This paper is concerned with the stability of nonlinear time-varying perturbed system on time scales under the assumption that the corresponding linear time-varying nominal system is uniformly exponentially stable. Some less conservative sufficient conditions for uniform exponential stability and uniform practical exponential stability are proposed by imposing different assumptions on the perturbation term. Compared with the traditional exponential stability results of perturbed systems, the time derivatives of related Lyapunov functions in this paper are not required to be negative definite for all time. The main tools employed are two Gronwall's inequalities on time scales. Some examples are also given to illustrate the effectiveness of the theoretical results.
Citation: Cheng-Xiu Qiang, Jian-Ping Sun, Ya-Hong Zhao. Exponential stability analysis for nonlinear time-varying perturbed systems on time scales[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(5): 11131-11150. doi: 10.3934/math.2023564
[1] | Yuwen He, Jun Li, Lingsheng Meng . Three effective preconditioners for double saddle point problem. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(7): 6933-6947. doi: 10.3934/math.2021406 |
[2] | Snezhana Hristova, Kremena Stefanova . p-moment exponential stability of second order differential equations with exponentially distributed moments of impulses. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(3): 2886-2899. doi: 10.3934/math.2021174 |
[3] | Waleed Mohamed Abd-Elhameed, Anna Napoli . New formulas of convolved Pell polynomials. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(1): 565-593. doi: 10.3934/math.2024030 |
[4] | Akbar Ali, Ivan Gutman, Boris Furtula, Abeer M. Albalahi, Amjad E. Hamza . On chemical and mathematical characteristics of generalized degree–based molecular descriptors. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(3): 6788-6804. doi: 10.3934/math.2025311 |
[5] | Ze-Miao Dai, Jia-Bao Liu, Kang Wang . Analyzing the normalized Laplacian spectrum and spanning tree of the cross of the derivative of linear networks. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(6): 14594-14617. doi: 10.3934/math.2024710 |
[6] | Jia-Bao Liu, Kang Wang . The multiplicative degree-Kirchhoff index and complexity of a class of linear networks. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(3): 7111-7130. doi: 10.3934/math.2024347 |
[7] | Mohamed Abdalla . On Hankel transforms of generalized Bessel matrix polynomials. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(6): 6122-6139. doi: 10.3934/math.2021359 |
[8] | Emrah Polatlı . On some properties of a generalized min matrix. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(11): 26199-26212. doi: 10.3934/math.20231336 |
[9] | Abdulrahman B. Albidah, Ibraheem M. Alsulami, Essam R. El-Zahar, Abdelhalim Ebaid . Advances in mathematical analysis for solving inhomogeneous scalar differential equation. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 23331-23343. doi: 10.3934/math.20241134 |
[10] | Yang Zhang, Jizhu Nan . A note on the degree bounds of the invariant ring. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 10869-10881. doi: 10.3934/math.2024530 |
This paper is concerned with the stability of nonlinear time-varying perturbed system on time scales under the assumption that the corresponding linear time-varying nominal system is uniformly exponentially stable. Some less conservative sufficient conditions for uniform exponential stability and uniform practical exponential stability are proposed by imposing different assumptions on the perturbation term. Compared with the traditional exponential stability results of perturbed systems, the time derivatives of related Lyapunov functions in this paper are not required to be negative definite for all time. The main tools employed are two Gronwall's inequalities on time scales. Some examples are also given to illustrate the effectiveness of the theoretical results.
Throughout this paper, we write Cp×q (Rp×q, resp.) for the set of all p×q complex (real, resp.) matrices. We use the symbol C+ to stand for the open upper half complex plane. For a Hermitian matrix A=A∗∈Cp×p, the number of negative eigenvalues (counting algebraic multiplicities) of A is denoted by ν(A). For convenience, the symbol Rn[z] (R0n[z], resp.) represents the set of all real coefficient polynomials of degree at most n (real coefficient polynomials of degree n, resp.) of the variable z. For a rational function r(z) of the form r(z)=p(z)/q(z), in which p(z),q(z) are nonzero complex polynomials such that gcd(p(z),q(z))=1, the McMillan degree of r(z) is defined by degr(z)=max{degp(z),degq(z)}.
Let f(z) be a function meromorphic on C∖R. The domain of f(z) is denoted by D(f). For a nonnegative integer κ, f(z) is called a generalized Nevanlinna function with negative index κ if the following statements hold: (i) f(z) satisfies the symmetry condition f(¯z)=¯f(z); (ii) for each choice of a positive integer m and m distinct points z1,…,zm∈C+∩D(f), we have
ν(Pf(z1,…,zm))≤κ, | (1.1) |
and, for some particular choice, the equality in (1.1) holds, where
Pf(z1,…,zm)=(f(zi)−¯f(zj)zi−¯zj)mi,j=1 |
is a Hermitian Loewner matrix. We denote by Nκ the class of all generalized Nevanlinna functions with negative index κ.
The indefinite Hamburger moment problem in the class Nκ (short for the HM(Nκ) problem) can be formulated in the following manner: Given a sequence of real numbers s0,⋯,s2n−2, it is required to find all functions f(z)∈Nκ such that the following asymptotic expansion at infinity
f(z)=−s0z−s1z2−⋯−s2n−2z2n−1+o(z−2n+1) | (1.2) |
holds when z tends to ∞ in the sector πϵ(0)={z∈C∣ϵ≤argz≤π−ϵ} (0<ϵ<π/2).
The classical Hamburger moment problem (e.g., [1,15]) is identical to the HM(Nκ) problem with κ=0. In comparison with the classical case, the HM(Nκ) problem with κ>0 seems to be much more complicated. In 2003, Derevyagin [7] applied the step-by-step Schur algorithm to give a description of the solutions of the HM(Nκ) problem when the Hankel matrix
H=(si+j)n−1i,j=0 | (1.3) |
determined by the asymptotic expansion (1.2) is nonsingular. In 2012, Derkach et al. [8] gave the solvability criterion of the HM(Nκ) problem and a complete parametrization description of the solutions by using the same algorithm. In this paper, we derive the solvability criterion for the HM(Nκ) problem by a new approach, which is more algebraic and different from the existing methods. As a by-product of this approach, we obtain a concrete rational solution of the HM(Nκ) problem with the least McMillan degree when the solvability conditions are met.
