Application of Gronwall Inequality to existence of solutions
Consider the $N$-dimensional autonomous system of ODEs
$$dot{x}= f(x),$$
where $f(x)$ is defined for any $x in mathbb{R}^N$, and satisfies $||f(x)|| leq alpha||x||$, where $alpha$ is a positive scalar constant, and the norm $||x||$ is the usual quadratic norm (the sum of squared components of a vector under the square root). Using Gronwall’s inequality, show that the solution emerging from any point $x_0inmathbb{R}^N$ exists for any finite time.
Here is my proposed solution.
We can first write $f(x)$ as an integral equation,
$$x(t) = x_0 + int_{t_0}^{t} f(x(s)) ds$$
where the integration constant is chosen such that $x(t_0)=x_0$. WLOG, assume that $t_0=0$. Then,
begin{equation}
begin{split}
||x(t)|| & = ||x_0 + int_{0}^{t} f(x(s)) ds|| \
& leq ||x_0|| + ||int_{0}^{t} f(x(s)) ds|| \
& leq ||x_0|| + alphaint_{0}^{t} ||x(s)|| ds
end{split}
end{equation}
Therefore, by the integral form of Gronwall's inequality, we see that
begin{equation}
begin{split}
||x(t)|| & leq ||x_0|| + alphaint_{0}^{t} ||x(s)|| ds \
& leq ||x_0||e^{alpha(t)}
end{split}
end{equation}
So, if we let $M = ||x_0||$, then $||x(t)||leq{{M}e^{alpha(t)}}$. Therefore, the solution is uniformly bounded on $[0,t]$ for $t>0$.
As $t>0$ was arbitrary, the solution is defined for all positive values of $t$.
We can then analyze what happens for negative values of $t$ by reversing time and applying the same argument to $[-t,0]$.
Once again assume that $t_0=0$. Then,
$$x(t) = x_0 + int_{-t}^{0} f(x(s)) ds$$
Therefore,
begin{equation}
begin{split}
||x(t)|| & = ||x_0 + int_{-t}^{0} f(x(s)) ds|| \
& leq ||x_0|| + ||int_{-t}^{0} f(x(s)) ds|| \
& leq ||x_0|| + alphaint_{-t}^{0} ||x(s)|| ds \
& leq ||x_0||e^{alpha(0+t)} \
& = {M}e^{alpha(t)}
end{split}
end{equation}
So, the solution is uniformly bounded on $[-t,0]$ for $t<0$.
Combining these two bounds, we see that the solution emerging from any point $x_0inmathbb{R}^N$ exists for any finite time.
Is this approach correct? Please let me know if there are any better alternatives.
differential-equations proof-verification integral-inequality
add a comment |
Consider the $N$-dimensional autonomous system of ODEs
$$dot{x}= f(x),$$
where $f(x)$ is defined for any $x in mathbb{R}^N$, and satisfies $||f(x)|| leq alpha||x||$, where $alpha$ is a positive scalar constant, and the norm $||x||$ is the usual quadratic norm (the sum of squared components of a vector under the square root). Using Gronwall’s inequality, show that the solution emerging from any point $x_0inmathbb{R}^N$ exists for any finite time.
Here is my proposed solution.
We can first write $f(x)$ as an integral equation,
$$x(t) = x_0 + int_{t_0}^{t} f(x(s)) ds$$
where the integration constant is chosen such that $x(t_0)=x_0$. WLOG, assume that $t_0=0$. Then,
begin{equation}
begin{split}
||x(t)|| & = ||x_0 + int_{0}^{t} f(x(s)) ds|| \
& leq ||x_0|| + ||int_{0}^{t} f(x(s)) ds|| \
& leq ||x_0|| + alphaint_{0}^{t} ||x(s)|| ds
end{split}
end{equation}
Therefore, by the integral form of Gronwall's inequality, we see that
begin{equation}
begin{split}
||x(t)|| & leq ||x_0|| + alphaint_{0}^{t} ||x(s)|| ds \
& leq ||x_0||e^{alpha(t)}
end{split}
end{equation}
So, if we let $M = ||x_0||$, then $||x(t)||leq{{M}e^{alpha(t)}}$. Therefore, the solution is uniformly bounded on $[0,t]$ for $t>0$.
