- Research
- Open Access

# Symplectic difference systems with periodic coefficients: Krein’s traffic rules for multipliers

- Ondřej Došlý
^{1}Email author

**2013**:85

https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1847-2013-85

© Došlý; licensee Springer 2013

**Received:**20 December 2012**Accepted:**11 March 2013**Published:**2 April 2013

## Abstract

We investigate symplectic difference systems with periodic coefficients. We show that the known traffic rules for eigenvalues of the monodromy matrix of linear Hamiltonian differential and difference systems can be extended also to discrete symplectic systems.

**MSC:**39A12, 15A18.

## Keywords

- symplectic difference system
- periodic
- traffic rules
- monodromy matrix
- definite multiplier

## 1 Introduction

*symplectic*,

*i.e.*,

In particular, if ${\mathcal{S}}_{k}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{2n\times 2n}$, then we have ${\mathcal{S}}_{k}^{T}\mathcal{J}{\mathcal{S}}_{k}=\mathcal{J}$. The terminology for symplectic matrices is not unique. Our terminology is taken from [1]. An alternative terminology $\mathcal{J}$-unitary, $\mathcal{J}$-orthogonal can be found in [2]. Also, complex-valued matrices satisfying (1) are sometimes called *complex symplectic*.

*i.e.*, ${\mathcal{H}}^{\ast}=\mathcal{H}$, in the sense that they are the most general first-order systems whose fundamental matrix is symplectic. It is known that one can establish oscillation and Sturmian theory for real symplectic difference systems similar to those for Hamiltonian differential systems, even if passing from continuous to discrete is far from being trivial. We refer to [3, 4] and the references given therein. Note that symplectic difference systems cover, as a very special case, the second-order Sturm-Liouville difference equation

whose qualitative theory is deeply developed; see, *e.g.*, [5].

*λ*,

*i.e.*, we consider the system

- (A)System (2) is
*symplectic*for $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$,*i.e.*,${\mathcal{S}}_{k}^{\ast}(\lambda )\mathcal{J}{\mathcal{S}}_{k}(\lambda )=\mathcal{J},\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}k\in \mathbb{Z}.$ - (B)The matrices ${\mathcal{S}}_{k}(\lambda )$ are
*periodic*with the period $N\in \mathbb{N}$,*i.e.*,${\mathcal{S}}_{k}(\lambda )={\mathcal{S}}_{k+N}(\lambda ),\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}k\in \mathbb{Z},\lambda \in \mathbb{C}.$ - (C)The matrices ${\mathcal{S}}_{k}(\lambda )$, $k=0,\dots ,N-1$, are
*analytic*in a neighborhood of ${\lambda}_{0}=0$, in particular,${\mathcal{S}}_{k}(\lambda )=\sum _{j=0}^{\mathrm{\infty}}{S}_{k}^{[j]}{\lambda}^{j},\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}{S}_{k}^{[0]}=I,$

the stability theory of periodic Hamiltonian differential systems is deeply developed since the fifties of the last century. In that period, Russian mathematicians Gelfand, Krein, Lidskii, Yakubovich, Starzhinskii and others [2, 8, 9] published fundamental papers on stability of (3), which were summarized in the book [10].

*λ*reads in terms of the coefficients ${S}_{k}^{[j]}$ as follows. We suppose that the below given formulas hold for all indices $k=0,\dots ,N-1$, so we suppress the index

*k*:

The following statement plays the crucial role in the later introduced concept of a symplectic system of *positive type*.

**Proposition 1**

*Suppose that*(4)-(6)

*hold*.