We remark that, starting from the Hankel matrix H given by (1.3), we can derive the solvability criterion of the HM(Nκ) problem and the concrete formula of the solutions when the solvability conditions are met. For this reason, we say H is the Hankel matrix of the HM(Nκ) problem. Moreover, the HM(Nκ) problem is said to be non-degenerate (degenerate, resp.) if its Hankel matrix is nonsingular (singular, resp.). In this paper, we divide the HM(Nκ) problem into the non-degenerate case and the degenerate case to derive the solvability criterion by using the structural characteristics of the Hankel matrix H, such as the characteristic degrees and characteristic polynomial quadruple (see, e.g., [4,5]), the quasidirect decomposition (see, e.g., [9]), and the relation among the Hankel, Loewner, Bezout and some other structured matrices (see, e.g., [4,6,11]).
A brief synopsis of this paper is as follows. In Section 2, we introduce the characteristic degrees, characteristic polynomial quadruple and quasidirect decomposition of the Hankel matrix of the HM(Nκ) problem, and we list some basic results about these structural characteristics without proofs. In Section 3, we first recall some known properties of the generalized Nevanlinna functions in [17] given by the first two authors of this paper and their collaborators, and then, we prove several new properties by using the structural characteristics of the Hankel matrix and the relation among the Hankel, Loewner, Bezout and some other structured matrices. The last section is devoted to the solvability criterion of the HM(Nκ) problem and a concrete rational solution with the least McMillan degree when the solvability conditions are met.
Let H=(si+j)n−1i,j=0∈Rn×n be the Hankel matrix of the HM(Nκ) problem. The first and the second characteristic degrees of H are defined by n1=rankH, n2=2n−n1, respectively. Clearly, n1≤n≤n2. For a pair of positive integers k,l such that k+l=2n, we write Hkl=(si+j)k−1,l−1i,j=0. In particular, H=Hnn. It follows from [13] that rank Hkl=min{k,l,n1}. We use the symbol Al to stand for the subspace of Rl−1[z]:
Al=(1,z,⋯,zl−1)KerHkl,k+l=2n. |
In the case n1=n2=n, H is nonsingular, and there exists a unique monic polynomial p(z)∈Rn−1[z] and a polynomial q(z)∈R0n[z], forming a basis of the space An+1. In the case n1<n<n2, H is singular and there exists uniquely a monic polynomial p(z)∈Rn1[z], forming a basis of An1+1 and, moreover, a polynomial q(z)∈Rn2[z] such that p(z),zp(z),…,zn2−n1p(z),q(z) forms a basis of the space An2+1. For convenience, in this paper we always assume that either degp(z)=n1 and degq(z)<n2 or degp(z)<n1 and degq(z)=n2. Such a pair of polynomials p(z) and q(z) are referred to as the first and the second characteristic polynomials of H, respectively.
Let p(z)=pn1zn1+⋯+p0 and q(z)=qn2zn2+⋯+q0. We define two real coefficient polynomials γ(z) and δ(z) by
γ(z)=(1,z,⋯,zn1−1)(p1⋯pn1⋮...pn1)(s0⋮sn1−1)∈Rn1−1[z],δ(z)=(1,z,⋯,zn2−1)(q1⋯qn2⋮...qn2)(s0⋮sn2−1)∈Rn2−1[z]. |
Hereafter, [p(z),q(z),γ(z),δ(z)] is called the characteristic polynomial quadruple of H. Such a quadruple, together with the first and second characteristic degrees, plays an important role in our discussion. By using the definitions, we check easily that the following asymptotic expansions at infinity hold:
p(z)(s0z+s1z2+⋯+s2n−2z2n−1+o(z−2n+1))=γ(z)+o(z−n2+1)(z→∞),q(z)(s0z+s1z2+⋯+s2n−2z2n−1+o(z−2n+1))=δ(z)+o(z−n1+1)(z→∞). |
The following lemma comes as a direct consequence of the definitions and the last two equations (e.g., [4]).
Lemma 2.1. Let n1 and [p(z),q(z),γ(z),δ(z)] be the first characteristic degree and the characteristic polynomial quadruple of the Hankel matrix H=(si+j)n−1i,j=0 given by (1.3), respectively. Then,
δ(z)p(z)−γ(z)q(z)=σ, | (2.1) |
where σ is a nonzero constant. Moreover, if degp(z)=n1, then fγ,p(z)=−γ(z)/p(z) admits the following asymptotic expansion at infinity:
fγ,p(z)=−s0z−s1z2−⋯−s2n−2z2n−1+o(z−2n+1)(z→∞); | (2.2) |
if degp(z)<n1 then fδ,q(z)=−δ(z)/q(z) admits the following asymptotic expansion at infinity:
fδ,q(z)=−s0z−s1z2−⋯−s2n−2z2n−1+o(z−2n+1)(z→∞). | (2.3) |
Remark 2.2. By (2.1) and the fact that degp(z)+degq(z)≤2n−1, we can show that the asymptotic expansions (2.2) and (2.3) cannot hold simultaneously. This means that if the asymptotic expansion (2.2) ((2.3), resp.) holds, then degp(z)=n1 (degp(z)<n1, resp.).
Now, we introduce the quasidirect decomposition of a singular Hankel matrix. Let H=(si+j)n−1i,j=0 given by (1.3) be singular. We say H is a proper Hankel matrix if Δn1≠0 and Δk=0 (k=n1+1,⋯,n), in which Δi stands for the ith leading principle minor of H. Moreover, we say that H is a degenerate Hankel matrix if s0=s1=⋯=sn−1=0. By definitions, a n×n zero matrix is both a proper Hankel matrix and a degenerate Hankel matrix. In [9], Fielder showed that under certain conditions, each singular Hankel matrix can be uniquely decomposed into the sum of a proper Hankel matrix and a degenerate Hankel matrix.