As $t>0$ was arbitrary, the solution is defined for all positive values of $t$.
We can then analyze what happens for negative values of $t$ by reversing time and applying the same argument to $[-t,0]$.
Once again assume that $t_0=0$. Then,
$$x(t) = x_0 + int_{-t}^{0} f(x(s)) ds$$
Therefore,
begin{equation}
begin{split}
||x(t)|| & = ||x_0 + int_{-t}^{0} f(x(s)) ds|| \
& leq ||x_0|| + ||int_{-t}^{0} f(x(s)) ds|| \
& leq ||x_0|| + alphaint_{-t}^{0} ||x(s)|| ds \
& leq ||x_0||e^{alpha(0+t)} \
& = {M}e^{alpha(t)}
end{split}
end{equation}
So, the solution is uniformly bounded on $[-t,0]$ for $t<0$.
Combining these two bounds, we see that the solution emerging from any point $x_0inmathbb{R}^N$ exists for any finite time.
Is this approach correct? Please let me know if there are any better alternatives.
differential-equations proof-verification integral-inequality
I do not think there are better alternatives, but your approach is not complete. You have just proved that if a solution is defined on $[t_1,t_2]$ then its is somehow bounded. Now, apply the extension theorem: if a right-nonextendible solution $x(cdot)$ is defined on some $[t_1,T)$ with $T<infty$ then for any compact $Ksubsetmathbb{R}^N$ there is $tau<T$ such that $x(t)notin K$ for $tin(tau,T)$. And this contradicts your estimates.
– user539887
Dec 19 '18 at 19:41
Do you mean the Picard–Lindelöf theorem: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2531735/…? I didn't use that theorem because it is for local solutions. The Gronwall inequality is for global solutions. I'm not sure why I need to apply the extension theorem.
– Axion004
Dec 19 '18 at 20:20
No, I mean just the result stating what I wrote, see, e.g., Corollary 2.16 on p. 53 of Teschl's Ordinary Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems.
– user539887
Dec 19 '18 at 20:37
I see, I only showed that the solution is bounded. I have to argue by lemma 2.14/corollary 2.15/corollary 2.16 that the solution exists (from reading the proof of theorem 2.17, this follows directly from the compactness of the interval). I don't like the wording in corollary 2.16. I am going to spend some more time reading it and see if I understand.
– Axion004
Dec 19 '18 at 22:16
add a comment |
Consider the $N$-dimensional autonomous system of ODEs
$$dot{x}= f(x),$$
where $f(x)$ is defined for any $x in mathbb{R}^N$, and satisfies $||f(x)|| leq alpha||x||$, where $alpha$ is a positive scalar constant, and the norm $||x||$ is the usual quadratic norm (the sum of squared components of a vector under the square root). Using Gronwall’s inequality, show that the solution emerging from any point $x_0inmathbb{R}^N$ exists for any finite time.
Here is my proposed solution.
We can first write $f(x)$ as an integral equation,
$$x(t) = x_0 + int_{t_0}^{t} f(x(s)) ds$$
where the integration constant is chosen such that $x(t_0)=x_0$. WLOG, assume that $t_0=0$. Then,
begin{equation}
begin{split}
||x(t)|| & = ||x_0 + int_{0}^{t} f(x(s)) ds|| \
& leq ||x_0|| + ||int_{0}^{t} f(x(s)) ds|| \
& leq ||x_0|| + alphaint_{0}^{t} ||x(s)|| ds
end{split}
end{equation}
Therefore, by the integral form of Gronwall's inequality, we see that
begin{equation}
begin{split}
||x(t)|| & leq ||x_0|| + alphaint_{0}^{t} ||x(s)|| ds \
& leq ||x_0||e^{alpha(t)}
end{split}
end{equation}
So, if we let $M = ||x_0||$, then $||x(t)||leq{{M}e^{alpha(t)}}$. Therefore, the solution is uniformly bounded on $[0,t]$ for $t>0$.
As $t>0$ was arbitrary, the solution is defined for all positive values of $t$.
