Observability and existence and uniqueness

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of observability, existence, and uniqueness in control systems, particularly in relation to state variables. Participants explore the implications of unobservable systems and how they relate to the definitions of states and outputs in dynamic systems.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that if a system is unobservable, it implies that two different initial conditions can produce the same output, raising questions about the validity of the state definition.
  • One participant provides an example using a mass-spring-damper system to illustrate their concerns about the uniqueness of outputs based on initial conditions.
  • Another participant emphasizes that for a variable to be considered a state, it must have dynamic equations describing its behavior, suggesting that knowledge of the initial state and input can still determine the output.
  • There is a challenge regarding whether having two initial conditions yielding the same output violates the definition of a state, with differing opinions on this matter.
  • A later reply uses an analogy with a parallel RC circuit to argue that the definition of a state remains intact despite the output converging to the same value over time.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the implications of unobservability on the definition of states. Some believe it violates the state definition, while others argue it does not. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not reached a consensus on the relationship between observability and the definition of states, and there are unresolved assumptions regarding the implications of unobservable systems on the uniqueness of outputs.

Aerostd
Messages
16
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I have set up this problem for myself.

Let P be a system of the form

x' = Ax + Bu
y = Cx + Du

The definition of a "state" is:

"x(t) is a state for a system P if knowledge of x at some initial time t_{0} and the input u(t), t \geq t_{0} is sufficient to uniquely determine y(t) for t \geq t_{0}."

Let us consider only the free response (input 0). My understanding is that if x(t) is a state, then each selection of x_{0} will yield a unique y(t).

Now here is one definition for observability:

"A system P is observable if and only if the initial state x_{0} can be determined uniquely from its zero-input response over a finite time interval."

The thing that has been bothering me is this. If a system in unobservable, then that means that we can find two different initial conditions that give the same free response. Does that mean that if a system is unobservable, the existence and uniqueness conditions are violated? And if so, does that not mean that the x(t) we chose are not even states by definition?

Homework Equations



Here is an example. Suppose i have mass spring damper system.

x'' = -(c/m)x' - (k/m)x

We define our state variables as:

x_{1} = x
x_{2} = x'

Then,

x'_{1} = x_{2}
x'_{2} = x'_{1} = x'' = -(c/m)x_{2} - (k/m)x_{1}

Let my output be

y = x_{1}+x_{2};

Now, just for argument, suppose i define a third state variable

x_{3} = height of a random bouncing ball far away from the mass spring damper system.

My "state" is now x = [x_{1} x_{2} x_{3}]^{T}.

The Attempt at a Solution



I think it is safe to say that x_{3} will never appear in the output. The initial condition vector [1 1 10]^{T} and [1 1 20]^{T} will give the same free response. I know x_{3} is unobservable. I also think that since two different initial conditions give me the same output, therefore by definition, my choice of the state is not even a state since i do not get a unique output for two different initial conditions.
I think i am wrong. But i don't know where.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Aerostd said:

Homework Statement



I have set up this problem for myself.

Let P be a system of the form

x' = Ax + Bu
y = Cx + Du

The definition of a "state" is:

"x(t) is a state for a system P if knowledge of x at some initial time t_{0} and the input u(t), t \geq t_{0} is sufficient to uniquely determine y(t) for t \geq t_{0}."

Let us consider only the free response (input 0). My understanding is that if x(t) is a state, then each selection of x_{0} will yield a unique y(t).

Now here is one definition for observability:

"A system P is observable if and only if the initial state x_{0} can be determined uniquely from its zero-input response over a finite time interval."

The thing that has been bothering me is this. If a system in unobservable, then that means that we can find two different initial conditions that give the same free response. Does that mean that if a system is unobservable, the existence and uniqueness conditions are violated? And if so, does that not mean that the x(t) we chose are not even states by definition?

Homework Equations



Here is an example. Suppose i have mass spring damper system.

x'' = -(c/m)x' - (k/m)x

We define our state variables as:

x_{1} = x
x_{2} = x'

Then,

x'_{1} = x_{2}
x'_{2} = x'_{1} = x'' = -(c/m)x_{2} - (k/m)x_{1}

Let my output be

y = x_{1}+x_{2};

Now, just for argument, suppose i define a third state variable

x_{3} = height of a random bouncing ball far away from the mass spring damper system.

My "state" is now x = [x_{1} x_{2} x_{3}]^{T}.


The Attempt at a Solution



I think it is safe to say that x_{3} will never appear in the output. The initial condition vector [1 1 10]^{T} and [1 1 20]^{T} will give the same free response. I know x_{3} is unobservable. I also think that since two different initial conditions give me the same output, therefore by definition, my choice of the state is not even a state since i do not get a unique output for two different initial conditions.



I think i am wrong. But i don't know where.

For x_{3} to be a state variable of your system, you must write the dynamic equations describing its behavior.
In this case, knowing the initial state and the input (0 for the ball), you can determine the output y of the system. You can also know the state (value of the 3 variables) any time in the future.
What you can't do is to determine the initial state from observation of the output.
 
CEL said:
For x_{3} to be a state variable of your system, you must write the dynamic equations describing its behavior.
In this case, knowing the initial state and the input (0 for the ball), you can determine the output y of the system. You can also know the state (value of the 3 variables) any time in the future.
What you can't do is to determine the initial state from observation of the output.

My question is that if two different initial conditions give you the same free response, doesn't that violate the definition of a state?
 
Aerostd said:
My question is that if two different initial conditions give you the same free response, doesn't that violate the definition of a state?

No. Read again the definition.
Think of a parallel RC circuit and take the voltage and current on the capacitor as state variables.
If you charge the capacitor with any voltage, the state at t = infinity will be current and voltage both equal to zero.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K