Consider the lienard vector field $\cases{ x'=y -F(x) \\ y'=-x } $ in $\mathbb{R}^{2}$, where $F$ is a polynomial fuction with $F(0)=0$. Assume that $Y$ is a smooth vector field globally defined on $R^{2}$ such that $[X,Y]=0$. can we conclude that $Y$ is tangent to solutions of lienard vector field? Namely we ask:

Does the lienard vector field has trivial centralizer?

The first motivation: Two vector fields $X$ and $Y$ with $[X,Y]=0$, have the same number of limit cycles. So this question help us to study the Lienard system, from the view of limit cycle theory.

The second motivation: When $F$ is an even polynomial, the system has a non isochrounous center. On the other hand a non isochronouse center has locally trivial centralizer/

Can we use some methods of PDE for a possible solution to this question?


This is not a complete answer, but it should give some elements towards it (especially regarding the link with PDEs). First, the Liénard system has a non-trivial centralizer in the case $F''=0$, i.e. $F(x)=cx$ for a real constant $c$, as the radial vector field belongs to it. This trival case put aside, write $Y=A\partial_x+B\partial_y$ so that $[X,Y]=0$ is equivalent to the system $$ X\cdot B=-A \\ X\cdot A = B-AF'$$ where $X\cdot f$ denotes the Lie (directional) derivative of $f$ along $X$. From this system you deduce that $B$ must satisfy the linear PDE $$X\cdot X\cdot B + (X\cdot B)F'+B=0.$$ Any solution $B$ to this PDE determines uniquely $A$, according to the first line of the above system.

Let's write this neat PDE into its explicit (and ugly) form, namely (if my computations are correct) $$(y-F)(F\partial_{xx}^2B+x\partial^2_{xy}B+\partial_y B)+x(-x\partial_{xx}^2B+ F'\partial_y B+\partial_x B) = B.$$ Letting $x:=0$ gives $$y\partial_y B(0,y)=B(0,y),$$ that is (since $B$ is $C^\infty$) $$B(x,y)=cy+xb(x,y)$$ for some real constant $c$ and $C^\infty$ function $b$. Now one can play around with the equation satisfied by $b$, but that's besides the point. The point is that $B$ satisfies a second order linear PDE and an explicit initial condition $B(0,y)=cy$, so one might want to conclude that a solution $B$ exists for any $c$ and reach the conclusion that the centralizer is not reduced to tangent-to-$X$ vector fields (consider $c\neq0$). Unfortunately there are two catches:

  • the line $\{x=0\}$ is a characteristic of the PDE (save for the case $F'(0)\neq0$), meaning that it is not a good choice for an initial value problem,
  • also the PDE is of mixed-type, since its discriminant is $$\Delta=x^2 (y-F(x))(y+3F(x)),$$ in particular it is parabolic along the line $\{x=0\}$, which is an annoying fact regarding existence. This fact actually disallows the given argument to work when $F''=0$, so that the centralizer can be trivial.

I'm no specialist of PDEs, so I don't have anything smarter to suggest, but it seems that the approach via general PDEs might prove difficult.

Yet, the fact that the PDE is not any PDE, but comes from a Lie derivative applied twice, might help. Notice in particular that the integral of $A\tau$ and $(B-AF')\tau$ on any tangent cycle must vanish, where $\tau$ is any $1$-form such that $\tau(X)=1$ (a time form of $X$), thanks to the Stokes-like formula (valid for any tangent curve $\gamma$): $$\int_\gamma (X\cdot F) \tau = F(\gamma(1))-F(\gamma(0)).$$ This should give mild constraints on $A$ and $B$.

Taking all these elements into account, my bet is that the case $F''=0$ is the only one for which the centralizer is not trivial. If this were indeed the case, it wouldn't help you count limit cycles of the general Liénard system, I'm afraid…

  • $\begingroup$ thank you very much for your answer. I will read it and concentrate on your guess that $F=cx$ is the only nontrivial centralizer. $\endgroup$ – Ali Taghavi Apr 14 '14 at 19:24
  • $\begingroup$ @AliTaghavi: well, I may be wrong! But the heuristics is as follows: transverse commuting vector fields give Lie symmetries and improve integrability (by quadrature on the underlying differential equation $\frac{dy}{dx}=\ldots$). But it seems to me that the system is not integrable (in that sense) when $F$ is "too complicated". Yet I'm no specialist of Liénard systems, I'd rather trust you on that subject ;) $\endgroup$ – Loïc Teyssier Apr 14 '14 at 19:29
  • $\begingroup$ Your second order PDE approach is very interesting. It reminds me of the following situation. some years ago I tried to approach to limit cycle of Lienard equation with this method: Assume $(x(t), y(t))$ is a periodic solution. then $x'(t), y'(t))$ is a periodic curve. Put new variable $X=x' , Y=y'$ then (X(t), Y(t)$ satisfies a new authonomous differential equation in X_Y plane. But unfortunatly this new vector field is topological equivalent to the original lienard vec. field!!!(A very bad chance, a mathematical loop). But this is a motivation to th followin question: $\endgroup$ – Ali Taghavi Apr 16 '14 at 14:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AliTaghavi: no, it's not true. Take the linear center case $P(x,y)=y, Q(x,y)=-x$. Then $X\cdot P=Q$ and $X\cdot Q=-P$ so that you obtain a multiple of the radial vector field. $\endgroup$ – Loïc Teyssier Apr 16 '14 at 15:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AliTaghavi: the trick you mentionned with the vector field obtained by looking for an autonomous sytem satisfied by $\dot \gamma$, seems to work only in that specific case (or other «simple» cases). Otherwise you can't get rid of the variables $x, y$ in the expression of $\ddot x=\dot y\frac{\partial P}{\partial x}(x,y)+\dot y\frac{\partial P}{\partial y}(x,y)$ and the same for $\ddot y$. $\endgroup$ – Loïc Teyssier Apr 16 '14 at 15:22

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.