We can then analyze what happens for negative values of $t$ by reversing time and applying the same argument to $[-t,0]$.
Once again assume that $t_0=0$. Then,
$$x(t) = x_0 + int_{-t}^{0} f(x(s)) ds$$
Therefore,
begin{equation}
begin{split}
||x(t)|| & = ||x_0 + int_{-t}^{0} f(x(s)) ds|| \
& leq ||x_0|| + ||int_{-t}^{0} f(x(s)) ds|| \
& leq ||x_0|| + alphaint_{-t}^{0} ||x(s)|| ds \
& leq ||x_0||e^{alpha(0+t)} \
& = {M}e^{alpha(t)}
end{split}
end{equation}
So, the solution is uniformly bounded on $[-t,0]$ for $t<0$.
Combining these two bounds, we see that the solution emerging from any point $x_0inmathbb{R}^N$ exists for any finite time.
Is this approach correct? Please let me know if there are any better alternatives.
differential-equations proof-verification integral-inequality
Consider the $N$-dimensional autonomous system of ODEs
$$dot{x}= f(x),$$
where $f(x)$ is defined for any $x in mathbb{R}^N$, and satisfies $||f(x)|| leq alpha||x||$, where $alpha$ is a positive scalar constant, and the norm $||x||$ is the usual quadratic norm (the sum of squared components of a vector under the square root). Using Gronwall’s inequality, show that the solution emerging from any point $x_0inmathbb{R}^N$ exists for any finite time.
Here is my proposed solution.
We can first write $f(x)$ as an integral equation,
$$x(t) = x_0 + int_{t_0}^{t} f(x(s)) ds$$
where the integration constant is chosen such that $x(t_0)=x_0$. WLOG, assume that $t_0=0$. Then,
begin{equation}
begin{split}
||x(t)|| & = ||x_0 + int_{0}^{t} f(x(s)) ds|| \
& leq ||x_0|| + ||int_{0}^{t} f(x(s)) ds|| \
& leq ||x_0|| + alphaint_{0}^{t} ||x(s)|| ds
end{split}
end{equation}
Therefore, by the integral form of Gronwall's inequality, we see that
begin{equation}
begin{split}
||x(t)|| & leq ||x_0|| + alphaint_{0}^{t} ||x(s)|| ds \
& leq ||x_0||e^{alpha(t)}
end{split}
end{equation}
So, if we let $M = ||x_0||$, then $||x(t)||leq{{M}e^{alpha(t)}}$. Therefore, the solution is uniformly bounded on $[0,t]$ for $t>0$.
As $t>0$ was arbitrary, the solution is defined for all positive values of $t$.
We can then analyze what happens for negative values of $t$ by reversing time and applying the same argument to $[-t,0]$.
Once again assume that $t_0=0$. Then,
$$x(t) = x_0 + int_{-t}^{0} f(x(s)) ds$$
Therefore,
begin{equation}
begin{split}
||x(t)|| & = ||x_0 + int_{-t}^{0} f(x(s)) ds|| \
& leq ||x_0|| + ||int_{-t}^{0} f(x(s)) ds|| \
& leq ||x_0|| + alphaint_{-t}^{0} ||x(s)|| ds \
& leq ||x_0||e^{alpha(0+t)} \
& = {M}e^{alpha(t)}
end{split}
end{equation}
So, the solution is uniformly bounded on $[-t,0]$ for $t<0$.
Combining these two bounds, we see that the solution emerging from any point $x_0inmathbb{R}^N$ exists for any finite time.
Is this approach correct? Please let me know if there are any better alternatives.
differential-equations proof-verification integral-inequality
differential-equations proof-verification integral-inequality
asked Dec 19 '18 at 19:05
Axion004
237212
237212
I do not think there are better alternatives, but your approach is not complete. You have just proved that if a solution is defined on $[t_1,t_2]$ then its is somehow bounded. Now, apply the extension theorem: if a right-nonextendible solution $x(cdot)$ is defined on some $[t_1,T)$ with $T<infty$ then for any compact $Ksubsetmathbb{R}^N$ there is $tau<T$ such that $x(t)notin K$ for $tin(tau,T)$. And this contradicts your estimates.