*Then there exist Hermitean matrices*${\mathcal{A}}_{k}(\lambda ,\overline{\lambda})$

*such that for*$\lambda \in \mathbb{C}$

*Proof*Suppressing again the index

*k*, using (4),

*i.e.*, one can factor out the term $(\overline{\lambda}-\lambda )$ from the expression for ${\mathcal{S}}^{\ast}(\lambda )\mathcal{J}\mathcal{S}(\lambda )-\mathcal{J}$. It remains to prove that $\mathcal{A}(\lambda ,\overline{\lambda})$ is Hermitean. This matrix is given by an infinite series, and the typical summand in this series is given by the expression in brackets in (11). To prove that this expression is Hermitean, it suffices to show that ${({X}_{j}^{[n]})}^{\ast}={X}_{n-j-1}^{[n]}$. We have, using (6),

Consequently, each term in the infinite series expressing $\mathcal{A}(\lambda ,\overline{\lambda})$ is a Hermitean matrix, and hence this matrix is Hermitean as well. □

## 2 Particular cases

- (i)
*Second-order matrix difference system*.

*i.e.*, ${u}_{k+1}=-\lambda {P}_{k}{x}_{k}+{u}_{k}$ and ${x}_{k+1}-{x}_{k}=\lambda {u}_{k+1}=\lambda (-\lambda {P}_{k}{x}_{k}+{u}_{k})$. Consequently,

*λ*and ${\lambda}^{2}$, respectively. By a direct computation, taking into account the form of the matrices ${S}^{[1]}$ and ${S}^{[2]}$, we obtain for $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}$

- (ii)
*Linear Hamiltonian difference system*.

*B*,

*C*,

*i.e.*, $B={B}^{\ast}$, $C={C}^{\ast}$. This system can be written in the form

*k*),

- (iii)
*Exponential system*.

*S*is a symplectic matrix ‘close’ to the identity matrix ($\parallel I-S\parallel <1$), then there is a well-defined matrix log

*S*, and we have

and it is known (see, *e.g.*, [[12], p.8]) that the logarithm of a symplectic matrix is the Hamiltonian matrix, *i.e.*, ${(logS)}^{\ast}\mathcal{J}+\mathcal{J}logS=0$.

*λ*in the form (18) was investigated in [13]. Here we have

*λ*given by (18) is, in a certain sense, a natural discrete counterpart of the multiplicative dependence on

*λ*in (3).

- (iv)
*Symplectic systems with nonlinear dependence on a spectral parameter*.

*k*)

*λ*are symmetric. Suppose that $n=2j-1$ is odd; if

*n*is even, the situation is similar. We arrange the summands by ${\lambda}^{n}$ in brackets in the previous formula into the triangular scheme as follows:

*j*lines in this expression from (21) (with $n+1$ instead of

*n*), we can write (22) as (we arrange again the first

*j*lines into a triangular-type scheme)

Now we see that the sum of the terms on the first and the last line is a symmetric matrix (since ${\mathcal{J}}^{T}=-\mathcal{J}$). Similarly, the sum of the second and last but one line terms is a symmetric matrix, *etc.* Altogether, the term by ${\lambda}^{n}$, $n\in \mathbb{N}$, is a symmetric matrix, which means that the matrix Ψ is really symmetric.

## 3 Central stability zone

where ${s}_{j}$ are the eigenvalues of ${\mathcal{S}}^{[1]}$.

The proof of the following statement (which shows the non-emptiness of the central stability zone under an additional assumption that the eigenvalues of a certain matrix are distinct) is essentially the same as that of [[2], Theorem 2.2].

**Theorem 1** *Suppose that the matrix* $\mathcal{J}{\mathcal{S}}^{[1]}$ *is negative definite and the eigenvalues* ${s}_{j}$ *of* ${\mathcal{S}}^{[1]}$ *are distinct*. *Then there exists* $l>0$ *such that the solutions of* (2) *are bounded on* ℤ *for real* *λ* *satisfying* $|\lambda |<l$.

