Difference of period between cartesian and polar eigenvalue representation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

This discussion revolves around the differences in period calculations for solutions to linear differential equations when using Cartesian versus polar eigenvalue representations. Participants explore the implications of complex eigenvalues and their representations in different forms, focusing on the conditions under which periods are defined.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Will introduces the concept of period T for a solution y=exp(ax) where a is complex, suggesting T=2pi/c when a=b+ic and questioning how this changes when a is expressed in polar form as a=r*exp(iθ).
  • Another participant argues against Will's assertion, providing a counterexample where a=-1 leads to an infinite period, thus challenging the validity of T=2pi/θ.
  • Will references a paper discussing a linear stability analysis, presenting a characteristic equation and a period formula T=2pi/arctan(sqrt(4b-b^2)/(2-b)), expressing confusion over the dimensionality of the period.
  • A participant questions the dimensional consistency of the period derived from the paper, suggesting it may be a typo and recommending checking for errata or numerical data.
  • Will later clarifies that the problem involves a discrete system rather than a continuous one, leading to a resolution where the period is confirmed as T=2pi/θ in the context of the discrete model.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the period calculations, particularly in the transition from Cartesian to polar forms. While Will ultimately finds clarity in the context of a discrete system, the initial debate remains unresolved regarding the general case of complex eigenvalues.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential limitations in the dimensionality of the period derived from the paper and the assumptions made regarding the nature of the system (discrete vs. continuous). The implications of these assumptions on the period calculations are not fully resolved.

williamrand1
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
The solution to a linear differential equation is, y=exp(ax). If a is complex ,say a=b+ic, then the period is T=2pi/c. My question is, if a is in polar form, a=r*exp(iθ), how is the period then T=2pi/θ.

Any help would be great,

Thank,

Will
 
Physics news on Phys.org
williamrand1 said:
The solution to a linear differential equation is, y=exp(ax). If a is complex ,say a=b+ic, then the period is T=2pi/c. My question is, if a is in polar form, a=r*exp(iθ), how is the period then T=2pi/θ.
It isn't. Consider a trivial case where [itex]a=-1=exp(i\pi)[/itex]. Obviously the period of y is infinite because there is no complex component to a. Therefore the period is not 2, which your latter formula would suggest.
 
Ibix said:
It isn't. Consider a trivial case where [itex]a=-1=exp(i\pi)[/itex]. Obviously the period of y is infinite because there is no complex component to a. Therefore the period is not 2, which your latter formula would suggest.

Thanks Ibix.

I understand ur point.

Im reading a paper and in it a linear stability analysis is done on a model. The characteristic eqt turns out to be, a^2 -(2-d)*a +1=0, a is the eigenvalue and d is a constant from the jacobian matrix. In the paper they say the period of the cycle of the linearised form is T=2pi/arctan(sqrt(4b-b^2)/(2-b)). The denominator of T is equal to θ.

Thanks,

Will
 
williamrand1 said:
Thanks Ibix.

I understand ur point.

Im reading a paper and in it a linear stability analysis is done on a model. The characteristic eqt turns out to be, a^2 -(2-d)*a +1=0, a is the eigenvalue and d is a constant from the jacobian matrix. In the paper they say the period of the cycle of the linearised form is T=2pi/arctan(sqrt(4b-b^2)/(2-b)). The denominator of T is equal to θ.

Thanks,

Will

Sorry, in the equation for T it should be d not b. Any help would be great. Thanks..
 
Obviously I haven't seen the paper so I might be missing something, but that does not make sense to me.

One, the range of values for T depends on the choice of range of arctan, which is absurd. Two, the right-hand side of the expression for T is dimensionless when it should have dimensions of time.

My money is on a typo in the paper. Might there be an erratum notice somewhere? Is there any numerical data in the paper that you can check, or subsequent derivations?

You could try posting a link to the paper. I'm afraid I shall be out of touch for a few days, but someone else might be able to help.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Ibix.

I emailed the author of the paper, hopefully he can explained it to me.

Ill let you know the result...
 
williamrand1 said:
Thanks Ibix.

I emailed the author of the paper, hopefully he can explained it to me.

Ill let you know the result...

Problem Solved!

The problem used a discrete system, not a continuous one. So the linearized solution is y=a^k. so in polar form a=r*exp(iθ) then y=r^k * exp(iθk) so the period would be T=2pi/θ.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K