Skip to main content
added 36 characters in body
Source Link
Denis Serre
  • 52.4k
  • 10
  • 146
  • 300

Consider the following system of coupled differential equations $$ \dot{x}_1(t) = -x_1(t) - \cos(\omega t)x_1(t) + \cos(\omega t)x_2(t), \ x_1(0)\in\mathbb{R},\\ \dot{x}_2(t) = -\gamma x_2(t) - \cos(\omega t)x_2(t) + \cos(\omega t)x_1(t), \ x_2(0)\in\mathbb{R}, $$\begin{eqnarray*} \dot{x}_1(t) & = & -x_1(t) - \cos(\omega t)x_1(t) + \cos(\omega t)x_2(t), \ x_1(0)\in\mathbb{R},\\ \dot{x}_2(t) & = & -\gamma x_2(t) - \cos(\omega t)x_2(t) + \cos(\omega t)x_1(t), \ x_2(0)\in\mathbb{R}, \end{eqnarray*} where $\omega$ and $\gamma$ are positive real constants. Observe that $\bar{x}=(\bar{x}_1,\ \bar{x}_2)=(0,0)$ is an equilibrium of the above system.

It is almost trivial to see that if $\gamma=1$ then $\bar x$ is attractive. Indeed, in this case, we have that $x(t)=[x_1(t), x_2(t)]^\top$ can be explicitly computed as $$ x(t) = \exp\left(\begin{bmatrix}-t &0\\ 0 & -t\end{bmatrix} + \frac{1}{\omega}\sin(\omega t)\begin{bmatrix}-1 &1\\ 1 & -1\end{bmatrix}\right)x(0), $$ so that $x(t)\to 0$ as $t\to \infty$.

However, in case $\gamma\ne 1$ proving the attractiveness of the origin is not obvious (and perhaps not even true!).

In particular, numerical simulations seem to suggest that for $\gamma$ and $\omega$ sufficiently small (e.g. $\gamma=0.001$ and $\omega=10$) the equilibrium $\bar{x}$ is not attractive.

I've struggled a lot to find a way of formally proving this, with no luck. So I decided to post the problem here hoping that some of you will provide some useful suggestions or tips. Thank you!


I post here the Mathematica code that I've used in my simulations:

(* nominal values for simulation *)
values = {gamma -> 0.001, w -> 10};

equations = {
   {x1'[t], x2'[t]} == {-x1[t] - Cos[w*t]*x1[t] + Cos[w*t]*x2[t], -gamma*x2[t] - Cos[w*t]*x2[t] + Cos[w*t]*x1[t]},
   {x1[0], x2[0]} == {0.1, 0.1}};

{x1t, x2t} = NDSolveValue[equations /. values, {x1[t], x2[t]}, {t, 0, 1000}];

Plot[x1t, {t, 0, 1000}, PlotRange -> {-0.2, 0.2}]
Plot[x2t, {t, 0, 1000}, PlotRange -> {-0.2, 0.2}]

Further remarks. Since the system is periodic, one could exploit Floquet theory to express the transition matrix of the system in the form $P(t)e^{Rt}$ where $P(t)$ is a periodic function and $R$ a constant matrix, whose eigenvalues determines the stability/instability of the system. Unfortunately, Floquet theory is not "constructive", so computing the latter decomposition is often a daunting task.

Consider the following system of coupled differential equations $$ \dot{x}_1(t) = -x_1(t) - \cos(\omega t)x_1(t) + \cos(\omega t)x_2(t), \ x_1(0)\in\mathbb{R},\\ \dot{x}_2(t) = -\gamma x_2(t) - \cos(\omega t)x_2(t) + \cos(\omega t)x_1(t), \ x_2(0)\in\mathbb{R}, $$ where $\omega$ and $\gamma$ are positive real constants. Observe that $\bar{x}=(\bar{x}_1,\ \bar{x}_2)=(0,0)$ is an equilibrium of the above system.

It is almost trivial to see that if $\gamma=1$ then $\bar x$ is attractive. Indeed, in this case, we have that $x(t)=[x_1(t), x_2(t)]^\top$ can be explicitly computed as $$ x(t) = \exp\left(\begin{bmatrix}-t &0\\ 0 & -t\end{bmatrix} + \frac{1}{\omega}\sin(\omega t)\begin{bmatrix}-1 &1\\ 1 & -1\end{bmatrix}\right)x(0), $$ so that $x(t)\to 0$ as $t\to \infty$.

