0% found this document useful (0 votes)
75 views4 pages

Differential Geometry - Number of Limit Cycles: Counterexample of The Extended Bendixson-Dulac Criterion? - Mathematics Stack Exchange

The document discusses a counterexample to the extended Bendixson-Dulac criterion for determining the maximum number of limit cycles in a system of differential equations. Specifically, the system contains two limit cycles within a region D, violating the criterion which states there should be at most one limit cycle since the complement of D has only one bounded component. The user is unsure if the region outside D should also be considered a complement region.

Uploaded by

Nicole Martinez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
75 views4 pages

Differential Geometry - Number of Limit Cycles: Counterexample of The Extended Bendixson-Dulac Criterion? - Mathematics Stack Exchange

The document discusses a counterexample to the extended Bendixson-Dulac criterion for determining the maximum number of limit cycles in a system of differential equations. Specifically, the system contains two limit cycles within a region D, violating the criterion which states there should be at most one limit cycle since the complement of D has only one bounded component. The user is unsure if the region outside D should also be considered a complement region.

Uploaded by

Nicole Martinez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

differential geometry - Number of limit cycles: Counterexample of the extended Bendixson-Dulac criterion?

- Mathematics Stack Exchange 26-05-21 23:08

Mathematics Stack Exchange is a Anybody can ask a question


question and answer site for people
studying math at any level and
professionals in related fields. It only Anybody can answer
takes a minute to sign up.

Sign up to join this community The best answers are voted up


and rise to the top

Number of limit cycles: Counterexample of the extended


Bendixson-Dulac criterion?
Asked 6 years, 9 months ago Active 6 years, 9 months ago Viewed 553 times

The problem concerns the number of limit cycles in the vector field of coupled differential
equations (ODEs) in two dimensions, i.e.
2
𝑥˙ = 𝑋(𝑥, 𝑦)
𝑦˙ = 𝑌 (𝑥, 𝑦)
Specifically, let

⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
2 ⎜ 100(−66.3357 + 𝑥) ⎟
𝑋= ⎜−99 − − 2𝑥 − 150𝑦2 (85 + 𝑥)⎟
( )
15
Your privacy ⎜ (1 + 0.00491694𝑒−0.136986𝑥)3 1 + 4684.43𝑒
0.04𝑥

⎝ all cookies”, you agree Stack Exchange (−1+ 𝑦 ) ⎠
1 2.336
By clicking “Accept
can store cookies on your device and disclose information
𝑌 = 0.00653522 + 𝑦(0.0118225 + 0.000846776𝑥) + 0.0000821902𝑥
in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
The functions 𝑋 and 𝑌 reflect a reduced Hodgkin-Huxley model of neuronal firing. I have
considered a region 𝐷 in
Accept all the plane such that -70< 𝑥 < 20, 0.04< 𝑦 < 0.16 and 𝑀(𝑥, 𝑦) > 0. A
cookies
function 𝑓 : 𝐷 → 𝑅 that I believe is a Dulac function candidate in 𝐷 is
Customize settings
log((𝑥 + 71)𝑦)
𝑓(𝑥, 𝑦) =
𝑋(𝑥, 𝑦)

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/901400/number-of-limit-cycles-counterexample-of-the-extended-bendixson-dulac-criterion Página 1 de 4
differential geometry - Number of limit cycles: Counterexample of the extended Bendixson-Dulac criterion? - Mathematics Stack Exchange 26-05-21 23:08

Cumputing

∂ ∂
𝑀(𝑥, 𝑦) = (𝑓𝑋) + (𝑓𝑌 ) > 0
∂𝑥 ∂𝑦

yields that 𝐷 is a multiple connected region, however there are two limit cycles in the plane
and only one "hole" (see figure below, one unstable limit cycle and one stable, not fully shown).
By this paper, one bounded complement should limit the number of limit cycles to one. Or is
the region outside 𝐷 also a complement region that should be counted (obviously it is not in
𝐷 , although not encircled by the limit cycles)? The proof for this theorem in the linked paper
only concerns complement regions contained by limit cycles..

Well, I might also be missing something fundamental.

I realized that the paper I refer to requires subscription. Here is the theorem and the proof of it
(N.G. Lloyd (1979) A note of the number of limit functions in certain two-dimensional systems,
J. London Mat. Soc. (2), 20:277-286). It is also given as Theorem 2.1 in this freely available
paper.

THEOREM. Suppose that 𝐷 is an open, connected subset of the plane and that 𝑋
and 𝑌 have continuous first order partial derivatives in D. Suppose further that
there is a continuously differentiable function 𝑓 : 𝐷 → 𝑅 such that

∂ ∂
(𝑓𝑋) + (𝑓𝑌 ) ≠ 0
∂𝑥 ∂𝑦

in D. If c𝐷 (the complement of 𝐷 ) has 𝑘 bounded components, then the [system] has


at most 𝑘 limit cycles entirely contained in 𝐷 .