– user539887
Dec 19 '18 at 19:41
Do you mean the Picard–Lindelöf theorem: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2531735/…? I didn't use that theorem because it is for local solutions. The Gronwall inequality is for global solutions. I'm not sure why I need to apply the extension theorem.
– Axion004
Dec 19 '18 at 20:20
No, I mean just the result stating what I wrote, see, e.g., Corollary 2.16 on p. 53 of Teschl's Ordinary Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems.
– user539887
Dec 19 '18 at 20:37
I see, I only showed that the solution is bounded. I have to argue by lemma 2.14/corollary 2.15/corollary 2.16 that the solution exists (from reading the proof of theorem 2.17, this follows directly from the compactness of the interval). I don't like the wording in corollary 2.16. I am going to spend some more time reading it and see if I understand.
– Axion004
Dec 19 '18 at 22:16
add a comment |
I do not think there are better alternatives, but your approach is not complete. You have just proved that if a solution is defined on $[t_1,t_2]$ then its is somehow bounded. Now, apply the extension theorem: if a right-nonextendible solution $x(cdot)$ is defined on some $[t_1,T)$ with $T<infty$ then for any compact $Ksubsetmathbb{R}^N$ there is $tau<T$ such that $x(t)notin K$ for $tin(tau,T)$. And this contradicts your estimates.
– user539887
Dec 19 '18 at 19:41
Do you mean the Picard–Lindelöf theorem: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2531735/…? I didn't use that theorem because it is for local solutions. The Gronwall inequality is for global solutions. I'm not sure why I need to apply the extension theorem.
– Axion004
Dec 19 '18 at 20:20
No, I mean just the result stating what I wrote, see, e.g., Corollary 2.16 on p. 53 of Teschl's Ordinary Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems.
– user539887
Dec 19 '18 at 20:37
I see, I only showed that the solution is bounded. I have to argue by lemma 2.14/corollary 2.15/corollary 2.16 that the solution exists (from reading the proof of theorem 2.17, this follows directly from the compactness of the interval). I don't like the wording in corollary 2.16. I am going to spend some more time reading it and see if I understand.
– Axion004
Dec 19 '18 at 22:16
I do not think there are better alternatives, but your approach is not complete. You have just proved that if a solution is defined on $[t_1,t_2]$ then its is somehow bounded. Now, apply the extension theorem: if a right-nonextendible solution $x(cdot)$ is defined on some $[t_1,T)$ with $T<infty$ then for any compact $Ksubsetmathbb{R}^N$ there is $tau<T$ such that $x(t)notin K$ for $tin(tau,T)$. And this contradicts your estimates.
– user539887
Dec 19 '18 at 19:41
I do not think there are better alternatives, but your approach is not complete. You have just proved that if a solution is defined on $[t_1,t_2]$ then its is somehow bounded. Now, apply the extension theorem: if a right-nonextendible solution $x(cdot)$ is defined on some $[t_1,T)$ with $T<infty$ then for any compact $Ksubsetmathbb{R}^N$ there is $tau<T$ such that $x(t)notin K$ for $tin(tau,T)$. And this contradicts your estimates.
– user539887
Dec 19 '18 at 19:41
Do you mean the Picard–Lindelöf theorem: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2531735/…? I didn't use that theorem because it is for local solutions. The Gronwall inequality is for global solutions. I'm not sure why I need to apply the extension theorem.
– Axion004
Dec 19 '18 at 20:20
Do you mean the Picard–Lindelöf theorem: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2531735/…? I didn't use that theorem because it is for local solutions. The Gronwall inequality is for global solutions. I'm not sure why I need to apply the extension theorem.
– Axion004
Dec 19 '18 at 20:20
No, I mean just the result stating what I wrote, see, e.g., Corollary 2.16 on p. 53 of Teschl's Ordinary Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems.
– user539887
Dec 19 '18 at 20:37
No, I mean just the result stating what I wrote, see, e.g., Corollary 2.16 on p. 53 of Teschl's Ordinary Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems.