However, in case $\gamma\ne 1$ proving the attractiveness of the origin is not obvious (and perhaps not even true!).

In particular, numerical simulations seem to suggest that for $\gamma$ and $\omega$ sufficiently small (e.g. $\gamma=0.001$ and $\omega=10$) the equilibrium $\bar{x}$ is not attractive.

I've struggled a lot to find a way of formally proving this, with no luck. So I decided to post the problem here hoping that some of you will provide some useful suggestions or tips. Thank you!


I post here the Mathematica code that I've used in my simulations:

(* nominal values for simulation *)
values = {gamma -> 0.001, w -> 10};

equations = {
   {x1'[t], x2'[t]} == {-x1[t] - Cos[w*t]*x1[t] + Cos[w*t]*x2[t], -gamma*x2[t] - Cos[w*t]*x2[t] + Cos[w*t]*x1[t]},
   {x1[0], x2[0]} == {0.1, 0.1}};

{x1t, x2t} = NDSolveValue[equations /. values, {x1[t], x2[t]}, {t, 0, 1000}];

Plot[x1t, {t, 0, 1000}, PlotRange -> {-0.2, 0.2}]
Plot[x2t, {t, 0, 1000}, PlotRange -> {-0.2, 0.2}]

Further remarks. Since the system is periodic, one could exploit Floquet theory to express the transition matrix of the system in the form $P(t)e^{Rt}$ where $P(t)$ is a periodic function and $R$ a constant matrix, whose eigenvalues determines the stability/instability of the system. Unfortunately, Floquet theory is not "constructive", so computing the latter decomposition is often a daunting task.

Consider the following system of coupled differential equations \begin{eqnarray*} \dot{x}_1(t) & = & -x_1(t) - \cos(\omega t)x_1(t) + \cos(\omega t)x_2(t), \ x_1(0)\in\mathbb{R},\\ \dot{x}_2(t) & = & -\gamma x_2(t) - \cos(\omega t)x_2(t) + \cos(\omega t)x_1(t), \ x_2(0)\in\mathbb{R}, \end{eqnarray*} where $\omega$ and $\gamma$ are positive real constants. Observe that $\bar{x}=(\bar{x}_1,\ \bar{x}_2)=(0,0)$ is an equilibrium of the above system.

It is almost trivial to see that if $\gamma=1$ then $\bar x$ is attractive. Indeed, in this case, we have that $x(t)=[x_1(t), x_2(t)]^\top$ can be explicitly computed as $$ x(t) = \exp\left(\begin{bmatrix}-t &0\\ 0 & -t\end{bmatrix} + \frac{1}{\omega}\sin(\omega t)\begin{bmatrix}-1 &1\\ 1 & -1\end{bmatrix}\right)x(0), $$ so that $x(t)\to 0$ as $t\to \infty$.

However, in case $\gamma\ne 1$ proving the attractiveness of the origin is not obvious (and perhaps not even true!).

In particular, numerical simulations seem to suggest that for $\gamma$ and $\omega$ sufficiently small (e.g. $\gamma=0.001$ and $\omega=10$) the equilibrium $\bar{x}$ is not attractive.

I've struggled a lot to find a way of formally proving this, with no luck. So I decided to post the problem here hoping that some of you will provide some useful suggestions or tips. Thank you!


I post here the Mathematica code that I've used in my simulations:

(* nominal values for simulation *)
values = {gamma -> 0.001, w -> 10};

equations = {
   {x1'[t], x2'[t]} == {-x1[t] - Cos[w*t]*x1[t] + Cos[w*t]*x2[t], -gamma*x2[t] - Cos[w*t]*x2[t] + Cos[w*t]*x1[t]},
   {x1[0], x2[0]} == {0.1, 0.1}};

{x1t, x2t} = NDSolveValue[equations /. values, {x1[t], x2[t]}, {t, 0, 1000}];

Plot[x1t, {t, 0, 1000}, PlotRange -> {-0.2, 0.2}]
Plot[x2t, {t, 0, 1000}, PlotRange -> {-0.2, 0.2}]

Further remarks. Since the system is periodic, one could exploit Floquet theory to express the transition matrix of the system in the form $P(t)e^{Rt}$ where $P(t)$ is a periodic function and $R$ a constant matrix, whose eigenvalues determines the stability/instability of the system. Unfortunately, Floquet theory is not "constructive", so computing the latter decomposition is often a daunting task.

Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
added 2 characters in body
Source Link
Ludwig
  • 2.7k
  • 1
  • 14
  • 26

Consider the following system of coupled differential equations $$ \dot{x}_1(t) = -x_1(t) - \cos(\omega t)x_1(t) + \cos(\omega t)x_2(t), \ x_1(0)\in\mathbb{R},\\ \dot{x}_2(t) = -\gamma x_2(t) - \cos(\omega t)x_2(t) + \cos(\omega t)x_1(t), \ x_2(0)\in\mathbb{R}, $$ where $\omega$ and $\gamma$ are positive real constants. Observe that $\bar{x}=(\bar{x}_1,\bar{x}_2)=(0,0)$$\bar{x}=(\bar{x}_1,\ \bar{x}_2)=(0,0)$ is an equilibrium of the above system.

It is almost trivial to see that if $\gamma=1$ then $\bar x$ is attractive. Indeed, in this case, we have that $x(t)=[x_1(t), x_2(t)]^\top$ can be explicitly computed as $$ x(t) = \exp\left(\begin{bmatrix}-t &0\\ 0 & -t\end{bmatrix} + \frac{1}{\omega}\sin(\omega t)\begin{bmatrix}-1 &1\\ 1 & -1\end{bmatrix}\right)x(0), $$ so that $x(t)\to 0$ as $t\to \infty$.

However, in case $\gamma\ne 1$ proving the attractiveness of the origin is not obvious (and perhaps not even true!).

In particular, numerical simulations seem to suggest that for $\gamma$ and $\omega$ sufficiently small (e.g. $\gamma=0.001$ and $\omega=10$) the equilibrium $\bar{x}$ is not attractive.

I've struggled a lot to find a way of formally proving this, with no luck. So I decided to post the problem here hoping that some of you will provide some useful suggestions or tips. Thank you!


I post here the Mathematica code that I've used in my simulations:

(* nominal values for simulation *)
values = {gamma -> 0.001, w -> 10};

equations = {
   {x1'[t], x2'[t]} == {-x1[t] - Cos[w*t]*x1[t] + Cos[w*t]*x2[t], -gamma*x2[t] - Cos[w*t]*x2[t] + Cos[w*t]*x1[t]},
   {x1[0], x2[0]} == {0.1, 0.1}};

{x1t, x2t} = NDSolveValue[equations /. values, {x1[t], x2[t]}, {t, 0, 1000}];

Plot[x1t, {t, 0, 1000}, PlotRange -> {-0.2, 0.2}]
Plot[x2t, {t, 0, 1000}, PlotRange -> {-0.2, 0.2}]

Further remarks. Since the system is periodic, one could exploit Floquet theory to express the transition matrix of the system in the form $P(t)e^{Rt}$ where $P(t)$ is a periodic function and $R$ a constant matrix, whose eigenvalues determines the stability/instability of the system. Unfortunately, Floquet theory is not "constructive", so computing the latter decomposition is often a daunting task.

Consider the following system of coupled differential equations $$ \dot{x}_1(t) = -x_1(t) - \cos(\omega t)x_1(t) + \cos(\omega t)x_2(t), \ x_1(0)\in\mathbb{R},\\ \dot{x}_2(t) = -\gamma x_2(t) - \cos(\omega t)x_2(t) + \cos(\omega t)x_1(t), \ x_2(0)\in\mathbb{R}, $$ where $\omega$ and $\gamma$ are positive real constants. Observe that $\bar{x}=(\bar{x}_1,\bar{x}_2)=(0,0)$ is an equilibrium of the above system.

It is almost trivial to see that if $\gamma=1$ then $\bar x$ is attractive. Indeed, in this case, we have that $x(t)=[x_1(t), x_2(t)]^\top$ can be explicitly computed as $$ x(t) = \exp\left(\begin{bmatrix}-t &0\\ 0 & -t\end{bmatrix} + \frac{1}{\omega}\sin(\omega t)\begin{bmatrix}-1 &1\\ 1 & -1\end{bmatrix}\right)x(0), $$ so that $x(t)\to 0$ as $t\to \infty$.

However, in case $\gamma\ne 1$ proving the attractiveness of the origin is not obvious (and perhaps not even true!).

In particular, numerical simulations seem to suggest that for $\gamma$ and $\omega$ sufficiently small (e.g. $\gamma=0.001$ and $\omega=10$) the equilibrium $\bar{x}$ is not attractive.

