AAA Abstract and Applied Analysis 1687-0409 1085-3375 Hindawi Publishing Corporation 613038 10.1155/2012/613038 613038 Research Article A Generalized Nonuniform Contraction and Lyapunov Function Liao Fang-fang 1 Jiang Yongxin 2 Xie Zhiting 2 Sun Juntao 1 Nanjing College of Information Technology Nanjing 210046 China njcit.cn 2 Department of Mathematics College of Science Hohai University Nanjing 210098 China hhu.edu.cn 2012 27 12 2012 2012 19 11 2012 01 12 2012 2012 Copyright © 2012 Fang-fang Liao et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

For nonautonomous linear equations x=A(t)x, we give a complete characterization of general nonuniform contractions in terms of Lyapunov functions. We consider the general case of nonuniform contractions, which corresponds to the existence of what we call nonuniform (D,μ)-contractions. As an application, we establish the robustness of the nonuniform contraction under sufficiently small linear perturbations. Moreover, we show that the stability of a nonuniform contraction persists under sufficiently small nonlinear perturbations.

1. Introduction

We consider nonautonomous linear equations (1.1)x=A(t)x, where A:0+(X) is a continuous function with values in the space of bounded linear operators in a Banach space X. Our main aim is to characterize the existence of a general nonuniform contraction for (1.1) in terms of Lyapunov functions.

We assume that each solution of (1.1) is global, and we denote the corresponding evolution operator by T(t,s), which is the linear operator such that (1.2)T(t,s)x(s)=x(t),t,s0+, for any solution x(t) of (1.1). Clearly, T(t,t)=Id and (1.3)T(t,τ)T(τ,s)=T(t,s),t,τ,s0+. We shall say that an increasing function μ:0+[1,+) is a growth rate if (1.4)μ(0)=1,limt+μ(t)=+. Given two growth rates μ,ν, we say that (1.1) admits a nonuniform (μ,ν)-contraction if there exist constants K,α>0 and ε0 such that (1.5)T(t,s)K(μ(t)μ(s))-ανε(s),ts0. We emphasize that the notion of nonuniform (μ,ν)-contraction often occurs under reasonably weak assumptions. We refer the reader to  for details.

In this work, we mainly consider more general nonuniform contractions (see (2.1) below) and we give a complete characterization of such contractions in terms of Lyapunov functions, especially in terms of quadratic Lyapunov functions, which are Lyapunov functions defined in terms of quadratic forms. The importance of Lyapunov functions is well established, particularly in the study of the stability of trajectories both under linear and nonlinear perturbations. This study goes back to the seminal work of Lyapunov in his 1892 thesis . For more results, we refer the reader to  for the classical exponential contractions and dichotomies,  for the nonuniform exponential contractions and nonuniform exponential dichotomies.

The proof of this paper follows from the ideas in [9, 10]. As an application, we provide a very direct proof of the robustness of the nonuniform contraction, that is, of the persistence of the nonuniform contraction in the equation (1.6)x=[A(t)+B(t)]x for any sufficiently small linear perturbation B(t). We remark that the so-called robustness problem also has a long history. In particular, the problem was discussed by Massera and Schäffer , Perron , Coppel  and in the case of Banach spaces by Daletskiĭ and Kreĭn . For more recent work we refer to  and the references therein.

Furthermore, for a large class of nonlinear perturbations f(t,x) with f(t,0)=0 for every t, we show that if (1.1) admits a nonuniform contraction, then the zero solution of the equation (1.7)x=A(t)x+f(t,x) is stable. The proof uses the corresponding characterization between the nonuniform contractions and quadratic Lyapunov functions.

2. Lyapunov Functions and Nonuniform Contractions

Given a growth rate μ and a function D:0+(0,+), we say that (1.1) admits a nonuniform (D,μ)-contraction if there exists a constant α>0 such that (2.1)T(t,s)D(s)(μ(t)μ(s))-α,ts0. The nonuniform (μ,ν)-contraction is a special case of nonuniform (D,μ)-contraction with D(s)=Kνε(s).

Now we introduce the notion of Lyapunov functions. We say that a continuous function V:(0,+)×X0- is a strict Lyapunov function to (1.1) if

for every t>0 and xX, (2.2)x|V(t,x)|D(t)x,

for every ts>0 and xX, (2.3)V(s,x)V(t,T(t,s)x),

there exists a constant γ>0 such that for every ts>0 and xX, (2.4)|V(t,T(t,s)x)|(μ(t)μ(s))-γ|V(s,x)|.

