5
$\begingroup$

Let $X=P\partial_x+Q\partial_y$ be a vector field on the plane $\mathbb{R}^2$. Assume that we have :$$P_xP_y+Q_xQ_y=0$$ Does this imply that the vector field $X$ is a divergence-free vector field with respect to a Riemannian metric defined out of singularities of $X$? Obviously this would imply that any $X$ with $P_xP_y+Q_xQ_y=0$ can not have any limit cycle. But is it realy the case?

Namely, does the equality $P_xP_y+Q_xQ_y=0$ imply that $X=P\partial_x+Q\partial_y$ does not have any limit cycle?

Some approaches and motivations I have examined:

Main Motivation: To our vector field $X=P\partial_x+Q\partial_y$ we associate the complex function $X=P(z)+iQ(z)$. Then we consider the complex dilatation of $X$ with $\mu(z)=\bar\partial X(z)/\partial X(z)$.

Let $\phi$ be the flow of the vector field $X$. So with a similar argument for proof of the standard variational equation one obtain that $$\begin{cases}(\partial \phi_t)'=\partial X(\phi_t(x))\partial \phi_t+\bar \partial X(\phi_t(x)) \partial \bar \phi_t\\ (\bar \partial \phi_t)'=\partial X(\phi_t(x)\bar \partial \phi_t+\bar \partial X(\phi_t(X))\overline{\partial \phi_t} \end{cases}$$

This imply that $\mu(\phi_t)'(x)=\frac{\bar\partial X(\phi_t(x))}{(\partial \phi_t)^2}exp\int_0^t div X(\phi_t (x))dt$

I observe that:

Simple Fact: For a vector field $X=P\partial_x+Q\partial_y$ if the dilatation $\mu(X(z))=\lambda$ is a constant map in $z$ with $|\lambda|=1$ then $X$ does not have any limit cycle.

Proof:
Assume that $\mu(X(z))=\lambda$ for a fixed complex number $\lambda$ with $|\lambda|=1$ . So after a linear change of coordinate $H(z)=(\beta )z $ where $\beta$ is a complex number with $\beta^2 \lambda=1$ then we have $H^* X(z)=\beta X(z/\beta)$. Since $H$ is a linear function then it is equal to its linear part. Since both $H$ and $H^{-1}$ are holomorphic maps then we have \begin{equation}\label{eqq}\begin{split} \mu(H^*(X))(z)=\mu (H^{-1}\circ X \circ H)(z)\\&=\mu(X)(z)\times (\frac{ H'(z)}{|H'(z)|})^2=\lambda.\beta^2=1\end{split} \end{equation}.

For the dilatation of functions after right and left composition with holomorphic maps see page 9 Ahlfors lectesur on Quassi conformal mapping,Van Nostrand company,1966.

Note that $X$ and $H^*(X)$ are orbitally equivalent vector fields. So if we prove that every vector field $Y$ with $\mu(Y(z))=1$ can not have any limit cycle then the proof of the proposition would be completed. But it is an obvious fact: let $Y=P\partial_x+Q\partial_y$ be a vector field whose dilatation function is identically equal to $1$. this implies that $P_y=Q_y=0$. So $P,Q$ are functions in $x$. It is an standard fact in the theory of ordinary differential equation that a one dimensional autonomous vector field can not posses a periodic orbit. We apply this to $x'=P(x)$. So $Y$ has no periodic orbit. An alternative Proof for non existence of periodic orbit for the planar vector field $Y(x,y)=P(x)\partial_x+Q(x)\partial_y$ is the following: We have $[Y,\partial/\partial y]=0$. If $\gamma$ is a periodic orbit of $Y$, then there is a point $A=(x_A,y_A)$ on $\gamma$ whose $x$-cordinate $x_A$ is maximum on $\gamma$. Then $Y(A)$ is a vertical vector,i.e. $Y(A)$ is parallel to the $y$-axis.So $P(A)=0$. Then $P(x_A,y)=0,\;\;\forall y\in \mathbb{R}$. This shows that the vertical line $x=x_A$ is invariant under the flow of $Y$. This contradicts the fact that the periodic orbit $\gamma$ intersects this invariant line. In fact this situation violates the uniqueness of solutions of ordinary differential equation. In fact this argument can be used to give a proof for the following Proposition which I found , as an exercise, in "Differentiable Manifold, by Prof. Siavash Shahshahani(His Persian lecture).

