Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Clarification of Poincaré–Bendixson theorem!

  1. Dec 27, 2014 #1

    ShayanJ

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I wanna know is my understanding on PB theorem correct or not. What I understand is, if I define a differentiable real dynamical system on an open subset of plane(so the theorem only applies to dynamical systems in 2 spatial dimensions), the system, as [itex] t\to \infty [/itex], will have only one of the following behaviours:
    1) Stands still at a point.
    2) Moves periodically.
    3) Moves from one equilibrium point to another with no periodicity.

    Thanks
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 27, 2014 #2

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I know of two more behaviors:

    4) Unphysical systems can also run off to infinity

    5) a chaotic attractor is a non periodic attractor
     
  4. Dec 27, 2014 #3

    ShayanJ

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    1) What is the definition of unphysical?

    2) It seems to me that that #5 is just the same as #3!
     
  5. Dec 27, 2014 #4

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    1) no conservation of mass/energy/charge

    2) the chaotic attractor is itself an attractor, no equilibrium point is reached or the system wouldn't be chaotic (or would only be transiently chaotic).
     
  6. Dec 27, 2014 #5

    ShayanJ

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    At first I should ask does the fact that you're discussing these issues mean that I had a right understanding of the theorem? If yes, then why it seems that what you're saying is contradicting the theorem, by introducing additional behaviours?(Maybe you're talking about 3D dynamical systems while the theorem is only about 2D dynamical systems!) If no, then why aren't you answering my initial question? Because you don't know enough about the theorem too?
     
  7. Dec 27, 2014 #6

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I thought you were speaking of dynamical systems in general as a background to PB. You haven't actually seemed to touch on PB itself yet.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2014
  8. Dec 27, 2014 #7

    ShayanJ

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Actually my main reason in posting this thread is clarifying PB theorem for myself. Of course further discussions are interesting and I'll appreciate them but now I'm just lost more because your previous posts seem to be incompatible with the theorem.
    So can you state the theorem in a self-contained manner which doesn't need much pre-study?
     
  9. Dec 27, 2014 #8

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Ahh, I see what you mean. You're right, there's no chaos in 2D systems. Your 1) is wrong though. PB states that a fixed point exists in the region. The point isn't necessarily stable, so solutions may run away from it, off to infinity.
     
  10. Dec 27, 2014 #9

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    And also your 3) mentions heteroclinic orbits... but the trajectory can return to the point it came from - a homoclinic orbit.
     
  11. Dec 27, 2014 #10

    ShayanJ

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    So I have problem with the definition of a fixed point. Is it simply where a spatial derivative becomes zero? Or there is more to it?
     
  12. Dec 27, 2014 #11

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It is. However, for an unstable point (or a saddle node) this doesn't mean trajectories will ever come to the node. An unstable fixed point repels all trajectories unless it starts right on the unstable node. Think of it like the tip of a mountain. A nearby ball will quickly leave the vicinity of the mountain tip; but you can carefully balance the ball at the tip and (assuming no wind or earthquakes) it will stay there indefinitely. However, all balls don't start on the mountain tip.
     
  13. Dec 28, 2014 #12

    ShayanJ

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    But saddle points are minimums of a curve passing from that point and maximums of another(necessarily orthogonal to the former curve?) and a regular point on other curves. So its possible that the particle starts moving in the curve where the saddle point is a minimum and moves toward the saddle point. Then, when the particle reaches the saddle point, its in a stable equilibrium w.r.t. on curve and in an unstable one on another curve and a regular one on any other curves. So if there'll be no push, the particle should stand still there, right?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Clarification of Poincaré–Bendixson theorem!
  1. Theorem Reminder (Replies: 8)

  2. Identity theorem (Replies: 9)

  3. Rademacher's Theorem (Replies: 1)

Loading...