^2right) + frac{d}{dy}left(x(3-y-x^2)right) = -5x$ which is negative in the interior of $mathcal{R}$ (and limit cycle has to lie in the interior of $mathcal{R}$ if it exists). Thus, we ruled out all possible variants except the unique stable equilibrium.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$
















                4












                4








                4





                $begingroup$

                Let's check how vector field defined by this system of ODEs behaves on the boundary of the rectangle $0 leqslant x leqslant sqrt{3}, ; 0 leqslant y leqslant 4$. Let's denote it by $mathcal{R}$. It's quite easy to see that along the boundary the vector field points to the inside of $mathcal{R}$ (vector field is actuallytangent at a few points, but that doesn't spoil the picture). Due to this property, no trajectory that starts in the inside of a rectangle can escape it, hence $omega$-limit set of any point (including points from $mathcal{S}_1$) must be in $mathcal{R}$.



                We already have one stable equilibrium at $(1, 2)$ as a candidate for $omega$-limit set of points from $mathcal{R}$. Let's prove that there is nothing else. By Poincaré–Bendixson theorem, there are only three possibilities for a limit set of trajectory on plane: an equilibrium point, a limit cycle and an attracting homoclinic loop or heteroclinic contour. There is only one saddle in this system at $(0, 0)$, so no possibility for heteroclinic contour. If you check the eigenvector of this saddle that corresponds to negative eigenvalue, it points to the outside of the rectangle, hence stable manifold of saddle doesn't lie in $mathcal{R}$ and there is no homoclinic loop in the $mathcal{R}$. Due to Bendixson–Dulac theorem there is no limit cycles in $mathcal{R}$: divergence of system is $frac{d}{dx}left(y-2x^2right) + frac{d}{dy}left(x(3-y-x^2)right) = -5x$ which is negative in the interior of $mathcal{R}$ (and limit cycle has to lie in the interior of $mathcal{R}$ if it exists). Thus, we ruled out all possible variants except the unique stable equilibrium.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$



                Let's check how vector field defined by this system of ODEs behaves on the boundary of the rectangle $0 leqslant x leqslant sqrt{3}, ; 0 leqslant y leqslant 4$. Let's denote it by $mathcal{R}$. It's quite easy to see that along the boundary the vector field points to the inside of $mathcal{R}$ (vector field is actuallytangent at a few points, but that doesn't spoil the picture). Due to this property, no trajectory that starts in the inside of a rectangle can escape it, hence $omega$-limit set of any point (including points from $mathcal{S}_1$) must be in $mathcal{R}$.



                We already have one stable equilibrium at $(1, 2)$ as a candidate for $omega$-limit set of points from $mathcal{R}$. Let's prove that there is nothing else. By Poincaré–Bendixson theorem, there are only three possibilities for a limit set of trajectory on plane: an equilibrium point, a limit cycle and an attracting homoclinic loop or heteroclinic contour. There is only one saddle in this system at $(0, 0)$, so no possibility for heteroclinic contour. If you check the eigenvector of this saddle that corresponds to negative eigenvalue, it points to the outside of the rectangle, hence stable manifold of saddle doesn't lie in $mathcal{R}$ and there is no homoclinic loop in the $mathcal{R}$. Due to Bendixson–Dulac theorem there is no limit cycles in $mathcal{R}$: divergence of system is $frac{d}{dx}left(y-2x^2right) + frac{d}{dy}left(x(3-y-x^2)right) = -5x$ which is negative in the interior of $mathcal{R}$ (and limit cycle has to lie in the interior of $mathcal{R}$ if it exists). Thus, we ruled out all possible variants except the unique stable equilibrium.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Dec 29 '18 at 20:15

























                answered Dec 29 '18 at 20:07









                EvgenyEvgeny

                4,69021022




                4,69021022






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3054893%2fproving-that-limit-of-a-solution-approaches-equilibrium%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    -

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Bressuire

                    Image
                    .mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow th{border:0;border-right:1px solid ...
                    Read more

                    Cabo Verde

                    Image
                      Nota: Cabo-verdiano redireciona para este artigo. Para a língua falada em Cabo Verde, veja crioulo cabo-verdiano. Para outros significados, veja Cabo Verde (desambiguação). Coordenadas: 14° 55' N 23° 31' O Cabo Verde República de Cabo Verde Bandeira Brasão de Armas Lema: Unidade, Trabalho, Progresso Hino nacional: Cântico da Liberdade Gentílico: cabo-verdiano [ 1 ] Capital Praia 14° 55' N 23° 31' O Cidade mais populosa Praia Língua oficial Português Governo República unitária semipresidencialista [ 2 ]  - Presidente Jorge Carlos Fonseca  - Primeiro-ministro Ulisses Correia e Silva História    - Descoberta 1460   - Independência 00 • de Portugal 5 de Julho de 1975   - Multipartidarismo 13 de Janeiro de 1990  Área    - Total 4 033 km² (146.º)  - Água (%) 0,08 População    - Estimativa para 2017 560 899 [ 3 ] hab. (173.º) ...
                    Read more

                    Gyllenstierna

                    Image
                    .mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow th{border:0;border-right:1px solid ...
                    Read more