Proposition: let $X$ be a vector field on $\mathbb{R}^n$ such that $[X, \partial x_i]=0,\;\;i=1,2,\ldots,n-1$ then $X$ has no closed orbit.

This simple observation leads us to the following guess:

Guess: If dilatation $\mu(X)$ is a real valued map then $X$ has no any limit cycle

Guess':(Equivalent formulation): If $X=P\partial_x+Q\partial_y$ satisfies $P_xP_y+Q_xQ_y=0$ then $X$ has no any limit cycle.

1)(The approach I examined) One can define a flat surface $\delta:\mathbb{R}^2 \to \mathbb{R}^3$ with $$\delta(u,v)=(P(u,v), Q(u,v),0)$$ then the first fundamental form of this surface is a diagonal matrix(the metric is diagonal). but I do not know how to continue with this situation? how can I prove that the vector field $X$ is a Killing vector field with respect to a Riemannian metric?

The evidences showing the validity of my guess:

2)Every vector field in the form $f(x)\partial_x+g(y)\partial_y$ has no any closed orbit since a gradient vector field can not posses non constant periodic orbit. However there is example of such a gradient vector field which is not a divergence free vector field with respect to any Riemannian metric defined on the complement of the singularities

  1. Every (Hamiltonian) vector field in the form $P(y)\partial_x+Q(x)\partial_y$ obviously is divergence free and satisfies the underlying relation $P_xP_y+Q_xQ_y=0$

4)Every holomorphic function $f(z)=P(z)+iQ(z)$ determines a vector field $P\partial_x+Q\partial_y$. It satisfies $P_xP_y+Q_xQ_y=0$, thaks to CR equations. On the other hand it is obvious that any such a system does not have any limit cycle since the flow is a holomorphic map hence does not admit non isolated fixed point. but i do not know if in this case our vector field is divergence free with respect to an appropriate metric.

Remark: Can complex dilatation be helpful in a systematic study of limit cycle theory? In the literature, are there some references which use dilatation to count the number of limit cycles?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ You probably want some additional conditions, like that the vector field has no zeros? $\endgroup$ – Ryan Budney Jan 29 at 22:07
  • $\begingroup$ @RyanBudney No but we work on the complement of the singularities.We require that our vector field is divergence free out of singularities. $\endgroup$ – Ali Taghavi Jan 29 at 22:13
1
$\begingroup$

I can answer your following question. Let $X=P\partial x+Q\partial y$ be a vector field on the plane $\mathbb{R}^2$. Assume that we have $P_xP_y+Q_xQ_y=0$. Does this imply that the vector field $X$ is a divergence-free vector field with respect to a Riemannian metric defined out of singularities of X?

The answer is No.

$\operatorname{div} X = \operatorname{trace} \nabla X$ where $\nabla$ is the Levi-Civita covariant derivative of the Riemannanian metric. When $X = X^j\mathbf{d}_j$ (summation convention), then $$ \operatorname{trace}\nabla X = (\nabla_iX)^i = (\mathbf{d}_iX + X^j \Gamma_{ij}^k\mathbf{d}_k)^i = \operatorname{div}_{\text{eucl}}X + X^j\Gamma_{ij}^i. $$ The second term is in general nonzero (probably it is zero for unimodular Riemannian metrics).

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Dear Prof. Eschenburg Thank you very much for your answer. You are well come to MO! $\endgroup$ – Ali Taghavi Feb 23 at 14:09
  • $\begingroup$ Where did you used the equation $P_xP_y+Q_xQ_y=0$? $\endgroup$ – Ali Taghavi Feb 24 at 5:40

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.