– user539887
Dec 19 '18 at 20:37
I see, I only showed that the solution is bounded. I have to argue by lemma 2.14/corollary 2.15/corollary 2.16 that the solution exists (from reading the proof of theorem 2.17, this follows directly from the compactness of the interval). I don't like the wording in corollary 2.16. I am going to spend some more time reading it and see if I understand.
– Axion004
Dec 19 '18 at 22:16
I see, I only showed that the solution is bounded. I have to argue by lemma 2.14/corollary 2.15/corollary 2.16 that the solution exists (from reading the proof of theorem 2.17, this follows directly from the compactness of the interval). I don't like the wording in corollary 2.16. I am going to spend some more time reading it and see if I understand.
– Axion004
Dec 19 '18 at 22:16
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
As explained in the comments, the proposed answer only shows that the solution is bounded between some arbitrary interval $[t_1,t_2]$ where $t_1,t_2,inmathbb{R}$. We also need to show that we can extend the solution to any interval of finite length.
To do this, consider Lemma $2.14$ on page $52$ of Teschl.
$textbf{Lemma 2.14:}$ Let $phi(t)$ be a solution of $(2.10)$ defined on the interval $(t_-,t_+)$. Then there exists an extension to the interval $(t_-,t_+ + epsilon)$ for some $epsilon > 0$ if and only if there exists a sequence $t_min(t_-,t_+)$ such that
$$lim_{mtoinfty}(t_m,phi(t_m))=(t_+,y)in{U}. $$
The analogous statement holds for an extension to $(t_- - epsilon,t_+).$
As $||x(t)||leq{{M}e^{alpha(t)}}$, it is clear that $x$ lies in a compact ball. Therefore, by Lemma $2.14$ (and the Bolzano–Weierstrass theorem), we can extend the solution to any interval of finite length.
An alternative argument would be using Corollary $2.16$. I don't like the way Corollary $2.16$ is phrased and have decided to directly apply Lemma $2.14$ instead.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3046758%2fapplication-of-gronwall-inequality-to-existence-of-solutions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
As explained in the comments, the proposed answer only shows that the solution is bounded between some arbitrary interval $[t_1,t_2]$ where $t_1,t_2,inmathbb{R}$. We also need to show that we can extend the solution to any interval of finite length.
To do this, consider Lemma $2.14$ on page $52$ of Teschl.
$textbf{Lemma 2.14:}$ Let $phi(t)$ be a solution of $(2.10)$ defined on the interval $(t_-,t_+)$. Then there exists an extension to the interval $(t_-,t_+ + epsilon)$ for some $epsilon > 0$ if and only if there exists a sequence $t_min(t_-,t_+)$ such that
$$lim_{mtoinfty}(t_m,phi(t_m))=(t_+,y)in{U}. $$
The analogous statement holds for an extension to $(t_- - epsilon,t_+).$
As $||x(t)||leq{{M}e^{alpha(t)}}$, it is clear that $x$ lies in a compact ball. Therefore, by Lemma $2.14$ (and the Bolzano–Weierstrass theorem), we can extend the solution to any interval of finite length.
An alternative argument would be using Corollary $2.16$. I don't like the way Corollary $2.16$ is phrased and have decided to directly apply Lemma $2.14$ instead.
add a comment |
As explained in the comments, the proposed answer only shows that the solution is bounded between some arbitrary interval $[t_1,t_2]$ where $t_1,t_2,inmathbb{R}$. We also need to show that we can extend the solution to any interval of finite length.
To do this, consider Lemma $2.14$ on page $52$ of Teschl.
$textbf{Lemma 2.14:}$ Let $phi(t)$ be a solution of $(2.10)$ defined on the interval $(t_-,t_+)$. Then there exists an extension to the interval $(t_-,t_+ + epsilon)$ for some $epsilon > 0$ if and only if there exists a sequence $t_min(t_-,t_+)$ such that
$$lim_{mtoinfty}(t_m,phi(t_m))=(t_+,y)in{U}. $$
The analogous statement holds for an extension to $(t_- - epsilon,t_+).$
As $||x(t)||leq{{M}e^{alpha(t)}}$, it is clear that $x$ lies in a compact ball. Therefore, by Lemma $2.14$ (and the Bolzano–Weierstrass theorem), we can extend the solution to any interval of finite length.