Lemma 2.3. Let H=(si+j)n−1i,j=0 given by (1.3) be singular. Then, H has a unique decomposition of the form:
H=Hp+Hd,rank(H)=rank(Hp)+rank(Hd), | (2.4) |
in which Hp is a proper Hankel matrix and Hd is a degenerate Hankel matrix.
The formula (2.4) is called the quasidirect decomposition of the Hankel matrix H. By definition, together with Lemmas 2.1, 2.3 and Remark 2.2, we can give a characterization of the proper Hankel matrix by using the structural characteristics.
Lemma 2.4. Let H=(si+j)n−1i,j=0 given by (1.3) be singular, and let n1 and [p(z),q(z),γ(z),δ(z)] be the first characteristic degree and the characteristic polynomial quadruple of H, respectively. Then, H is a proper Hankel matrix if, and only if, one of the following statements holds:
(1) degp(z)=n1;
(2) fγ,p(z)=−γ(z)/p(z) admits the asymptotic expansion (2.2) at infinity.
The following lemma shows that if the Hankel matrix of the HM(Nκ) problem is singular, then it is equivalent and congruent to a block diagonal matrix, where the upper left corner and the lower right corner blocks are Hankel matrices whose orders coincide with the ranks of its proper part and degenerate part, respectively, and the other blocks are zero matrices. Such a structural characteristic of the singular Hankel matrix plays an important role in deducing the solvability criterion of the HM(Nκ) problem for the degenerate case.
Lemma 2.5. Let H=(si+j)n−1i,j=0 be a singular Hankel matrix with the quasidirect decomposition (2.4), let n1 and p(z)=zr+pr−1zr−1+⋯+p1z+p0 be the first characteristic degree and the first characteristic polynomial of H, respectively and let
Q=(Irp0⋯pr−11⋱⋱⋱p0⋯pr−11)∈Rn×n. | (2.5) |
Then, Q is a nonsingular matrix satisfying
QHpQ∗=diag(ˆHp,0n−r),QHdQ∗=diag(0n−n1+r,ˆHd),QHQ∗=diag(ˆHp,0n−n1,ˆHd), | (2.6) |
in which
ˆHp=(si+j)r−1i,j=0,ˆHd=(0ˆs1...⋮ˆs1⋯ˆsn1−r) | (2.7) |
are nonsingular Hankel matrices of small sizes.
Hereafter, we always assume that the Hankel matrix ˆHp (ˆHd, resp.) does not appear in the case r=0 (r=n1, resp.).
In [17], Song et al. presented an equivalent definition of the generalized Nevanlinna function with negative index κ in terms of the generalized Loewner matrix. On the basis of this definition, they have shown several properties of such a kind of function. Here, we list two interesting properties of them. The first property is stated as follows, which gives a necessary condition for the HM(Nκ) problem to have a solution.
Lemma 3.1. [17] Let H=(si+j)n−1i,j=0 be the Hankel matrix of the HM(Nκ) problem. If f(z)∈Nκ admits the asymptotic expansion (1.2) at infinity, then κ≥ν(H).
The second property is actually a generalization of the first one. Starting from this property, we can derive the solvability criterion of the HM(Nκ) problem in the degenerate case.
Lemma 3.2. [17] If f(z)∈Nκ admits the asymptotic expansion (1.2) at infinity, then for each positive integer m and m distinct points z1,…,zm∈C+∩D(f),
ν(Lf(z1,⋯,zm))≤κ, |
in which
Lf(z1,⋯,zm)=(HC(z1)∗⋯C(zm)∗C(z1)⋮Pf(z1,⋯,zm)C(zm)), | (3.1) |
H=(si+j)n−1i,j=0 is the Hankel matrix of the HM(Nκ) problem and
C(z)=(f(z),z(f(z)+s0z),⋯,zn−1(f(z)+s0z+s1z2+⋯+sn−2zn−1)) | (3.2) |
for arbitrary z∈C+∩D(f).
We observe that H is a principle submatrix of Lf(z1,⋯,zm). By the interlacing relation between the eigenvalues of a Hermitian matrix and its principle submatrices (e.g., [14, Theorem 4.3.28]), we have ν(H)≤ν(Lf(z1,⋯,zm)), then Lemma 3.1 is a direct consequence of Lemma 3.2. If the Hankel matrix H of the HM(Nκ) problem is singular, by Lemma 2.3 it has a unique quasidirect decomposition. In that case, applying Lemmas 2.5 and 3.2, we can prove the following property of the functions in the class Nκ.
Theorem 3.3. Let H=(si+j)n−1i,j=0 given by (1.3) be singular, n1 and [p(z),q(z),γ(z),δ(z)] be the first characteristic degree and the characteristic polynomial quadruple of H, respectively and let f(z)∈Nκ admit the asymptotic expansion (1.2) at infinity. Then, for each positive integer m and m distinct points z1,…,zm∈C+∩D(f), the structured matrix Lf(z1,⋯,zm) defined by (3.1) and (3.2) is equivalent and congruent to
˜Lf(z1,⋯,zm)=(ˆHpE∗0ˆHdF∗EFPf(z1,⋯,zm)), | (3.3) |
where ˆHp, ˆHd are the same as in (2.7), and
E=(f(z1)z1(f(z1)+s0z1)⋯zr−11(f(z1)+s0z1+⋯+sr−2zr−11)⋮⋮⋮f(zm)zm(f(zm)+s0zm)⋯zs−1m(f(zm)+s0zm+⋯+sr−2zr−1m))∈Cm×r,F=(p(z1)f(z1)+γ(z1)⋯zn−r−11(p(z1)f(z1)+γ(z1))⋮⋮p(zm)f(zm)+γ(zm)⋯zn−r−1m(p(zm)f(zm)+γ(zm)))∈Cm×(n−r). | (3.4) |
Proof. Here, we give a proof only for the case m=1. The proof of the case m>1 is completely analogous and, thus, omitted. Let p(z)=zr+pr−1zr−1+⋯+p1z+p0 and ˜Q=diag(Q,1), in which Q is given by (2.5). Clearly, ˜Q is also a nonsingular matrix. It follows from Lemma 2.5 and (2.6) that ˜Lf(z1,⋯,zm)=˜QLf(z1,⋯,zm)˜Q∗ is of the form (3.3), in which
(E,F)=(f(z1),z1(f(z1)+s0z1),⋯,zn−11(f(z1)+s0z1+⋯+sn−2zn−11))Q∗. |
By a direct calculation, we have
E=(f(z1),z1(f(z1)+s0z1),⋯,zr−11(f(z1)+s0z1+⋯+sr−2zr−11)), |
and the (k+1)-th element of F is
p0zk1(f(z1)+s0z1+⋯+sk−1zk1)+⋯+pr−1zr+k−11(f(z1)+s0z1+⋯+sr+k−2zr+k−11)+zr+k1(f(z1)+s0z1+⋯+sr+k−1zr+k1)= zk1(p(z1)f(z1)+γ(z1)),k=0,1,⋯,n−r−1, |
then (3.4) holds. Therefore, we complete the proof of Theorem 3.3.