I've struggled a lot to find a way of formally proving this, with no luck. So I decided to post the problem here hoping that some of you will provide some useful suggestions or tips. Thank you!


I post here the Mathematica code that I've used in my simulations:

(* nominal values for simulation *)
values = {gamma -> 0.001, w -> 10};

equations = {
   {x1'[t], x2'[t]} == {-x1[t] - Cos[w*t]*x1[t] + Cos[w*t]*x2[t], -gamma*x2[t] - Cos[w*t]*x2[t] + Cos[w*t]*x1[t]},
   {x1[0], x2[0]} == {0.1, 0.1}};

{x1t, x2t} = NDSolveValue[equations /. values, {x1[t], x2[t]}, {t, 0, 1000}];

Plot[x1t, {t, 0, 1000}, PlotRange -> {-0.2, 0.2}]
Plot[x2t, {t, 0, 1000}, PlotRange -> {-0.2, 0.2}]

Further remarks. Since the system is periodic, one could exploit Floquet theory to express the transition matrix of the system in the form $P(t)e^{Rt}$ where $P(t)$ is a periodic function and $R$ a constant matrix, whose eigenvalues determines the stability/instability of the system. Unfortunately, Floquet theory is not "constructive", so computing the latter decomposition is often a daunting task.

Consider the following system of coupled differential equations $$ \dot{x}_1(t) = -x_1(t) - \cos(\omega t)x_1(t) + \cos(\omega t)x_2(t), \ x_1(0)\in\mathbb{R},\\ \dot{x}_2(t) = -\gamma x_2(t) - \cos(\omega t)x_2(t) + \cos(\omega t)x_1(t), \ x_2(0)\in\mathbb{R}, $$ where $\omega$ and $\gamma$ are positive real constants. Observe that $\bar{x}=(\bar{x}_1,\ \bar{x}_2)=(0,0)$ is an equilibrium of the above system.

It is almost trivial to see that if $\gamma=1$ then $\bar x$ is attractive. Indeed, in this case, we have that $x(t)=[x_1(t), x_2(t)]^\top$ can be explicitly computed as $$ x(t) = \exp\left(\begin{bmatrix}-t &0\\ 0 & -t\end{bmatrix} + \frac{1}{\omega}\sin(\omega t)\begin{bmatrix}-1 &1\\ 1 & -1\end{bmatrix}\right)x(0), $$ so that $x(t)\to 0$ as $t\to \infty$.

However, in case $\gamma\ne 1$ proving the attractiveness of the origin is not obvious (and perhaps not even true!).

In particular, numerical simulations seem to suggest that for $\gamma$ and $\omega$ sufficiently small (e.g. $\gamma=0.001$ and $\omega=10$) the equilibrium $\bar{x}$ is not attractive.

I've struggled a lot to find a way of formally proving this, with no luck. So I decided to post the problem here hoping that some of you will provide some useful suggestions or tips. Thank you!


I post here the Mathematica code that I've used in my simulations:

(* nominal values for simulation *)
values = {gamma -> 0.001, w -> 10};

equations = {
   {x1'[t], x2'[t]} == {-x1[t] - Cos[w*t]*x1[t] + Cos[w*t]*x2[t], -gamma*x2[t] - Cos[w*t]*x2[t] + Cos[w*t]*x1[t]},
   {x1[0], x2[0]} == {0.1, 0.1}};

{x1t, x2t} = NDSolveValue[equations /. values, {x1[t], x2[t]}, {t, 0, 1000}];

Plot[x1t, {t, 0, 1000}, PlotRange -> {-0.2, 0.2}]
Plot[x2t, {t, 0, 1000}, PlotRange -> {-0.2, 0.2}]

Further remarks. Since the system is periodic, one could exploit Floquet theory to express the transition matrix of the system in the form $P(t)e^{Rt}$ where $P(t)$ is a periodic function and $R$ a constant matrix, whose eigenvalues determines the stability/instability of the system. Unfortunately, Floquet theory is not "constructive", so computing the latter decomposition is often a daunting task.

added 1 character in body
Source Link
Ludwig
  • 2.7k
  • 1
  • 14
  • 26

Consider the following system of coupled differential equations $$ \dot{x}_1(t) = -x_1(t) - \cos(\omega t)x_1(t) + \cos(\omega t)x_2(t), \ x_1(0)\in\mathbb{R},\\ \dot{x}_2(t) = -\gamma x_2(t) - \cos(\omega t)x_2(t) + \cos(\omega t)x_1(t), \ x_2(0)\in\mathbb{R}, $$ where $\omega$ and $\gamma$ are positive real constants. Observe that $\bar{x}=(\bar{x}_1,\bar{x}_2)=(0,0)$ is an equilibrium of the above system.