*Proof*The proof is based on the statement that if

*A*is a Hermitean positive definite matrix, then the equation $det(A+i\mu \mathcal{J})=0$ has only real roots; see [15]. So, let $A=-\mathcal{J}{\mathcal{S}}^{[1]}$ and look for the eigenvalues of ${\mathcal{S}}^{[1]}$ in the form

*iσ*. Then

(since $det\mathcal{J}=1$, see [1]), and hence $\sigma \in \mathbb{R}$ and ${s}_{j}=i{\sigma}_{j}$. Now, for $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$, $|\lambda |$ small, the numbers ${\gamma}_{j}(\lambda )=i{\sigma}_{j}\lambda +o(\lambda )$ are still different. However, at the same time, for $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$, the matrix ${\mathcal{U}}_{N}(\lambda )$ is symplectic, *i.e.*, ${\mathcal{U}}_{N}^{\ast}(\lambda )\mathcal{J}{\mathcal{U}}_{N}(\lambda )=\mathcal{J}$, and hence its eigenvalues ${\rho}_{j}(\lambda )=exp\{{\gamma}_{j}(\lambda )\}$ are symmetric with respect to the unit circle, and hence ${\gamma}_{j}(\lambda )$ are symmetric with respect to the imaginary axis. But this implies that ${\gamma}_{j}(\lambda )$ themselves are on the imaginary axis, *i.e.*, $|{\rho}_{j}(\lambda )|=1$. This means, in view of the later given formula (25), that solutions of (2) are bounded on ℝ for $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$, $|\lambda |$ small. □

## 4 Krein’s traffic rules

So far we did not need any assumption on the matrices $S(\lambda )$ for $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}$. Complex values of *λ* are needed to get an extension of the previous theorem to the case when the eigenvalues of ${\mathcal{S}}^{[1]}$ are *not necessarily distinct*. In this situation, the stability behavior of solutions of (2) is heavily based on Krein’s traffic rules for the eigenvalues of the monodromy matrix ${\mathcal{U}}_{N}(\lambda )$.

*positive-type system*. In the Hamiltonian setting (14), this means

*solutions*$z=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{x}{u}\right)$ of system (14)

see [7]. Consequently, one can speak about $\mathcal{J}$-monotonicity of the monodromy matrix ${\mathcal{U}}_{N}(\lambda )$ depending on whether $Im\lambda >0$ or $Im\lambda <0$, in the same way as in [2].

*λ*and $\overline{\lambda}$ such that

*i.e.*, multipliers) follow Krein’s traffic rules if we suppose that there exists $\epsilon >0$ such that

A closer examination of the proofs in [2] reveals that when investigating the behavior of eigenvalues of the monodromy matrix ${\mathcal{U}}_{N}(\lambda )$ in dependence on the parameter *λ*, one can forget about the original system from which this monodromy matrix originates (differential system (3) or difference system (2)). The only important fact is that this matrix is symplectic for $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\mathcal{J}$-monotonic for $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}\setminus \mathbb{R}$. Under assumption (24), the traffic rules of eigenvalues of ${\mathcal{U}}_{N}(\lambda )$ are the same as in [2, 6].

*ρ*, which is called the

*multiplier*of ${\mathcal{U}}_{N}(\lambda )$. The solution

*z*of (2) given by the initial condition ${z}_{0}=\xi $ satisfies

and generally ${z}_{k+N}=\rho {z}_{k}$. Consequently, solutions of (2) are bounded for $k\in \mathbb{Z}$ if and only if all eigenvalues of ${\mathcal{U}}_{N}(\lambda )$ have modulus one and are of simple type, *i.e.*, multiple eigenvalues have the same algebraic and geometric multiplicity.

Clearly, $\lambda =0$ is the stability point of (2) since all solutions are constant in this case. Theorem 1 states that if the eigenvalues of ${\mathcal{S}}^{[1]}$ are distinct, we have a central stability zone for (2). The restriction on distinctness of eigenvalues is removed in [2] (see also [6, 7] in the discrete case) using a perturbation principle, then Theorem 1 remains true when Krein’s traffic rules for eigenvalues are preserved. For these rules, the crucial concept is the concept of a *multiplier of definite type* which is defined as follows.