To derive the solvability criterion of the HM(Nκ) problem, we need some properties of the rational generalized Nevanlinna function. To introduce these properties, we recall the concept of the Bezout matrix (see, e.g., [10,16]). For a pair of complex polynomials a(z),b(z) with the maximal degree n, the Bezout matrix B(a,b) is defined by the bilinear form
a(z)b(w)−a(w)b(z)z−w=(1,z,⋯,zn−1)B(a,b)(1,w,⋯,wn−1)T. |
It is well known that the Bezout matrix has many applications in the theory of system and control (e.g., [2,3,12]). The following result shows that each real rational function is a generalized Nevanlinna function, whose negative index coincides with the number of negative eigenvalues of the Bezout matrix of its denominator and numerator polynomials.
Theorem 3.4. Let a(z)∈R0n[z], b(z)∈Rn[z]. Then, the real rational function fb,a(z)=−b(z)/a(z)∈Nκ, in which κ=ν(B(a,b)).
Proof. Since a(z),b(z) are real coefficient polynomials, fb,a(z) is meromorphic in C∖R such that for each z∈D(fb,a), ¯z∈D(fb,a) and fb,a(¯z)=¯fb,a(z). Moreover, for each choice of a positive integer m and m distinct points z1,⋯,zm∈C+∩D(fb,a), we have
Pfb,a(z1,…,zm)=(fb,a(zi)−fb,a(¯zj)zi−¯zj)mi,j=1=Λ(a(zi)b(¯zj)−b(zi)a(¯zj)zi−¯zj)mi,j=1Λ∗=ΛVB(a,b)V∗Λ∗, |
where Λ=diag(a(z1)−1,⋯,a(zm)−1) is a nonsingular diagonal matrix and V=(zj−1i)m,ni,j=1 is a Vandermonde matrix. This implies that ν(Pfb,a(z1,⋯,zm))≤ν(B(a,b)). Particularly, in the case of m=n, V is also a nonsingular matrix and, thus, ν(Pfb,a(z1,⋯,zn))=ν(B(a,b)). By the definition of generalized Nevanlinna functions in the class Nκ, we have fb,a(z)=−b(z)/a(z)∈Nκ, in which κ=ν(B(a,b)), then the proof of Theorem 3.4 is completed.
We remark that there are many interesting connections between Bezout and Hankel matrices. The following lemma shows that the Bezout matrix B(a,b) in Theorem 3.4 is equivalent and congruent to a real Hankel matrix generated by the rational function b(z)/a(z) (see, e.g., [6,11] for the general case).
Lemma 3.5. Let a(z)=∑ni=0aizi (an≠0) and b(z)=∑n−1i=0bizi be real coefficient polynomials, and let the asymptotic expansion of b(z)/a(z) at infinity be of the form
b(z)a(z)=h0z+h1z2+⋯+h2n−2z2n−1+o(z−2n+1)(z→∞). |
Then, B(a,b)=S(a)H(a,b)S(a), in which H(a,b)=(hi+j)n−1i,j=0 and
S(a)=(a1⋯an⋮...an) |
is a nonsingular real symmetric matrix.
By Lemma 3.5, the negative index κ in Theorem 3.4 can be formulated in terms of the number of negative eigenvalues of the Hankel matrix H(a,b)=(hi+j)n−1i,j=0.
Corollary 3.6. Let a(z),b(z) and H(a,b) be the same as in Lemma 3.5. Then, the real rational function fb,a(z)=−b(z)/a(z)∈Nκ, in which κ=ν(H(a,b)).
In this section, we apply the structural characteristics of the Hankel matrix of the HM(Nκ) problem and the properties of the generalized Nevanlinna functions to deduce the solvability criterion of the HM(Nκ) problem and a concrete rational solution with the least McMillan degree for both the non-degenerate and degenerate cases. We first derive the solvability criterion for the non-degenerate HM(Nκ) problem.
Theorem 4.1. Let H=(si+j)n−1i,j=0 given by (1.3) be nonsingular. Then, the HM(Nκ) problem is solvable if, and only if, κ≥ν(H).
Proof. The "only if" part is a direct consequence of Lemma 3.1. For the proof of the "if" part, we consider two cases.
Case I: κ=ν(H). Let n1,n2 and [p(z),q(z),γ(z),δ(z)] be the first characteristic degree, the second characteristic degree and the characteristic polynomial quadruple of H, respectively. Since H is nonsingular, we have n1=n2=n, degp(z)<n1=n and degq(z)=n. By Lemma 2.1, the rational function fδ,q(z)=−δ(z)/q(z) admits the asymptotic expansion (1.2) at infinity, and moreover, H=H(q,δ). On the other hand, by Corollary 3.6, we obtain that fδ,q(z)∈Nκ′, in which κ′=ν(H(q,δ))=ν(H)=κ. Then, fδ,q(z) is a solution of the non-degenerate HM(Nκ) problem.
