# Asymptotic Constancy in Linear Difference Equations: Limit Formulae and Sharp Conditions

- István Győri
^{1}Email author and - László Horváth
^{1}

**2010**:789302

**DOI: **10.1155/2010/789302

© I. Győri and L. Horváth. 2010

**Received: **20 January 2010

**Accepted: **23 March 2010

**Published: **6 April 2010

## Abstract

It is found that every solution of a system of linear delay difference equations has finite limit at infinity, if some conditions are satisfied. These are much weaker than the known sufficient conditions for asymptotic constancy of the solutions. When we impose some positivity assumptions on the coefficient matrices, our conditions are also necessary. The novelty of our results is illustrated by examples.

## 1. Introduction

where the following are considered.

is finite.

Without loss of generality we may (and do) assume the following.

where we suppose that

where . Clearly, (1.1) with (1.6) (and similarly (1.4) with (1.6)) has a unique solution which exists for any . The solution is denoted by .

(See [1].)

In the nonautonomous case with constant delays, it has been proved by Pituk [2] that the value of the limit can be characterized in an implicit formula by using a special solution of the adjoint equation to (1.4) and the initial values.

where

The main novelty of our paper is that we prove the existence of the limit of the solutions of the above equations under much weaker conditions than (1.9). Moreover, utilizing our new limit formula, we show that some of our sufficient conditions are also necessary.

After recalling some preliminary facts on matrices in the next section, we state our main results on the asymptotic constancy of the solutions of (1.13), and derive a generalization of the limit formula (1.12) to the time-dependent case (Section 3). Section 4 is divided into three parts. In Section 4.1 we illustrate the independence of conditions (1.7) and (1.9). The relation between our new conditions is studied in Section 4.2. In the third part of Section 4 we specialize to (1.1), (1.4), and (1.10). The proofs of the main results are included in Section 5.

## 2. Preliminaries

If is an integer, the space of all matrices is denoted by , the zero matrix by , and the identity matrix by . is a lattice under the canonical ordering defined by what follows: means that for every , , where and . Of course, the absolute value of is given by . The spectral radius of a matrix is denoted by . It is well known that for any norm on we have . We use that , , , , and imply that .

## 3. The Main Results

Consider the general delay difference system (1.13) with the initial condition (1.6). This initial value problem has a unique solution which is denoted by .

Theorem 3.1.

In the next theorem we prove the convergence of the solutions of (1.13) under a condition much weaker than (1.9), as it is illustrated in Section 4.3.

Theorem 3.2.

is finite with , then for every initial sequence the solution of (1.13) and (1.6) has a finite limit which obeys (3.3).

For the independence of conditions (3.4) and (3.5), see Section 4.1.

As a corollary, we get the next result.

Corollary 3.3.

- (a)
- (b)

Based on the above results we give a necessary and sufficient condition for the solutions of (3.11) to have a finite limit.

Theorem 3.4.

- (a)
- (b)

## 4. Discussion and Applications

### 4.1. Comparison of Conditions (1.7) and (1.9)

The independence of conditions (1.7) and (1.9) is illustrated by the next example.

Example 4.1.

then condition (1.7) does not hold, but condition (1.9) is satisfied.

### 4.2. Independence of Conditions (3.4) and (3.5)

It is illustrated by the following two examples that condition (3.4) does not generally imply condition (3.5) and conversely.

Example 4.2.

We can see that there are situations in which (3.5) is satisfied but (3.4) is not.

Example 4.3.

We can see that (3.4) does not imply (3.5) in general.

However, the implication discussed above may be lost if (4.15) is not satisfied, even if the matrices are nonnegative, as the following example shows.

Example 4.4.

### 4.3. Application to Delay Difference Equations

Lemma 4.5.

Proof.

The proof is complete.

The following result is an immediate consequence of Theorem 3.2 and Lemma 4.5, and it gives sufficient conditions for the convergence of the solutions of (1.1).

Theorem 4.6.

is finite with , then for every initial sequence the solution of (1.1) and (1.6) has a finite limit which obeys (3.3).

for each integer . So, in the constant delay case, from Theorem 4.6 we get the next result.

Theorem 4.7.

is finite with , then for every initial sequence the solution of (1.4) and (1.6) has a finite limit which obeys (3.3).

Remark 4.8.

assuming that (1.9) holds.

In the next example our condition (4.29) holds, but neither condition (1.9) nor condition (1.7) can be applied.

Example 4.9.

By applying Theorem 4.7 and Theorem 3.4(b), we give sufficient and also necessary conditions for the solutions of (1.4) to be asymptotically constant, if in addition each matrix is constant (independent of ).

Theorem 4.10.

for each . Then the next two statements are equivalent.

Remark 4.11.

Condition (4.38) does not require the positivity of the coefficient matrices
*.* To illustrate this, see the following example. To the best of our knowledge, no similar result has been proved for (1.10) with both positive and negative coefficients.

Example 4.12.

showing clearly that may be negative.

Remark 4.13.

Of course, we have from Theorem 3.4(a) (using that
*,*
*)* that if for every initial sequence
the solution
of (1.10) and (1.6) has a finite limit, then (1.12) holds.

## 5. Proofs of the Main Results

Proof of Theorem 3.1.

From (5.3) the assertion and the desired relation (3.3) follow, bringing the proof to an end.

In order to prove Theorem 3.2, we need the following Lemma from [3, Corollary (b)].

Lemma 5.1.

Proof of Theorem 3.2.

is convergent.

so the series (5.8) is convergent.

is bounded.

and this gives the boundedness of the sequence (5.11).

The proof is complete.

- (b)

is invertible, we can apply Theorem 3.2 and (3.7).

- (b)

but this follows from (3.11) by an easy induction argument.

Now, suppose (ii). Then (i) comes from Corollary 3.3(b) (see the second condition).

The proof is complete.

## Declarations

### Acknowledgment

This paper is supported by Hungarian National Foundations for Scientific Research Grant no. K73274.

## Authors’ Affiliations

## References

- Driver RD, Ladas G, Vlahos PN:
**Asymptotic behavior of a linear delay difference equation.***Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society*1992,**115**(1):105-112. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1992-1111217-0MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Pituk M:
**The limits of the solutions of a nonautonomous linear delay difference equation.***Computers & Mathematics with Applications*2001,**42**(3–5):543-550. 10.1016/S0898-1221(01)00176-6MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Győri I, Horváth L:
**A new view of the**-theory of system of higher order difference equations.*Computers and Mathematics with Applications*2010,**59**(8):2918-2932. 10.1016/j.camwa.2010.02.010MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Schaefer HH:
*Banach Lattices and Positive Operators, Die Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften*.*Volume 215*. Springer, New York, NY, USA; 1974:xi+376.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

## Copyright

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.