The following result gives an optimal characterization of nonuniform (D,μ)-contractions in terms of strict Lyapunov functions.

Theorem 2.1.

(1.1) admits a nonuniform (D,μ)-contraction if and only if there exists a strict Lyapunov function for (1.1).

Proof.

We assume that there exists a strict Lyapunov function for (1.1). By (1) and (3), for every ts>0 and xX, we have (2.5)T(t,s)x|V(t,T(t,s)x)|(μ(t)μ(s))-γ|V(s,x)|D(s)(μ(t)μ(s))-γx. Therefore, (1.1) admits a nonuniform (D,μ)-contraction with α=γ.

Next we assume that (1.1) admits a nonuniform (D,μ)-contraction. For t>0 and xX, we set (2.6)V(t,x)=-sup{T(τ,t)x(μ(τ)μ(t))α:τt}. By (2.1), we have |V(t,x)|D(t)x. Moreover, setting τ=t, we obtain |V(t,x)|x. This establishes (1). Furthermore, for ts, we have (2.7)|V(t,T(t,s)x)|=sup{T(τ,t)T(t,s)x(μ(τ)μ(t))α:τt}=(μ(s)μ(t))αsup{T(τ,s)x(μ(τ)μ(s))α:τt}(μ(s)μ(t))αsup{T(τ,s)x(μ(τ)μ(s))α:τs}=(μ(t)μ(s))-α|V(s,x)|. Therefore, V is a strict Lyapunov function for (1.1).

Next we consider another class of Lyapunov functions, namely, those defined in terms of quadratic forms.

Let S(t)(X) be a symmetric positive-definite operator for each t>0. A quadratic Lyapunov function V is given as (2.8)H(t,x)=S(t)x,x,V(t,x)=-H(t,x). Given linear operators M,N, we write MN if Mx,xNx,x for xX.

Theorem 2.2.

Assume that there exist constants c>0 and d1 such that (2.9)T(t,s)cwheneverμ(t)dμ(s),ts>0. Then (1.1) admits a nonuniform (D,μ)-contraction (up to a multiplicative constant) if and only if there exist symmetric positive definite operators S(t) and constants C,K>0 such that S(t) is of class C1 in t>0 and (2.10)S(t)CD(t)2,(2.11)S(t)+A*(t)S(t)+S(t)A(t)-(Id+KS(t))μ(t)μ(t).

Proof.

We first assume that (1.1) admits a nonuniform (D,μ)-contraction. Consider the linear operators (2.12)S(t)=tT(τ,t)*T(τ,t)(μ(τ)μ(t))2(α-ρ)μ(τ)μ(τ)dτ, for some constant ρ(0,α). Clearly, S(t) is symmetric for each t>0. Moreover, by (2.8), we have (2.13)H(t,x)=tT(τ,t)x2(μ(τ)μ(t))2(α-ρ)μ(τ)μ(τ)dτD(t)2x2t(μ(τ)μ(t))-2ρμ(τ)μ(τ)dτ=D(t)22ρx2. Since S(t) is symmetric, we obtain (2.14)S(t)=supx0|H(t,x)|x2D(t)22ρ and therefore (2.10) holds. Since (2.15)tT(τ,t)=-T(τ,t)A(t),tT(τ,t)*=-A(t)*T(τ,t)*, we find that S(t) is of class C1 in t with derivative (2.16)S(t)=-μ(t)μ(t)-tA(t)*T(τ,t)*T(τ,t)(μ(τ)μ(t))2(α-ρ)μ(τ)μ(τ)dτ-tT(τ,t)*T(τ,t)A(t)(μ(τ)μ(t))2(α-ρ)μ(τ)μ(τ)dτ-2(α-ρ)μ(t)μ(t)tT(τ,t)*T(τ,t)(μ(τ)μ(t))2(α-ρ)μ(τ)μ(τ)dτ, which implies that (2.17)S(t)=-μ(t)μ(t)-A(t)*S(t)-S(t)A(t)-2(α-ρ)μ(t)μ(t)S(t). Therefore, (2.18)S(t)+A(t)*S(t)+S(t)A(t)=-μ(t)μ(t)(Id+2(α-ρ)S(t)), which establishes (2.11) with K=2(α-ρ).

Now we assume that conditions (2.9) and (2.10)-(2.11) hold. Set x(t)=T(t,τ)x(τ). By (2.10), we have(2.19)H(t,x(t))S(t)·x(t)2CD(t)2x(t)2.

Lemma  2.3. There exists a constant η>0 such that(2.20)H(t,x(t))ηx(t)2.