Case II: κ>ν(H). For convenience, we denote by Hn=H and m=κ−ν(H)>0. Define a sequence of Hankel matrices recursively by
Hn+k=(si+j)n+k−1i,j=0, | (4.1) |
in which
s2n+2k−3=0, s2n+2k−2=(sn+k,⋯,s2n+2k−3)H−1n+k−1(sn+k,⋯,s2n+2k−3)T−1,k=1,2,⋯,m. | (4.2) |
Then, Hn+m=(si+j)n+m−1i,j=0 is equivalent and congruent to diag(H,−Im), which implies that Hn+m is a nonsingular Hankel matrix and ν(Hn+m)=ν(H)+m=κ. Let [u(z),v(z),α(z),β(z)] be the characteristic polynomial quadruple of Hn+m. Then degu(z)<n+m and degv(z)=n+m. According to the analysis in Case I, we have that fβ,v(z)∈Nκ and the asymptotic expansion of fβ,v(z) at infinity is of the form:
fβ,v(z)=−s0z−s1z2−⋯−s2n+2m−2z2n+2m−1+o(z−2n−2m+1)(z→∞), |
then fβ,v(z) is a solution of the HM(Nκ) problem. Summarizing the analysis above, we complete the proof of the "if" part.
From the proof of Theorem 4.1, we obtain immediately a concrete rational solution of the non-degenerate HM(Nκ) problem with the least McMillan degree when the solvability conditions are met.
Theorem 4.2. Let H=(si+j)n−1i,j=0 given by (1.3) be nonsingular. If κ≥ν(H), then r(z)=−β(z)/v(z) is a rational solution with the least McMillan degree among all rational solutions of the HM(Nκ) problem, in which [u(z),v(z),α(z),β(z)] is the characteristic quadruple of the Hankel matrix Hn+κ−ν(H) defined recursively by (4.1)–(4.2).
Proof. Let m=κ−ν(H)≥0. We can easily see from the proof of Theorem 4.1 that r(z) presented in Theorem 4.2 is a rational solution of the HM(Nκ) problem with McMillan degree n+m. It remains to prove that the HM(Nκ) problem has not any rational solution whose McMillan degree is less than n+m. If there exists a rational solution s(z) of the non-degenerate HM(Nκ) problem such that degs(z)<n+m, then s(z)=b(z)/a(z), in which a(z),b(z) are two co-prime real polynomials satisfying degb(z)<dega(z)=t<n+m. Let a(z)=a0+a1z+⋯+atzt and
b(z)a(z)=−s′0z−s′1z2−⋯−s′2n+2m−2z2n+2m−1+o(z−2n−2m+1)(z→∞), |
in which s′i=si, i=0,1,⋯,2n−2. If t<n, then H(a0,⋯,at,0,⋯,0)T=0. It contradicts to the nonsingularity of H. If n≤t<n+m, we denote by H′t=(s′i+j)t−1i,j=0. In this case, H is a nonsingular principle submatrix of H′t, and then ν(H′t)≤ν(H)+t−n<ν(H)+m=κ. On the other hand, by Corollary 3.6, we have κ=ν(H′t). It is a contradiction, so r(z) given in Theorem 4.2 is a rational solution of the HM(Nκ) problem with the least McMillan degree.
To derive the solvability criterion for the HM(Nκ) problem for the degenerate case, we need the following result, which can be verified by a direct computation.
Lemma 4.3. Let A∈Cm×m be nonsingular, B=B∗∈Cm×m and
C=(0A∗AB)∈C2m×2m. |
Then, ν(C)=m.
Now, we apply the results above to deduce the solvability criterion of the HM(Nκ) problem for the degenerate case.
Theorem 4.4. Let H=(si+j)n−1i,j=0 given by (1.3) be singular and n1 be the first characteristic degree of H. Then, the HM(Nκ) problem is solvable if, and only if, one of the following statements holds:
(1) κ=ν(H) and H is a proper Hankel matrix;
(2) κ≥ν(H)+n−n1.
Proof. Let n1, n2 and [p(z),q(z),γ(z),δ(z)] be the first characteristic degree, the second characteristic degree and the characteristic polynomial quadruple of H, respectively, and let degp(z)=r≤n1. We first prove the "only if" part. Suppose that f(z)∈Nκ is a solution of the degenerate HM(Nκ) problem. By Lemma 3.1, we have κ≥ν(H). In the case of κ=ν(H), it follows from Lemma 3.2 that for each z∈C+∩D(f), we have ν(Lf(z))≤κ, in which
Lf(z)=(HC(z)∗C(z)Pf(z)), |
and C(z) is the same as in (3.2). Since H is a principle submatrix of Lf(z), we have ν(Lf(z))≥ν(H)=κ and thus ν(Lf(z))=κ for all z∈C+∩D(f). By Theorem 3.3, Lf(z) is equivalent and congruent to
˜Lf(z)=(ˆHpE∗0n−n1ˆHdF∗EFPf(z)), |
in which ˆHp, ˆHd are the same as in (2.7), and
E=(f(z),z(f(z)+s0z),⋯,zr−1(f(z)+s0z+⋯+sr−2zr−1)),F=(p(z)f(z)+γ(z),⋯,zn−r−1(p(z)f(z)+γ(z))). |
We check easily that ˜Lf(z) is furtherly equivalent and congruent to the following block diagonal matrix:
ˆLf(z)=diag(ˆHp,ˆHd,0n−n1−1,(0¯d(z)d(z)e(z))), |
in which d(z)=p(z)f(z)+γ(z) and e(z)=¯e(z). Note that ν(Lf(z))=ν(˜Lf(z))=ν(ˆLf(z))=κ=ν(H)=ν(ˆHp)+ν(ˆHd), then by Lemma 4.3, we have d(z)=p(z)f(z)+γ(z)=0, z∈C+∩D(f). This implies that f(z)=fγ,p(z)=−γ(z)/p(z) for a sufficiently large |z| and z∈C+∩D(f). Since f(z) admits the asymptotic expansion (1.2) at infinity, we have
fγ,p(z)=−γ(z)p(z)=−s0z−s1z2−⋯−s2n−2z2n−1+o(z−2n+1)(z→∞). | (4.3) |
By Lemma 2.4, we have degp(z)=n1 and, thus, H=Hp is a proper Hankel matrix.
