4
$\begingroup$

For each $i$ (up to infinity), let $u_i \in C^1(0,T)$ satisfy $$\frac{d}{dt}u_i(t) + \sum_{j=1}^\infty b(t;w_j,w_i)u_j(t) = 0$$ $$u_i(0) = u_i(T)$$ where $b(t;\cdot,\cdot)$ is an inner product on some (infinite-dimensional) Hilbert space $H$ (which has an inner product $(\cdot,\cdot)_H$) for each $t$ and $w_i$ are basis functions on $H$.

Does anyone know how show that there is only one solution $u_i$ to this system of equations? Clearly $u_i(t) \equiv 0$ for all $i$ is a solution. I want to know that it is unique.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Do you know that the solution is unique or not? -- What you write appears to be ambiguous. $\endgroup$
    – Stefan Kohl
    Sep 10, 2014 at 8:51
  • $\begingroup$ @StefanKohl Sorry I don't know that it is unique. $\endgroup$
    – assa888
    Sep 10, 2014 at 8:58

2 Answers 2

6
$\begingroup$

I'll presume that $H$ is finite dimensional. Write $b(t;\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v}) = (\mathbf{u},B(t)\mathbf{v})_H$ for some positive symmetric linear operator $B(t)\colon H\to H$. $B(t)$ is positive symmetric because $b(t;\cdot,\cdot)$ is itself an inner product. Then your system of equations is equivalent to $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \mathbf{u}(t) = - B(t)\mathbf{u}(t),$$ where $\mathbf{u}(t) = \sum_i u_i(t) w_i$, with elementary consequence $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \mathbf{u}^2 = - (\mathbf{u},B(t)\mathbf{u}),$$ where $\mathbf{u}^2 = (\mathbf{u},\mathbf{u})_H$. By diagonalizing $B(t)$ we can find positive functions $c(t)$ and $C(t)$ such that $c(t) \mathbf{v}^2 \le (\mathbf{v},B(t)\mathbf{v}) \le C(t) \mathbf{v}^2$, for any $\mathbf{v} \in H$. In other words, there is the inequality $$-c(t) \ge (\mathbf{u}^2)^{-1} \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \mathbf{u}^2 = \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \log \mathbf{u}^2 \ge -C(t).$$ From here, it is an easy conclusion that $\mathbf{u}^2(t)$ must decrease with time by a factor between $\exp(-\int_0^t c(t) dt)$ and $\exp(-\int_0^t C(t) dt)$. On the other hand, your boundary conditions imply that the $\mathbf{u}^2(t)$ is the same at times $t=0$ and $T$. Hence the only solution that satisfies it is $\mathbf{u}(t) = 0$.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. $H$ is not finite-dimensional in my case but maybe the proof can be adapted. $\endgroup$
    – assa888
    Sep 10, 2014 at 9:00
  • $\begingroup$ If $H$ is not finite dimensional, then for this argument to work, you need some conditions on the $u_i$, so that the correspond to a convergent sequence once paired with the basis vectors $w_i$, and then you'll also need some boundedness properties on $b(t;\cdot,\cdot)$ with respect to $(\cdot,\cdot)_H$. Otherwise, $c(t)$ might not be strictly positive. $\endgroup$ Sep 10, 2014 at 10:00
  • $\begingroup$ @IgorKhavkine How did you derive the equation for $\mathbf{u}(t)$? Multiplying the original system by $w_i$ and summing up does not give me what you wrote $\endgroup$
    – LapLace
    Sep 10, 2014 at 13:03
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @LapLace: multiply the original by $u_i$ and summing over $i$. $\endgroup$ Sep 10, 2014 at 14:58
5
$\begingroup$

If you assume that $b(t;\mathbf{v},\mathbf{v}) \approx (\mathbf{v},\mathbf{v})_H$ for every $\mathbf{v}\in H$, and if you assume that the vector $\mathbf{u} = \sum u_i(t) w_i \in H$, then Igor's answer goes through essentially unchanged in the infinite dimensional case.

But let me give you a counterexample if the assumptions are not verified.

Let the index $i$ run from $0, 1, \ldots$.

Let $b(t; w_i, w_j)$ be given by the matrix $$ \begin{pmatrix} 1 & -1 \\ -1 & 2 & -1 \\ & -1 & 2 & -1 \\ && -1 & 2 & -1 \\ &&& \ddots & \ddots & \ddots\end{pmatrix} $$

Assume that $w_i$ forms an orthonormal basis of $H$. We have that $$ b(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{v}) = v_0^2 + 2 \sum_{i = 1}^{\infty} v_i^2 - 2 \sum_{i = 0}^{\infty} v_{i} v_{i+1} = \sum_{i = 0}^\infty (v_i - v_{i+1})^2 $$ Since the right hand side is non-negative, we see that the bilinear form is positive definite, since $$ b(\mathbf{v},\mathbf{v}) = 0 \implies v_i = v_{i+1} $$ which for $\mathbf{v} \in H$ requires $v_i \equiv 0$. So $b(t) = b$ give inner products.

But the same argument above also shows that for any constant $c$, $$ u_i(t) \equiv c \quad \forall i $$ is a solution to the infinite system of ODEs $$ \partial_t u_i = \sum b(t;w_i,w_j) u_j $$ and so you don't have uniqueness of your solution. Note, of course, the vector $\mathbf{u} = \sum u_i w_i \not\in H$ whenever $c \neq 0$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Is your first sentence "the norm generated by $b(t;\cdot,\cdot)$ is equivalent to the natural norm on $H$"? $\endgroup$
    – LapLace
    Sep 10, 2014 at 13:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes. that is what is meant by $\approx$. Basically Igor's condition with $c(t)$ and $C(t)$. $\endgroup$ Sep 10, 2014 at 14:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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