It is almost trivial to see that if $\gamma=1$ then $\bar x$ is attractive. Indeed, in this case, we have that $x(t)=[x_1(t), x_2(t)]^\top$ can be explicitly computed as $$ x(t) = \exp\left(\begin{bmatrix}-t &0\\ 0 & -t\end{bmatrix} + \frac{1}{\omega}\sin(\omega t)\begin{bmatrix}-1 &1\\ 1 & -1\end{bmatrix}\right)x(0), $$ so that $x(t)\to 0$ as $t\to \infty$.

However, in case $\gamma\ne 1$ proving the attractiveness of the origin is not obvious (and perhaps not even true!).

In particular, numerical simulations seem to suggest that for $\gamma$ and $\omega$ sufficiently small (e.g. $\gamma=0.001$ and $\omega=10$) the equilibrium $\bar{x}$ is not attractive.

I've struggled a lot to find a way of formally proving this, with no luck. So I decided to post the problem here hoping that some of you will provide some useful suggestions or tips. Thank you!


I post here the Mathematica code that I've used in my simulations:

(* nominal values for simulation *)
values = {gamma -> 0.001, w -> 10};

equations = {
   {x1'[t], x2'[t]} == {-x1[t] - Cos[w*t]*x1[t] + Cos[w*t]*x2[t], -gamma*x2[t] - Cos[w*t]*x2[t] + Cos[w*t]*x1[t]},
   {x1[0], x2[0]} == {0.1, 0.1}};

{x1t, x2t} = NDSolveValue[equations /. values, {x1[t], x2[t]}, {t, 0, 1000}];

Plot[x1t, {t, 0, 1000}, PlotRange -> {-0.2, 0.2}]
Plot[x2t, {t, 0, 1000}, PlotRange -> {-0.2, 0.2}]

Further remarks. Since the system is periodic, one could exploit Floquet theory to express the transition matrix of the system in the form $P(t)e^{Rt}$ where $P(t)$ is a periodic function and $R$ a constant matrix, whose eigenvalues determines the stability/instability of the system. Unfortunately, Floquet theory is not "constructive", so computing the latter decomposition is often a daunting task.

Consider the following system of coupled differential equations $$ \dot{x}_1(t) = -x_1(t) - \cos(\omega t)x_1(t) + \cos(\omega t)x_2(t), \ x_1(0)\in\mathbb{R},\\ \dot{x}_2(t) = -\gamma x_2(t) - \cos(\omega t)x_2(t) + \cos(\omega t)x_1(t), \ x_2(0)\in\mathbb{R}, $$ where $\omega$ and $\gamma$ are positive real constants. Observe that $\bar{x}=(\bar{x}_1,\bar{x}_2)=(0,0)$ is an equilibrium of the above system.

It is almost trivial to see that if $\gamma=1$ then $\bar x$ is attractive. Indeed, in this case, we have that $x(t)=[x_1(t), x_2(t)]^\top$ can be explicitly computed as $$ x(t) = \exp\left(\begin{bmatrix}-t &0\\ 0 & -t\end{bmatrix} + \frac{1}{\omega}\sin(\omega t)\begin{bmatrix}-1 &1\\ 1 & -1\end{bmatrix}\right)x(0), $$ so that $x(t)\to 0$ as $t\to \infty$.

However in case $\gamma\ne 1$ proving the attractiveness of the origin is not obvious (and perhaps not even true!).

In particular, numerical simulations seem to suggest that for $\gamma$ and $\omega$ sufficiently small (e.g. $\gamma=0.001$ and $\omega=10$) the equilibrium $\bar{x}$ is not attractive.

I've struggled a lot to find a way of formally proving this, with no luck. So I decided to post the problem here hoping that some of you will provide some useful suggestions or tips. Thank you!