When κ>ν(H), f(z)≢fγ,p(z)=−γ(z)/p(z). Otherwise, fγ,p(z)∈Nκ and the asymptotic expansion (4.3) holds. In this case, by Lemma 2.4, H=Hp is a proper Hankel matrix. Moreover, by Corollary 3.6, we have κ=ν(H(p,γ))=ν(ˆHp)=ν(Hp)=ν(H), which contradicts the assumption κ>ν(H). We write m=n−n1 and g(z)=p(z)f(z)+γ(z) for short, then there exist m distinct points z1,⋯,zm∈C+∩D(f) such that g(zk)≠0, k=1,⋯,m. By Lemma 3.2 and Theorem 3.3, we have ν(˜Lf(z1,⋯,zm))≤κ, in which
˜Lf(z1,⋯,zm)=(ˆHp00∗00m0A∗00ˆHd∗∗A∗Pf(z1,⋯,zm))∈C(n+m)×(n+m), |
A=(g(z1)⋯zm−11g(z1)⋮⋮g(zm)⋯zm−1mg(zm))∈Cm×m. |
We check easily that ˜Lf(z1,⋯,zm) is equivalent and congruent to the block diagonal matrix diag(ˆHp,ˆHd,D), where
D=(OA∗AB) |
and B=B∗∈Cm×m. Since detA=g(z1)⋯g(zm)∏1≤i<j≤m(zj−zi)≠0, A is a nonsingular m×m matrix. Applying Lemma 4.3, we obtain that ν(Lf(z1,⋯,zm))=ν(ˆHp)+ν(ˆHd)+m=ν(H)+n−n1. Therefore, κ≥ν(H)+n−n1, as needed.
Let us turn to prove the "if" part. First we suppose that κ=ν(H) and H is a proper Hankel matrix. Then, degp(z)=n1<n, and by Lemma 2.1, fγ,p(z)=−γ(z)/p(z) admits the asymptotic expansion (1.2) at infinity. By Corollary 3.6, we have fγ,p(z)∈Nκ′, in which κ′=ν(H(p,γ))=ν(ˆHp)=ν(Hp)=ν(H)=κ, then fγ,p(z) is a solution of the degenerate HM(Nκ) problem.
Now, we suppose that κ≥ν(H)+n−n1. The proof is divided into two cases.
Case I: degp(z)=n1. In this case, by Lemma 2.4, H=Hp is a proper Hankel matrix, and the asymptotic expansion (2.2) holds. Assume that
fγ,p(z)=−s0z−s1z2−⋯−s2n−2z2n−1−⋯−s2n2−2z2n2−1+o(z−2n2+1)(z→∞). | (4.4) |
We define an n2×n2 Hankel matrix by
Hn2=(˜si+j)n2−1i,j=0,˜sk={sk,k≠2n−1;sk+1,k=2n−1. | (4.5) |
Analogous to the proof of Lemma 2.5, there exists a nonsingular matrix ˜Q of order n2 such that
˜QHn2˜Q∗=(Hn10000A∗0AB), |
in which
Hn1=(si+j)n1−1i,j=0,A=(01...1∗)∈C(n−n1)×(n−n1). |
Clearly, the Hankel matrix Hn2 defined by (4.4) and (4.5) is nonsingular. Moreover, by Lemma 4.3, we have ν(Hn2)=ν(Hn1)+n−n1=ν(H)+n−n1≤κ, then by Theorem 4.1, there exists a function f(z)∈Nκ such that the following asymptotic expansion at infinity
f(z)= −˜s0z−˜s1z2−⋯−˜s2n−2z2n−1−⋯−˜s2n2−2z2n2−1+o(z−2n2+1) |
holds when z tends to ∞ in the sector πϵ(0). This means that f(z) is a solution of the degenerate HM(Nκ) problem.
Case II: degp(z)<n1. By Lemma 2.1, fd,q(z)=−δ(z)/q(z) admits the asymptotic expansion (2.3) at infinity. We assume that
fd,q(z)=−s0z−s1z2−⋯−s2n−2z2n−1−⋯−s2n2−2z2n2−1+o(z−2n2+1)(z→∞). | (4.6) |
We define an n2×n2 Hankel matrix by
Hn2=(si+j)n2−1i,j=0. | (4.7) |
Analogous to the proof of Lemma 2.5, there exists a nonsingular matrix ˜Q of order n2 such that
˜QHn2˜Q∗=(ˆHp00000n−n10A00ˆHdB∗0ABC), |
in which ˆHp and ˆHd are the same as in (2.7), and
A=(Oˆs1...⋮ˆs1⋯ˆsn−n1) (ˆs1≠0),B=(ˆsi+j)n2−n,ti,j=1,C=(ˆsi+j+t)n2−ni,j=1 |
are real Hankel matrices. We check easily that the Hankel matrix Hn2 defined by (4.6) and (4.7) is nonsingular. Moreover, it is furtherly equivalent and congruent to the following block diagonal matrix:
Λ=diag(ˆHp,ˆHd,(0n−n1A∗A˜C)), |
in which ˜C is a real symmetric matrix of order n2−n. Applying Lemma 4.3, we obtain that ν(Hn2)=ν(Λ)=ν(ˆHp)+ν(ˆHd)+n−n1=ν(H)+n−n1≤κ, then by Theorem 4.1, there exists a function f(z)∈Nκ such that the following asymptotic expansion at infinity
f(z)= −s0z−s1z2−⋯−s2n−2z2n−1−⋯−s2n2−2z2n2−1+o(z−2n2+1) |
holds when z tends to ∞ in the sector πϵ(0). This implies that f(z) is a solution of the degenerate HM(Nκ) problem, and the proof of Theorem 4.4 is completed.
From the proofs of Theorems 4.1 and 4.4, we can obtain a concrete rational solution with the least McMillan degree among all rational solutions of the degenerate HM(Nκ) problem, when the solvability conditions are met.
Theorem 4.5. Let H=(si+j)n−1i,j=0 given by (1.3) be singular, and let n1,n2 and [p(z),q(z),γ(z),δ(z)] be the first characteristic degree, the second characteristic degree and the characteristic quadruple of H, respectively.