An alternative argument would be using Corollary $2.16$. I don't like the way Corollary $2.16$ is phrased and have decided to directly apply Lemma $2.14$ instead.
add a comment |
As explained in the comments, the proposed answer only shows that the solution is bounded between some arbitrary interval $[t_1,t_2]$ where $t_1,t_2,inmathbb{R}$. We also need to show that we can extend the solution to any interval of finite length.
To do this, consider Lemma $2.14$ on page $52$ of Teschl.
$textbf{Lemma 2.14:}$ Let $phi(t)$ be a solution of $(2.10)$ defined on the interval $(t_-,t_+)$. Then there exists an extension to the interval $(t_-,t_+ + epsilon)$ for some $epsilon > 0$ if and only if there exists a sequence $t_min(t_-,t_+)$ such that
$$lim_{mtoinfty}(t_m,phi(t_m))=(t_+,y)in{U}. $$
The analogous statement holds for an extension to $(t_- - epsilon,t_+).$
As $||x(t)||leq{{M}e^{alpha(t)}}$, it is clear that $x$ lies in a compact ball. Therefore, by Lemma $2.14$ (and the Bolzano–Weierstrass theorem), we can extend the solution to any interval of finite length.
An alternative argument would be using Corollary $2.16$. I don't like the way Corollary $2.16$ is phrased and have decided to directly apply Lemma $2.14$ instead.
As explained in the comments, the proposed answer only shows that the solution is bounded between some arbitrary interval $[t_1,t_2]$ where $t_1,t_2,inmathbb{R}$. We also need to show that we can extend the solution to any interval of finite length.
To do this, consider Lemma $2.14$ on page $52$ of Teschl.
$textbf{Lemma 2.14:}$ Let $phi(t)$ be a solution of $(2.10)$ defined on the interval $(t_-,t_+)$. Then there exists an extension to the interval $(t_-,t_+ + epsilon)$ for some $epsilon > 0$ if and only if there exists a sequence $t_min(t_-,t_+)$ such that
$$lim_{mtoinfty}(t_m,phi(t_m))=(t_+,y)in{U}. $$
The analogous statement holds for an extension to $(t_- - epsilon,t_+).$
As $||x(t)||leq{{M}e^{alpha(t)}}$, it is clear that $x$ lies in a compact ball. Therefore, by Lemma $2.14$ (and the Bolzano–Weierstrass theorem), we can extend the solution to any interval of finite length.
An alternative argument would be using Corollary $2.16$. I don't like the way Corollary $2.16$ is phrased and have decided to directly apply Lemma $2.14$ instead.
answered Dec 26 '18 at 17:56
Axion004
237212
237212
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3046758%2fapplication-of-gronwall-inequality-to-existence-of-solutions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I do not think there are better alternatives, but your approach is not complete. You have just proved that if a solution is defined on $[t_1,t_2]$ then its is somehow bounded. Now, apply the extension theorem: if a right-nonextendible solution $x(cdot)$ is defined on some $[t_1,T)$ with $T<infty$ then for any compact $Ksubsetmathbb{R}^N$ there is $tau<T$ such that $x(t)notin K$ for $tin(tau,T)$. And this contradicts your estimates.
– user539887
Dec 19 '18 at 19:41
Do you mean the Picard–Lindelöf theorem: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2531735/…? I didn't use that theorem because it is for local solutions. The Gronwall inequality is for global solutions. I'm not sure why I need to apply the extension theorem.
– Axion004
Dec 19 '18 at 20:20
No, I mean just the result stating what I wrote, see, e.g., Corollary 2.16 on p. 53 of Teschl's Ordinary Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems.
– user539887
Dec 19 '18 at 20:37
I see, I only showed that the solution is bounded. I have to argue by lemma 2.14/corollary 2.15/corollary 2.16 that the solution exists (from reading the proof of theorem 2.17, this follows directly from the compactness of the interval). I don't like the wording in corollary 2.16. I am going to spend some more time reading it and see if I understand.
– Axion004
Dec 19 '18 at 22:16