I post here the Mathematica code that I've used in my simulations:

(* nominal values for simulation *)
values = {gamma -> 0.001, w -> 10};

equations = {
   {x1'[t], x2'[t]} == {-x1[t] - Cos[w*t]*x1[t] + Cos[w*t]*x2[t], -gamma*x2[t] - Cos[w*t]*x2[t] + Cos[w*t]*x1[t]},
   {x1[0], x2[0]} == {0.1, 0.1}};

{x1t, x2t} = NDSolveValue[equations /. values, {x1[t], x2[t]}, {t, 0, 1000}];

Plot[x1t, {t, 0, 1000}, PlotRange -> {-0.2, 0.2}]
Plot[x2t, {t, 0, 1000}, PlotRange -> {-0.2, 0.2}]

Further remarks. Since the system is periodic, one could exploit Floquet theory to express the transition matrix of the system in the form $P(t)e^{Rt}$ where $P(t)$ is a periodic function and $R$ a constant matrix, whose eigenvalues determines the stability/instability of the system. Unfortunately, Floquet theory is not "constructive", so computing the latter decomposition is often a daunting task.

Consider the following system of coupled differential equations $$ \dot{x}_1(t) = -x_1(t) - \cos(\omega t)x_1(t) + \cos(\omega t)x_2(t), \ x_1(0)\in\mathbb{R},\\ \dot{x}_2(t) = -\gamma x_2(t) - \cos(\omega t)x_2(t) + \cos(\omega t)x_1(t), \ x_2(0)\in\mathbb{R}, $$ where $\omega$ and $\gamma$ are positive real constants. Observe that $\bar{x}=(\bar{x}_1,\bar{x}_2)=(0,0)$ is an equilibrium of the above system.

It is almost trivial to see that if $\gamma=1$ then $\bar x$ is attractive. Indeed, in this case, we have that $x(t)=[x_1(t), x_2(t)]^\top$ can be explicitly computed as $$ x(t) = \exp\left(\begin{bmatrix}-t &0\\ 0 & -t\end{bmatrix} + \frac{1}{\omega}\sin(\omega t)\begin{bmatrix}-1 &1\\ 1 & -1\end{bmatrix}\right)x(0), $$ so that $x(t)\to 0$ as $t\to \infty$.

However, in case $\gamma\ne 1$ proving the attractiveness of the origin is not obvious (and perhaps not even true!).

In particular, numerical simulations seem to suggest that for $\gamma$ and $\omega$ sufficiently small (e.g. $\gamma=0.001$ and $\omega=10$) the equilibrium $\bar{x}$ is not attractive.

I've struggled a lot to find a way of formally proving this, with no luck. So I decided to post the problem here hoping that some of you will provide some useful suggestions or tips. Thank you!


I post here the Mathematica code that I've used in my simulations:

(* nominal values for simulation *)
values = {gamma -> 0.001, w -> 10};

equations = {
   {x1'[t], x2'[t]} == {-x1[t] - Cos[w*t]*x1[t] + Cos[w*t]*x2[t], -gamma*x2[t] - Cos[w*t]*x2[t] + Cos[w*t]*x1[t]},
   {x1[0], x2[0]} == {0.1, 0.1}};

{x1t, x2t} = NDSolveValue[equations /. values, {x1[t], x2[t]}, {t, 0, 1000}];

Plot[x1t, {t, 0, 1000}, PlotRange -> {-0.2, 0.2}]
Plot[x2t, {t, 0, 1000}, PlotRange -> {-0.2, 0.2}]

Further remarks. Since the system is periodic, one could exploit Floquet theory to express the transition matrix of the system in the form $P(t)e^{Rt}$ where $P(t)$ is a periodic function and $R$ a constant matrix, whose eigenvalues determines the stability/instability of the system. Unfortunately, Floquet theory is not "constructive", so computing the latter decomposition is often a daunting task.

Added remark on Floquet theory
Source Link
Ludwig
  • 2.7k
  • 1
  • 14
  • 26
Loading
Removed wrong approach
Source Link
Ludwig
  • 2.7k
  • 1
  • 14
  • 26
Loading
added 42 characters in body
Source Link
Ludwig
  • 2.7k
  • 1
  • 14
  • 26
Loading
added 237 characters in body
Source Link
Ludwig
  • 2.7k
  • 1
  • 14
  • 26
Loading
deleted 138 characters in body
Source Link
Ludwig
  • 2.7k
  • 1
  • 14
  • 26
Loading
added 687 characters in body
Source Link
Ludwig
  • 2.7k
  • 1
  • 14
  • 26
Loading
deleted 16 characters in body
Source Link
Ludwig
  • 2.7k
  • 1
  • 14
  • 26
Loading