(1) If κ=ν(H) and H is a proper Hankel matrix, then r(z)=−γ(z)/p(z) is a rational solution with the least McMillan degree among all rational solutions of the HM(Nκ) problem;
(2) If κ≥ν(H)+n−n1, then r(z)=−β(z)/v(z) is a rational solution with the least McMillan degree among all rational solutions of the HM(Nκ) problem, where [u(z),v(z),α(z),β(z)] is the characteristic quadruple of the Hankel matrix Hκ+n−ν(H)=(si+j)κ+n−ν(H)−1i,j=0 defined by (4.4) if κ+n−ν(H)=n2 and degp(z)=n1, by (4.6) if κ+n−ν(H)=n2 and degp(z)<n1, and defined recursively by
s2n2+2k−3=0,s2n2+2k−2=(sn2+k,⋯,s2n2+2k−3)H−1n2+k−1(sn2+k,⋯,s2n2+2k−3)T−1, k=1,2,⋯ |
if κ+n−ν(H)>n2.
Proof. We see from the proofs of Theorems 4.1 and 4.4 that the rational function r(z) presented in Theorem 4.5 for each case is a solution of the HM(Nκ) problem. Now it remains to prove that such a rational solution has the least McMillan degree among all rational solutions of the HM(Nκ) problem, when the solvability conditions are met. We divide the proof into two cases.
Case I: κ=ν(H) and H is a proper Hankel matrix. In this case, degr(z)=degp(z)=n1 and ˆHp=(si+j)n1−1i,j=0 is nonsingular. Assume that the HM(Nκ) problem has a rational solution f(z) such that degf(z)<n1, then there exist two co-prime real polynomials a(z),b(z) such that f(z)=b(z)/a(z), dega(z)≤n1−1. Let a(z)=a0+a1z+⋯+an1−1zn1−1. In view of the fact that
f(z)=b(z)a(z)=−s0z−s1z2−⋯−s2n−2z2n−1+o(z−2n+1), |
we have ˆHp(a0,a1,⋯,an1−1)T=0. It contradicts to the nonsingularity of ˆHp, then r(z)=−γ(z)/p(z) is a rational solution of the HM(Nκ) problem with the least McMillan degree n1.
Case II: κ≥ν(H)+n−n1. In this case, degr(z)=degv(z)=κ+n−ν(H). If the HM(Nκ) problem has a rational solution f(z) such that degf(z)=t<κ+n−ν(H), then there exist two coprime real polynomials a(z),b(z) such that f(z)=b(z)/a(z) and dega(z)=t. Let
f(z)=b(z)a(z)=−s′0z−s′1z2−⋯−s′2k−2z2k−1+⋯(z→∞) |
in which s′i=si, i=1,⋯,2n−2, and let H′k=(s′i+j)k−1i,j=0, k=1,2,⋯. By Corollary 3.6, we have ν(H′t)=κ≥ν(H)+n−n1. If t<n2, then H′n2 is singular and, thus, ν(H′t)≤ν(H′n2)<ν(H)+(n2−n1)/2=ν(H)+n−n1. It is a contradiction. Therefore, t≥n2 and H′n2 is a principle submatrix of H′t. By the interlacing relation between the eigenvalues of a Hermitian matrix and its principle submatrices (see, e.g., [14, Theorem 4.3.28]),
ν(H′t)≤ν(H′n2)+t−n2≤ν(H)+n2−n12+t−n2=ν(H)+t−n<κ. |
It is also a contradiction, and r(z)=−β(z)/v(z) is a rational solution of the HM(Nκ) problem with the least McMillan degree κ+n−ν(H).
In this paper, we introduced some basic structural characteristics of the Hankel matrix, such as the first and second characteristic degrees, the characteristic polynomial quadruple and the quasidirect decomposition for the singular case, and then, we applied these structural characteristics and the relation among the Hankel, Loewner, Bezout and some other structured matrices to deduce several new properties of the functions in the class Nκ and the solvability criterion of the HM(Nκ) problem for both the non-degenerate and degenerate cases. As a by-product, we simultaneously obtained a rational solution of the HM(Nκ) problem with the least McMillan degree when the solvability conditions were met.
The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
The corresponding author is supported by the Scientific Research Fund from Beijing Normal University at Zhuhai (Grant No. 111032119).
Yongjian Hu is the Guest Editor of special issue "Matrix theory and its applications" for AIMS Mathematics. Yongjian Hu was not involved in the editorial review and the decision to publish this article. All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
[1] | W. J. Rugh, Linear system theory, 2 Eds., Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1996. |
[2] | H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear systems, 3 Eds., Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2002. |
[3] |
A. BenAbdallah, M. Dlala, M. A. Hammami, A new Lyapunov function for stability of time-varying nonlinear perturbed systems, Syst. Control Lett., 56 (2007), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysconle.2006.08.009 doi: 10.1016/j.sysconle.2006.08.009
![]() |
[4] |
X. Song, S. Li, A. Li, Practical stability of nonlinear differential equation with initial time difference, Appl. Math. Comput., 203 (2008), 157–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2008.04.014 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2008.04.014
![]() |
[5] |
A. Benabdallah, I. Ellouze, M. A. Hammami, Practical stability of nonlinear time-varying cascade systems, J. Dyn. Control Syst., 15 (2009), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10883-008-9057-5 doi: 10.1007/s10883-008-9057-5
![]() |
[6] |
B. Ghanmi, N. Hadj Taieb, M. A. Hammami, Growth conditions for exponential stability of time-varying perturbed systems, Int. J. Control, 86 (2013), 1086–1097. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207179.2013.774464 doi: 10.1080/00207179.2013.774464
![]() |
[7] |
B. Ben Hamed, Z. Haj Salem, M. A. Hammami, Stability of nonlinear time-varying perturbed differential equations, Nonlinear Dyn., 73 (2013), 1353–1365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-013-0868-x doi: 10.1007/s11071-013-0868-x
![]() |
[8] |
Y. Cao, J. Sun, Practical stability of nonlinear measure differential equations, Nonlinear Anal.-Hybri., 30 (2018), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nahs.2018.05.010 doi: 10.1016/j.nahs.2018.05.010
![]() |
[9] |
G. Chen, Y. Yang, New stability conditions for a class of linear time-varying systems, Automatica, 71 (2016), 342–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2016.05.005 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2016.05.005
![]() |
[10] |
B. Zhou, On asymptotic stability of linear time-varying systems, Automatica, 68 (2016), 266–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2015.12.030 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2015.12.030
![]() |
[11] |