**Definition 1** Let $|{\rho}_{0}|=1$ be an eigenvalue of the monodromy matrix ${\mathcal{U}}_{N}$, and let ${\mathcal{L}}_{{\rho}_{0}}$ be its eigenspace. If $i{u}^{\ast}\mathcal{J}u>0$ for every $u\in {\mathcal{L}}_{{\rho}_{0}}$, then the eigenvalue ${\rho}_{0}$ is said to be the multiplier of the *first kind* and it is called of *second kind* if $i{u}^{\ast}\mathcal{J}u<0$ for $u\in {\mathcal{L}}_{{\rho}_{0}}$. If there exists $0\ne u\in {\mathcal{L}}_{{\rho}_{0}}$ such that ${u}^{\ast}\mathcal{J}u=0$, the multiplier ${\rho}_{0}$ is of *indefinite (mixed) type*. If $|{\rho}_{0}|\ne 1$ is an eigenvalue of ${\mathcal{U}}_{N}$, then it is called of the first kind if $|{\rho}_{0}|>1$ and of the second kind if $|{\rho}_{0}|<1$.

The following statement is proved similarly as [[6], Theorem 4.6].

**Theorem 2**

*Suppose that*(24)

*holds and that for*${\lambda}_{0}\in \mathbb{R}$

*the monodromy matrix*${\mathcal{U}}_{N}({\lambda}_{0})$

*has a multiplier*${\rho}_{0}$,

*with*$|{\rho}_{0}|=1$,

*of definite kind with the multiplicity*$m>0$.

*Then in a*

*δ*-

*neighborhood of*${\lambda}_{0}$,

*m*

*eigenvalues*${\rho}_{1}(\lambda ),\dots ,{\rho}_{m}(\lambda )$

*of*${\mathcal{U}}_{N}(\lambda )$,

*for which*${\rho}_{j}(\lambda )\to {\rho}_{0}$

*as*$\lambda \to {\lambda}_{0}$, $j=1,\dots ,m$,

*are situated*.

*Moreover*,

*if*$\lambda \in {\mathcal{O}}_{\delta}({\lambda}_{0})$

*is real*,

*then*${\rho}_{j}(\lambda )$, $j=1,\dots ,m$,

*stay on the unit circle*.

*The coefficients*${\alpha}_{j}$

*in the expansion*

*are given by*

*where* ${u}_{j}$ *are properly taken eigenvectors of* ${\mathcal{U}}_{N}({\lambda}_{0})$ *corresponding to* ${\rho}_{0}$ *and* ${z}_{k}^{[j]}={\mathcal{U}}_{k}({\lambda}_{0}){u}_{j}$ *are the solutions of* (2) *with* $\lambda ={\lambda}_{0}$ *given by the initial condition* ${z}_{0}^{[j]}={u}_{j}$.

*Proof*The only difference with respect to the proof of Theorem [[6], Theorem 4.6] is that for $\lambda \in {\mathcal{O}}_{\delta}({\lambda}_{0})$ and solutions ${z}^{[j]}$, $j=1,\dots ,m$, we have

*i.e.*, (24) holds, then we have

for the first kind multipliers and $\frac{d}{d\lambda}arg\rho (\lambda )>0$ for the second kind ones. This means that the multipliers resulting from splitting of first kind multipliers move clockwise and second kind multipliers move counterclockwise with increasing $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$, both remain on the unit circle in some neighborhood of ${\lambda}_{0}$. □

*i.e.*, $\rho (\lambda )=-1$ is the eigenvalue of ${\mathcal{U}}_{N}(\lambda )$, which is the same as that the boundary value problem

has a solution.

Here we have, similarly to [7], the different situation in comparison with [6], where the symplectic system corresponding to the second-order system (12) is considered; see the part (i) of Section 2. Since in our case ${\mathcal{U}}_{N}(\lambda )$ is no longer a polynomial, generally it can happen that the equation $det({\mathcal{U}}_{N}(\lambda )+I)=0$ has no root, and hence (2) is stable for every *λ*.