Proof of Lemma  2.3. Note that(2.21)ddtH(t,x(t))=S(t)x(t),x(t)+S(t)A(t)x(t),x(t)+S(t)x(t),A(t)x(t)=(S(t)+S(t)A(t)+A(t)*S(t))x(t),x(t). Hence, by condition (2.11), and the fact that K>0 we obtain (2.22)ddtH(t,x(t))-μ(t)μ(t)x(t)2. Now given τ>0, take t>τ such that μ(t)=dμ(τ) with d as in (2.9). Then (2.23)H(t,x(t))-H(τ,x(τ))=τtddvH(v,x(v))dv-τtμ(v)μ(v)x(v)2dv=-τtμ(v)μ(v)T(v,τ)x(τ)2dv-x(τ)2τtμ(v)μ(v)1T(τ,v)2dv. It follows from (2.9) that(2.24)H(t,x(t))-H(τ,x(τ))-1c2x(τ)2τtμ(v)μ(v)dv=-logdc2x(τ)2. Since H(t,x(t))0, we have (2.25)H(τ,x(τ))H(τ,x(τ))-H(t,x(t))logdc2x(τ)2 which yields (2.20) with η=(logd)/c2>0.

Lemma  2.4. For tτ, one has(2.26)H(t,x(t))(μ(t)μ(τ))-KH(τ,x(τ)).

Proof of Lemma  2.4. By conditions (2.11) and (2.21), we have (2.27)ddtH(t,x(t))-Kμ(t)μ(t)H(t,x(t)). Therefore, (2.28)H(t,x(t))-H(τ,x(τ))=τtddvH(v,x(v))dv-Kτtμ(v)μ(v)H(v,x(v))dv. It follows from Gronwall’s lemma that (2.29)H(t,x(t))(μ(t)μ(τ))-KH(τ,x(τ)), which yields the desired result.

By Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4 together with (2.19), we obtain (2.30)T(t,τ)x(τ)2=x(t)2η-1H(t,x(t))η-1(μ(t)μ(τ))-KH(τ,x(τ))η-1CD(τ)2(μ(t)μ(τ))-Kx(τ)2, and therefore, (2.31)T(t,τ)2η-1CD(τ)2(μ(t)μ(τ))-K, which implies that (1.1) admits a nonuniform (D,μ)-contraction.

As an application of Theorem 2.2, we establish the robustness of nonuniform (D,μ)-contractions. Roughly speaking, a nonuniform contraction for (1.1) is said to be robust if (1.6) still admits a nonuniform contraction for any sufficiently small perturbation B(t).

Theorem  2.5. Let A , B : 0 + ( X ) be continuous functions such that (1.1) admits a nonuniform (D,μ)-contraction with condition (2.9). Suppose further that D(t)1 for every t>0 and(2.32)B(t)δD-2(t)μ(t)μ(t),t>0for some δ>0 sufficiently small. Then (1.6) admits a nonuniform (D,μ)-contraction.

Proof.

Let U(t,s) be the evolution operator associated to (1.6). It is easy to verify that (2.33)U(t,s)=T(t,s)+stT(t,τ)B(τ)U(τ,s)dτ. For every ts>0 with μ(t)dμ(s), we have (2.34)U(t,s)c+stcδD-2(τ)μ(τ)μ(τ)U(τ,s)dτc+cδstμ(τ)μ(τ)U(τ,s)dτ. Using Gronwall’s inequality, we obtain (2.35)U(t,s)cexp(cδstμ(τ)μ(τ)dτ)cexp(cδlogd) for every ts>0 with μ(t)dμ(s). Therefore condition (2.9) also holds for the perturbed equation (1.6).

Now we consider the matrices S(t) in (2.12). Condition (2.10) can be obtained as in the proof of Theorem 2.2. For condition (2.11), it is sufficient to show that (2.36)S(t)B(t)+B(t)*S(t)ϑμ(t)μ(t)Id for some constant ϑ<1. Using (2.10) and (2.32), we have (2.37)S(t)B(t)+B(t)*S(t)2S(t)·B(t)2CD(t)2δD(t)-2μ(t)μ(t)=2Cδμ(t)μ(t), and taking δ sufficiently small, we find that (2.36) holds with some ϑ<1.

3. Stability of Nonlinear Perturbations

Before stating the result, we fist prove an equivalent characterization of property (3). Given matrices S(t)(X) for each t0+, we consider the functions (3.1)H˙(t,x)=ddhH(t+h,T(t+h,h)x)|h=0,V˙(t,x)=ddhV(t+h,T(t+h,h)x)|h=0, whenever the derivatives are well defined and H,V are given as (2.8).