B. Zhou, T. Zhao, On asymptotic stability of discrete-time linear time-varying systems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 62 (2017), 4274–4281. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2017.2689499 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2017.2689499
![]() |
[12] |
B. Zhou, Stability analysis of non-linear time-varying systems by Lyapunov functions with indefinite derivatives, IET Control Theory Appl., 11 (2017), 1434–1442. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-cta.2016.1538 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2016.1538
![]() |
[13] |
N. H. Taieb, Indefinite derivative for stability of time-varying nonlinear systems, IMA J. Math. Control Inf., 38 (2021), 534–551. https://doi.org/10.1093/imamci/dnaa040 doi: 10.1093/imamci/dnaa040
![]() |
[14] |
N. H. Taieb, Stability analysis for time-varying nonlinear systems, Int. J. Control, 95 (2022), 1497–1506. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207179.2020.1861332 doi: 10.1080/00207179.2020.1861332
![]() |
[15] |
G. Chen, Y. Yang, Relaxed conditions for the input-to-state stability of switched nonlinear time-varying systems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 62 (2017), 4706–4712. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2016.2625979 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2016.2625979
![]() |
[16] |
J. Lu, Z. She, W. Feng, S. S. Ge, Stabilizability of time-varying switched systems based on piecewise continuous scalar functions, IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 64 (2019), 2637–2644. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2018.2867933 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2018.2867933
![]() |
[17] |
T. Zhao, B. Zhou, W. Michiels, Stability analysis of linear time-varying time-delay systems by non-quadratic Lyapunov functions with indefinite derivatives, Syst. Control Lett., 122 (2018), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysconle.2018.09.012 doi: 10.1016/j.sysconle.2018.09.012
![]() |
[18] |
G. Şahan, Stability analysis by a nonlinear upper bound on the derivative of Lyapunov function, Eur. J. Control, 56 (2020), 118–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcon.2020.02.006 doi: 10.1016/j.ejcon.2020.02.006
![]() |
[19] | M. Bohner, A. Peterson, Dynamic equations on time scales: an introduction with applications, Birkhäuser, Boston, 2001. |
[20] | M. Bohner, A. Peterson, Advances in dynamic equations on time scales, Birkhäuser, Boston, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-8176-8230-9 |
[21] | C. Pötzsche, S. Siegmund, F. Wirth, A spectral characterization of exponential stability for linear time-invariant systems on time scales, Discrete Cont. Dyn. Syst., 9 (2003), 1223–1241. |
[22] |
J. J. DaCunha, Stability for time varying linear dynamic systems on time scales, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 176 (2005), 381–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2004.07.026 doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2004.07.026
![]() |
[23] | A. C. Peterson, Y. N. Raffoul, Exponential stability of dynamic equations on time scales, Adv. Differ. Equ., 2005 (2005), 133–144. |
[24] |
N. H. Du, L. H. Tien, On the exponential stability of dynamic equations on time scales, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 331 (2007), 1159–1174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2006.09.033 doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2006.09.033
![]() |
[25] |
Z. Bartosiewicz, E. Piotrowska, Lyapunov functions in stability of nonlinear systems on time scales, J. Differ. Equ. Appl., 17 (2011), 309–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/10236190902932734 doi: 10.1080/10236190902932734
![]() |
[26] |
K. Mukdasai, P. Niamsup, An LMI approach to stability for linear time-varying system with nonlinear perturbation on time scales, Abstr. Appl. Anal., 2011 (2011), 860506. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/860506 doi: 10.1155/2011/860506
![]() |
[27] |
B. Ben Nasser, K. Boukerrioua, M. A. Hammami, On stability and stabilization of perturbed time scale systems with Gronwall inequalities, J. Math. Phys. Anal. Geom., 11 (2015), 207–235. https://doi.org/10.15407/mag11.03.207 doi: 10.15407/mag11.03.207
![]() |
[28] |
B. Ben Nasser, K. Boukerrioua, M. Defoort, M. Djemai, M. A. Hammami, State feedback stabilization of a class of uncertain nonlinear systems on non-uniform time domains, Syst. Control Lett., 97 (2016), 18–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sysconle.2016.08.005 doi: 10.1016/j.sysconle.2016.08.005
![]() |
[29] | A. A. Martynyuk, Stability theory for dynamic equations on time scales, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2016. |
[30] |
A. Hamza, K. Oraby, Stability of abstract dynamic equations on time scales by Lyapunov's second method, Turk. J. Math., 42 (2018), 841–861. https://doi.org/10.3906/mat-1703-65 doi: 10.3906/mat-1703-65
![]() |
[31] |
B. Ben Nasser, K. Boukerrioua, M. Defoort, M. Djemai, M. A. Hammami, T. M. Laleg-Kirati, Sufficient conditions for uniform exponential stability and h-stability of some classes of dynamic equations on arbitrary time scales, Nonlinear Anal.-Hybri., 32 (2019), 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nahs.2018.10.009 doi: 10.1016/j.nahs.2018.10.009
![]() |
[32] |
X. Zhang, X. Lu, On stability analysis of nonlinear time-delay systems on time scales, Systems Control Lett., 131 (2019), 104498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysconle.2019.104498 doi: 10.1016/j.sysconle.2019.104498
![]() |
[33] |
X. Lu, X. Zhang, Z. Liu, Improved stability criteria for linear time-varying systems on time scales, Int. J. Control, 93 (2020), 1651–1658. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207179.2018.1523569 doi: 10.1080/00207179.2018.1523569
![]() |
[34] | E. Akin-Bohner, M. Bohner, F. Akin, Pachpatte inequalities on time scales, J. Inequal. Pure Appl. Math., 6 (2005), 1–50. |