*H*is given by (23) and $D(\lambda )$ by (17). Hence, (24) is satisfied for all $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}$, not only for those with $|Im\lambda |$ sufficiently small. Concerning the exponential case of Section 2(iii), we have (compare (19))

Finally, note that we have made only the first step towards the elaboration of a consistent stability theory of periodic symplectic difference systems in our paper. For example, we have not been able yet to establish a ‘symplectic version’ of the perturbation principle which enables to prove the statement of Theorem 1 without the additional assumption that the eigenvalues of the matrix ${\mathcal{S}}^{[1]}$ are distinct. This is one of the problems which are subject of the present investigation, and we hope to solve it, together with other open problems, in subsequent papers.

## Declarations

### Acknowledgements

The author thanks referees (especially one of them) for valuable remarks and suggestions which substantially contributed to the present version of the paper. The research is supported by the grant 201/10/1032 of the Czech Grant Agency (GAČR).

## Authors’ Affiliations

## References

- Dopicio FM, Johnson CR: Complementary bases in symplectic matrices and a proof that their determinant is one.
*Linear Algebra Appl.*2006, 419: 772–778. 10.1016/j.laa.2006.06.014MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Krein MG: The basic propositions of the theory of
*λ*-zones of stability of a system of linear differential equations with periodic coefficients. In*In Memory of Aleksandr Aleksandrovič Andronov*. Izdat. Akad. Nauk. SSSR, Moscow; 1955:413–498. (Russian). English translation: Four papers on ordinary differential equations. Edited by Lev J. Leifman. Transl. Am. Math. Soc., Ser. 2 120, 1–70 (1983). Am. Math. Soc., ProvidenceGoogle Scholar - Bohner M, Došlý O, Kratz W: Sturmian and spectral theory for discrete symplectic systems.
*Trans. Am. Math. Soc.*2009, 361: 3109–3123. 10.1090/S0002-9947-08-04692-8MATHView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Kratz W: Discrete oscillation.
*J. Differ. Equ. Appl.*2003, 9: 135–147. In honour of Professor Allan Peterson on the occasion of his 60th birthday, Part IIMATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Kelley WG, Peterson AC:
*Difference Equations: An Introduction with Applications*. Academic Press, San Diego; 2001.Google Scholar - Halanay A, Rasvan V: Stability and BVP’s for discrete-time linear Hamiltonian systems.
*Dyn. Syst. Appl.*1999, 9: 439–459.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Rasvan V: Stability zones for discrete time Hamiltonian systems.
*Arch. Math.*2000, 36: 563–573.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Gelfand IM, Lidskii VB: On the structure of regions of stability of linear canonical systems with periodic coefficients.
*Usp. Mat. Nauk*1955, 10(1(63)):3–40. (Russian). English translation: Transl. Am. Math. Soc. 8, 143–181 (1958)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Krein MG, Yakubovich VA: Hamiltonian systems of linear differential equations with periodic coefficients. In
*Analytic Methods in the Theory of Non-Linear Vibrations*. Izdat. Akad. Nauk Ukrain. SSR, Kiev; 1963:277–305. (Proc. Internat. Sympos. Non-linear Vibrations, vol. I, 1961)Google Scholar - Yakubovich VA, Starzhinskii VM 1, 2. In
*Linear Differential Equations with Periodic Coefficients*. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem; 1975.Google Scholar - Rasvan V: On the stability zones for discrete-time periodic linear Hamiltonian systems.
*Adv. Differ. Equ.*2006., 2006: Article ID 80757Google Scholar - Ekeland I:
*Convexity Methods in Hamiltonian Mechanics*. Springer, Berlin; 1990.MATHView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Došlý, O: Symplectic difference systems: natural dependence on a parameter. Adv. Differ. Syst. Appl. (to appear)Google Scholar
- Hilscher RŠ: Oscillation theorems for discrete symplectic with nonlinear dependence in spectral parameter.
*Linear Algebra Appl.*2012, 437: 2922–2960. 10.1016/j.laa.2012.06.033MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Gantmacher FR 1, 2. In
*The Theory of Matrices*. AMS Chelsea Publishing, Providence; 1998.Google Scholar

## Copyright

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.