Proof. Let the bounded components of c𝐷 be 𝐷1 , … , 𝐷𝑘 ; the argument does infact


apply when 𝑘 = 0 (which is, of course, the configuration of Bendixson's theorem). We
show that if F is a limit cycle entirely contained in 𝐷 , then the interior domain,Γ∘ say,
of Γ∘ contains at least one 𝐷𝑖 which is adjacent to Γ∘ in the sense that 𝐷𝑖 is encircled
by no other limit cycle of [the system] which is contained in Γ∘ . Having proved this we
can immediately conclude that there are at least as many 𝐷𝑖 , as there are limit cycles
entirely contained in 𝐷 ; hence there are at most 𝑘 limit cycles entirely contained in
𝐷.

The proof is by contradiction. Let Γ be a closed orbit such that 𝐷1 , … , 𝐷𝑟 , say, are
contained in Γ∘ . Suppose, if possible, that every 𝐷𝑖 is encircled by a closed orbit. Let
Γ1 , … , Γ𝑠 , be closed orbits entirely contained in Γ∘ which are so chosen that together

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/901400/number-of-limit-cycles-counterexample-of-the-extended-bendixson-dulac-criterion Página 2 de 4
differential geometry - Number of limit cycles: Counterexample of the extended Bendixson-Dulac criterion? - Mathematics Stack Exchange 26-05-21 23:08

they encircle 𝐷1 , … , 𝐷𝑟 , in the sense that


𝑠


𝐷𝑖 ⊂ Γ∘𝑗 (𝑗 = 1, … , 𝑟)
𝑗=1

(wher Γ∘𝑗 is the interior domain of Γ𝑗 ), and furthermore are such that the Γ∘𝑗 are
mutually disjoint. Then 𝑠 ≤ 𝑟 , and the set
𝑠

⋃ 𝑖
𝑅=Γ∖ (Γ∘ ∪ Γ𝑖 )
𝑖=1

is an open, connected subset of 𝐷 . We now apply Green's theorem to 𝑅 . We have


𝑠

∫ ∫𝑅 [ ∂𝑥
(𝑓𝑌 )] =
∂ ∂
∫Γ ∑ ∫Γ𝑖
(𝑓𝑋) + 𝑓(−𝑌 𝑑𝑥 + 𝑋𝑑𝑦) − 𝑓(−𝑌 𝑑𝑥 + 𝑋𝑑𝑦).
∂𝑦 𝑖=1

Since Γ and Γ𝑖 (𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑠) are orbits of the system, every term on the right hand
side is zero. But by the [inequality above] the left hand side is non-zero. This is the
contradiction we sought.

limits differential-geometry dynamical-systems fixed-point-theorems

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/901400/number-of-limit-cycles-counterexample-of-the-extended-bendixson-dulac-criterion Página 3 de 4
differential geometry - Number of limit cycles: Counterexample of the extended Bendixson-Dulac criterion? - Mathematics Stack Exchange 26-05-21 23:08

Share Cite Follow edited Aug 19 '14 at 19:47 asked Aug 17 '14 at 21:10
user170245 Hugo
3 1 31 3

The papers you mentioned requires subscription for viewing. – user137035 Aug 18 '14 at 7:19

Thanks for pointing that out. Theorem added. – Hugo Aug 18 '14 at 13:17

1 The pictures, as shown, contradict the divergence theorem rather directly (without need for
referencing the paper): Let Ω be the doubly connected region between the periodic orbits; then
[𝑓𝑋, 𝑓𝑌 ] is a vector field with positive divergence in Ω but with zero flux across the boundary (since
it's tangent to ∂Ω ). So... there must be a mistake somewhere. For one thing, are you sure you can
divide by 𝑋(𝑥, 𝑦) ? This function turns into zero in places, namely where the vector field is vertical. –
user147263 Aug 19 '14 at 23:54

Yes, there is an N-shaped nullcline of 𝑋 passing through 𝐷 , so there is a division with zero along this
line and consequently 𝑀 vanish to infinity. However, the sign is still positive.. I assume that this
might relate to the notion of "almost everywhere" (i.e. 𝑀 vanishing only on a set of zero Lebesgue
measure). Given that the nullcline is a line the Lebesgue measure is one, I assume. This might be the
problem, I agree, although I'm not certain why. – Hugo Aug 20 '14 at 8:02

1 Answer Active Oldest Votes

I believe I have found my mistake (thanks to the comment above). The division with 𝑋(𝑥, 𝑦)
violate the assumption that 𝑓 is a 𝐶 1 function in 𝐷 since the derivative is not continuous,
1 approaching infinity from two directions around the nullcline of 𝑋(𝑥, 𝑦) . Therefore one of the
assumption of the Bendixon-Dulac theorem does not hold and a conclusion regarding the
number of limit cycles cannot be made.

Share Cite Follow edited Aug 20 '14 at 13:39 answered Aug 20 '14 at 8:32
Hugo
31 3

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/901400/number-of-limit-cycles-counterexample-of-the-extended-bendixson-dulac-criterion Página 4 de 4

You might also like