Lemma 3.1.

Let V,μ be C1 functions. Then property (3) is equivalent to (3.2)V˙(t,T(t,τ)x)-γV(t,T(t,τ)x)μ(t)μ(t),t>τ.

Proof.

Now we assume that property (3) holds. If t>τ and h>0, then (3.3)V(t+h,T(t+h,τ)x)=V(t+h,T(t+h,t)T(t,τ)x)(μ(t+h)μ(t))-γV(t,T(t,τ)x),limh0+V(t+h,T(t+h,τ)x)-V(t,T(t,τ)x)hV(t,T(t,τ)x)limh0+(μ(t+h)/μ(t))-γ-1h=-γV(t,T(t,τ)x)μ(t)μ(t). Similarly, if h<0 is such that t+h>τ, then (3.4)V(t+h,T(t+h,τ)x)(μ(t+h)μ(t))-γV(t,T(t,τ)x),limh0-V(t+h,T(t+h,τ)x)-V(t,T(t,τ)x)hV(t,T(t,τ)x)limh0-(μ(t+h)/μ(t))-γ-1h=-γV(t,T(t,τ)x)μ(t)μ(t). This establishes (3.2).

Next we assume that (3.2) holds. We rewrite (3.2) in the form (3.5)V˙(t,T(t,τ)x)V(t,T(t,τ)x)-γμ(t)μ(t),t>τ, which implies that (3.6)log(V(t,T(t,τ)x)V(τ,x))=τtV˙(v,T(v,τ)x)V(v,T(v,τ)x)dv-γτtμ(v)μ(v)dv=log(μ(t)μ(τ))-γ, and hence property (3) holds.

Theorem 3.2.

Assume that (1.1) admits a nonuniform (D,μ)-contraction satisfying (2.9). Suppose further that there exists a constant l>0 such that l<α and (3.7)f(t,x)lμ(t)μ(t)x,t>0,xX. Then for each k>-α+l, there exists C>0 such that (3.8)y(t)CD(s)(μ(t)μ(s))ky(s),ts for every solution y(t) of (1.7).

Proof.

For S(t) as in (2.12) and H(t,x(t)) as in (2.8), we have, for every ts, (3.9)H(t,T(t,s)x(s))=tT(v,s)x(s)2(μ(v)μ(t))2(α-ρ)μ(v)μ(v)dv=(μ(t)μ(s))-2(α-ρ)tT(v,s)x(s)2(μ(v)μ(s))2(α-ρ)μ(v)μ(v)dv(μ(t)μ(s))-2(α-ρ)sT(v,s)x(s)2(μ(v)μ(s))2(α-ρ)μ(v)μ(v)dv=(μ(t)μ(s))-2(α-ρ)H(s,x(s)). Since V(t,x)=-H(t,x), we have (3.10)V(t,T(t,s)x(s))(μ(t)μ(s))-(α-ρ)V(s,x(s)),ts. Applying Lemma 3.1, we obtain (3.11)V˙(t,T(t,s)x(s))-(α-ρ)μ(t)μ(t)V(t,T(t,s)x(s)),ts. In particular, for t=s, (3.12)V˙(s,x(s))-(α-ρ)μ(s)μ(s)V(s,x(s)). From the identity H˙=2VV˙ that for every s>0 and xX, we have (3.13)H˙(s,x)-2(α-ρ)μ(s)μ(s)H(s,x). On the other hand, (3.14)H˙(s,x)=(S(s)+S(s)A(s)+A(s)*S(s))x,x. Therefore, (3.15)0H˙(s,x)+2(α-ρ)μ(s)μ(s)H(s,x)=(S(s)+S(s)A(s)+A(s)*S(s)+2(α-ρ)μ(s)μ(s)S(s))x,x, and hence (3.16)S(t)+S(t)A(t)+A(t)*S(t)+2(α-ρ)μ(t)μ(t)S(t)0. Therefore, if y(t) is a solution of (1.7), then (3.17)ddtH(t,y(t))=S(t)y(t),y(t)+S(t)A(t)y(t),y(t)+S(t)y(t),A(t)y(t)+S(t)f(t,y(t)),y(t)+S(t)y(t),f(t,y(t))=(S(t)+S(t)A(t)+A(t)*S(t))y(t),y(t)+(S(t)+S(t)*)y(t),f(t,y(t))-2(α-ρ)μ(t)μ(t)S(t)·y(t)2+(S(t)+S(t)*)y(t),f(t,y(t))-2(α-ρ)μ(t)μ(t)S(t)·y(t)2+2S(t)·f(t,y(t))·y(t)-2(α-ρ)μ(t)μ(t)S(t)·y(t)2+2lμ(t)μ(t)S(t)·y(t)2=-2(α-ρ-l)μ(t)μ(t)S(t)·y(t)2. If ρ is small enough such that α-ρ-l>0, then (3.18)ddtH(t,y(t))-2(α-ρ-l)μ(t)μ(t)H(t,y(t)), and hence (3.19)H(t,y(t))-H(s,y(s))-2(α-ρ-l)stμ(τ)μ(τ)H(τ,y(τ))dτ. It follows from Gronwall’s inequality that (3.20)H(t,y(t))H(s,y(s))(μ(t)μ(s))-2(α-ρ-l),ts. Now given s>0, take t>s such that μ(t)=dμ(s) with d as in (2.9). Then (3.21)H(s,y(s))=sT(τ,s)y(s)2(μ(τ)μ(s))2(α-ρ)μ(τ)μ(τ)dτstT(τ,s)y(s)2(μ(τ)μ(s))2(α-ρ)μ(τ)μ(τ)dτ1c2y(s)2st(μ(τ)μ(s))2(α-ρ)μ(τ)μ(τ)dτ=12c2(α-ρ)y(s)2{(μ(t)μ(s))2(α-ρ)-1}=12c2(α-ρ)y(s)2{d2(α-ρ)-1}. Taking (3.22)κ=12c2(α-ρ){d2(α-ρ)-1}>0, then (3.23)H(s,y(s))κy(s)2. It follows from (2.13) and (3.20) that (3.24)y(t)κ1/2H(t,y(t))κ1/2H(s,y(s))(μ(t)μ(s))-(α-ρ-l)κ1/212ρD(s)(μ(t)μ(s))-(α-ρ-l)y(s). Now the proof is finished.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to deliver great thanks to Professor Jifeng Chu for his valuable suggestions and comments. Y. Jiang was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.

