Is there a Bound for x(t) in Terms of C_1 and C_2?

  • Thread starter Thread starter motherh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bounded
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the continuity and boundedness of a function x(t) defined on the interval [0,T), subject to an integral inequality involving constants C1 and C2. Participants are exploring the implications of Gronwall's inequality in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Some participants attempt to apply Gronwall's inequality to derive bounds for x(t), while others express uncertainty about bounding the integral of logx(s). There is also a question regarding the meaning of logx(s) and its implications for the problem.

Discussion Status

The discussion includes various attempts to manipulate the inequality and explore the behavior of the function. Some participants suggest that the form of the bound may not be suitable for applying Gronwall's inequality effectively. There is an ongoing exploration of the worst-case scenario for x(t) and its implications for proving boundedness.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of the problem statement and are questioning the assumptions related to the behavior of the function x(t) and its logarithmic counterpart.

motherh
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Hi, I want to answer the following question:

x=x(t) is continuous on [0,T) and satisfies

1 ≤ x(t) ≤ C[itex]_{1}[/itex] + C[itex]_{2}[/itex]∫[itex]^{t}_{0}[/itex] x(s)(1+logx(s)) ds

for 0 ≤ t < T. Prove x(t) is bounded on [0,T].Using Gronwall's inequality I get to

x(t) ≤ C[itex]_{1}[/itex]exp( C[itex]_{2}[/itex] ∫[itex]^{t}_{0}[/itex] (1+logx(s)) ds )

≤ C[itex]_{1}[/itex]exp( C[itex]_{2}[/itex]t + C[itex]_{2}[/itex]∫[itex]^{t}_{0}[/itex] logx(s) ds )

Can I say that this is less than C[itex]_{1}[/itex]exp( C[itex]_{2}[/itex]T + ∫[itex]^{T}_{0}[/itex] logx(s) ds ) ?

I'm not too sure where to proceed from here. Would it be helpful to use x(s) > logx(s)?

Any help is appreciated!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Can anybody help at all? I'm not sure how to bound the integral of logx(s).
 
motherh said:
Hi, I want to answer the following question:

x=x(t) is continuous on [0,T) and satisfies

1 ≤ x(t) ≤ C[itex]_{1}[/itex] + C[itex]_{2}[/itex]∫[itex]^{t}_{0}[/itex] x(s)(1+logx(s)) ds

for 0 ≤ t < T. Prove x(t) is bounded on [0,T].
What does logx(s) mean?
motherh said:
Using Gronwall's inequality I get to

x(t) ≤ C[itex]_{1}[/itex]exp( C[itex]_{2}[/itex] ∫[itex]^{t}_{0}[/itex] (1+logx(s)) ds )

≤ C[itex]_{1}[/itex]exp( C[itex]_{2}[/itex]t + C[itex]_{2}[/itex]∫[itex]^{t}_{0}[/itex] logx(s) ds )

Can I say that this is less than C[itex]_{1}[/itex]exp( C[itex]_{2}[/itex]T + ∫[itex]^{T}_{0}[/itex] logx(s) ds ) ?

I'm not too sure where to proceed from here. Would it be helpful to use x(s) > logx(s)?

Any help is appreciated!
 
motherh said:
Hi, I want to answer the following question:

x=x(t) is continuous on [0,T) and satisfies

1 ≤ x(t) ≤ C[itex]_{1}[/itex] + C[itex]_{2}[/itex]∫[itex]^{t}_{0}[/itex] x(s)(1+logx(s)) ds

for 0 ≤ t < T. Prove x(t) is bounded on [0,T].Using Gronwall's inequality

Gronwall's inequality will not help you here; your bound is not of the correct form.

You have
[tex]1 \leq x(t) \leq U(t) = C_1 + C_2 \int_0^t x(s)(1 + \log x(s))\,ds.[/tex]

The worst case scenario is [itex]x(t) = U(t)[/itex], which gives
[tex] U(t) = C_1 + C_2 \int_0^t U(s)(1 + \log U(s))\,ds.[/tex]

The right hand side is differentiable, so we obtain
[tex] \frac{dU}{dt} = C_2 U (1 + \log U)[/tex]
This can be solved subject to the initial condition [itex]U(0) = C_1[/itex] to obtain [itex]U(t)[/itex], and one can then check whether
[tex] \lim_{t \to T^{-}} U(t)[/tex]
is finite.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K