Equilibria analysis for Biomath Problem

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding positive equilibria for a system of difference equations related to biomathematics. The equations involve parameters a and b, which are both greater than zero. Participants are tasked with determining conditions for local asymptotic stability of the equilibria.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to identify equilibria and evaluate the Jacobian matrix at these points. They express confusion regarding the implications of a zero matrix for stability analysis and question the validity of their derived conditions for stability.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, raising questions about the implications of their findings and seeking clarification on concepts such as asymptotic stability. There is a mix of attempts to derive conditions and reflections on the nature of the equilibria.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the constraints of the problem, including the requirement for parameters a and b to be positive, and express uncertainty about the implications of their mathematical findings, particularly regarding the stability of the zero matrix and the derived inequalities.

end3r7
Messages
168
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Find all the positive equilibria for the system of the difference equations
[tex]x(t+1) = \frac{ax(t)y(t)}{1+x(t)};<br /> <br /> y(t+1) = \frac{bx(t)y(t)}{1+y(t)}[/tex]
a, b > 0.
Then determine conditions on parameters so the equilibriums are locally asymptotically stable.

Homework Equations


An equilibrium point will have corresponding eigenvalues < 1 iff [tex]|Trace(J)| < 1 + det(J) < 2[/tex],
where J is the Jacobian matrix of the system evaluated at the equilibrium point.
In this case [tex]J = \left(<br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> \frac{ay(t)}{1+x(t)} - \frac{ax(t)y(t)}{(1+x(t))^2} & \frac{ax(t)}{1+x(t)}\\<br /> \frac{by(t)}{1+y(t)} & \frac{bx(t)}{1+y(t)} - \frac{bx(t)y(t)}{(1+y(t))^2}<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution


I found the following equilibria
(0,0) and [tex](\frac{1+a}{ab-1},\frac{1+b}{ab-1}); ab > 1[/tex]
The Jacobian Matrix evaluated at (0,0) gives me a zero matrix. So that means the trivial solution is always stable for any choice of parameters a,b, right? Or do I have to look at H.O.T.?

The Jacobian matrix for the second point is:
[tex]J = \left(<br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> \frac{ab-1}{ab+a} & \frac{1+a}{1+b}\\<br /> \frac{1+b}{1+a} & \frac{ab-1}{ab+b}<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)[/tex]

or, if I let x and y denote the equilibrium points

[tex]J = \left(<br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> \frac{1}{ay} & \frac{x}{y}\\<br /> \frac{y}{x} & \frac{1}{bx}<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)[/tex]

And since the trace is always positive, we have the following requirements
[tex]ax + by < 1 < 2aybx[/tex]
Or [tex](ab)(xy) > \frac{1}{2}[/tex]
and [tex]ay + bx < 1[/tex]

Does that make any sense?
If we substitute x and y back in though, we get nonsense (something like, pos number < -1).

What am I doing wrong?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry about the confusion fellas, first time using latex in a long time.
Any questions about my work, I'll be gladly to answer. And if possible, don't tell me the answer, but rather around where my thinking goes wrong.
Thanks in advance,
 
Does the zero matrix mean that I have to consider the nonlinear terms of the Jacobian? Cuz that would suck =P
 
end3r7 said:
Does the zero matrix mean that I have to consider the nonlinear terms of the Jacobian? Cuz that would suck =P

Oops, I'm thinking Differential Equations, where the nonhyperbolic/stationary case is when the Jacobian Matrix is the zero Matrix. For difference, I would have to consider H.O.T. if the Jacobian was the identity, which it clearly isn't.
So I guess (0,0) is asymptotically stable, which makes sense if you look a the equations I guess. For x, y small it should converge.

Am I right?
 
What is the formal definition of asymptotically stable?
 
Well, locally asymptotically stability implies that it's both stable and attracting.

That is, given a certain distance from equilibrium point, it will not ever exceed that distance (stable), and will eventually converge to the equilibrium (attracting).

For the vector function X(t+1) = F(X(t)), where X(t) is a vector depending on x,y, whatever...
An equilibrium T is locally stable if for any E > 0 there exists D > 0 such that if |X(0) - T| < D, then |X(t) - T| < E
It's attracting if lim X(t) = T.
 
Can you show formally that either of your equilibria satisfy the definition?
 
EnumaElish said:
Can you show formally that either of your equilibria satisfy the definition?

Yes. But it really doens't matter, I know I"m supposed to use it, because that's what the book tells me. =P But yea, I can show it does.
 
Anyway, the identity that's giving me problems is the following

[tex]ay + bx < 1[/tex]

which is equivalent to

a + 2ab + b < ab - 1
or a + ab + b + 1 < 0, which is impossible since a,b>0
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K