Barreira L. Chu J. Valls C. Robustness of nonuniform dichotomies with different growth rates São Paulo Journal of Mathematical Sciences 2011 5 1 29 Lyapunov A. M. The General Problem of the Stability of Motion 1992 Taylor & Francis Coppel W. A. Dichotomies in Stability Theory 1978 629 Berlin, Germany Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics 0481196 Hahn W. Stability of Motion 1967 Springer Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften 138 0223668 LaSalle J. Lefschetz S. Stability by Liapunov's Direct Method with Applications 1961 4 Academic Press Mathematics in Science and Engineering Mitropolsky Y. A. Samoilenko A. M. Kulik V. L. Dichotomies and Stability in Nonautonomous Linear Systems 2003 14 Taylor & Francis Stability and Control: Theory, Methods and Applications 1964741 Barreira L. Valls C. Stability of Nonautonomous Differential Equations 2008 1926 Berlin, Germany Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics 10.1007/978-3-540-74775-8 2368551 Barreira L. Valls C. Quadratic Lyapunov functions and nonuniform exponential dichotomies Journal of Differential Equations 2009 246 3 1235 1263 10.1016/j.jde.2008.06.008 2474593 Barreira L. Chu J. Valls C. Lyapunov functions for general nonuniform dichotomies Preprint Barreira L. Valls C. Lyapunov functions versus exponential contractions Mathematische Zeitschrift 2011 268 1-2 187 196 10.1007/s00209-010-0665-x 2805429 Massera J. L. Schäffer J. J. Linear differential equations and functional analysis. I Annals of Mathematics 1958 67 517 573 0096985 Perron O. Die Stabilitätsfrage bei Differentialgleichungen Mathematische Zeitschrift 1930 32 1 703 728 10.1007/BF01194662 1545194 Daletskiĭ J. Kreĭn M. Stability of Solutions of Differential Equations in Banach Space 1974 American Mathematical Society Translations of Mathematical Monographs 43 Barreira L. Valls C. Robustness via Lyapunov functions Journal of Differential Equations 2009 246 7 2891 2907 10.1016/j.jde.2008.11.010 2503027 Chow S.-N. Leiva H. Existence and roughness of the exponential dichotomy for skew-product semiflow in Banach spaces Journal of Differential Equations 1995 120 2 429 477 10.1006/jdeq.1995.1117 1347351 Pliss V. A. Sell G. R. Robustness of exponential dichotomies in infinite-dimensional dynamical systems Journal of Dynamics and Differential Equations 1999 11 3 471 513 10.1023/A:1021913903923 1693858