arxiv: v1 [math.ds] 19 Jan 2021

arXiv:2101.07796v1 [math.DS] 19 Jan 2021

DYNAMICAL SYSTEM

A Preprint

Zeraoulia Rafik^∗

Email:[email protected]

January 21, 2021

Abstract

This note is an attempt with the open conjecture 8 proposed by the authors of[1] which states : Assume 𝛼, 𝛽, 𝜆 ∈ [0,∞). Then every positive solution of the difference equation :

𝑧_𝑛+1=𝛼+ 𝑧𝑛𝛽+ 𝑧𝑛−1𝜆

𝑧_𝑛−2 , 𝑛 = 0, 1, . . . is bounded if and only if 𝛽 = 𝜆.

We will use a construction of sub-energy function and properties of Todd’s difference equation to disprove that conjecture in general.

Keywords Difference equation; boundedness properties· Todd’s equation · sub-energy function MSC:39A10; 39A22

1 Introduction

A major project in the field of rational difference equations [3] has been to determine the boundedness properties of all third-order equations of the form :

𝑥_𝑛+1= 𝛼+ 𝛽𝑥𝑛+ 𝛾𝑥𝑛−1+ 𝛿𝑥𝑛−2

𝐴+ 𝐵𝑥𝑛+ 𝐶𝑥𝑛−1+ 𝐷𝑥𝑛−1

(1) with nonnegative parameters 𝛼, 𝛽, 𝛾, 𝛿, 𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶 and 𝐷 , one wishes to show that either the solutions remain bounded for all positive initial conditions, or there exist positive initial conditions so that the solutions are unbounded .Dynamics of Third-Order Rational Difference Equations with Open Problems and Conjectures [4] treats the large class of difference equations described by Equation (1),Some open problems related to (1) in which the boundedness properties were not known was recently solved in [2], By the following assumption 𝛿 = 𝐴 = 𝐵 = 𝐶 = 0 with the variable change 𝑥_𝑛→𝑥𝑛

𝐷 , with 𝛼 ≥ 0, 𝛽 > 0, 𝛾 > 0, 𝐷 > 0 equation (1) reduces to the following form :

𝑥_𝑛+1= 𝐷𝛼+ 𝑥^𝑛𝛽+ 𝑥^𝑛−1𝛾

𝑥_𝑛−2 , 𝑛 = 0, 1, . . . , 𝐷𝛼 = 𝛼^′ (2)

It is shown in a paper by Lugo and Palladino [5] that there exist unbounded solutions of (2)in the case that 0 ≤ 𝛼 < 1 and 0< 𝛽 < ¹₃.Ying Sue Huang and Peter M. Knopf showed in [3] for 𝛼^′≥ 0, 𝛽 > 0 and if 𝛽 ≠ 1 there exist positive initial conditions such that the solutions are unbounded except for the case 𝛼^′=0and 𝛽 > 1, Question related to Boundedness of solutions of (2) in the case 𝛽 = 𝛾 is the folllowing conjecture which it is proposed as eight open conjecture in this paper [1] by G. LADAS, G. LUGO AND F. J. PALLADINO, In our present paper we disprove in general the only if part of the conjecture 8 in [1] using sub-energy function and some properties of Todd’s difference equation [6] and [7]

∗notuniversity de Batna.2

2 Conjecture

Assume 𝛼, 𝛽, 𝜆 ∈ [0,∞). Then every positive solution of the difference equation : 𝑧_𝑛+1=𝛼+ 𝑧^𝑛𝛽+ 𝑧^𝑛−1𝜆

𝑧_𝑛−2 , 𝑛 = 0, 1, . . . (3)

is bounded if and only if 𝛽 = 𝜆

3 Proof

Suppose that 𝛽 = 𝜆 > 0. Let 𝑥_𝑛:=𝑧_𝑛/𝛽 and 𝑐 := 𝛼/𝛽². Then the dynamics (3) can be rewritten as

𝑥_𝑛+1=𝑐+ 𝑥^𝑛+ 𝑥^𝑛−1

𝑥_𝑛−2 (4)

(say for 𝑛 = 2, 3, . . . ), just with one parameter 𝑐 ≥ 0 , The dynamic (4)is exactly the Todd’s difference equation ,In this case the equation is generally referred to by the cognomen “Todd’s equation” and possesses the invariant :

(𝑐 + 𝑥𝑛+ 𝑥𝑛−1+ 𝑥𝑛−2)

 1+ 1

𝑥_𝑛

  1+ 1

𝑥_𝑛−1

  1+ 1

𝑥_𝑛−2



=constant (5)

The invariants of difference equations play an important role in understanding the stability and qualitative behavior of their solutions. To be more precise, if the invariant is a bounded mainfold [8], then the solution is also bounded, Recently Hirota et al [9] found two conserved quantities 𝐻¹_𝑛and 𝐻_𝑛² for the third- order Lyness equation , Note that Lyness equation is a special case of equation (4) such that 𝑐 = 1 ,The two quantities are independents and One of the conserved quantities is the same form as that of (5) ,Both of two conserved quantities formula were derived from discretization of an anharmonic oscillator namely using its equation of its motion see the first equation here [9], we may consider those conserved quantities as conserved sub- energy of anharmonic oscillator this means that (5) present a sub energy function of that anharmonic oscillator , To prove the "if" part of the conjecture it would be enough to construct for each nonnegative 𝑐, a "sub-energy" function [12] 𝑓𝑐: (0, ∞)³→ R such that :

𝑓_𝑐(𝑥⁰, 𝑥1, 𝑥2) → ∞ as 𝑥⁰+ 𝑥¹+ 𝑥²→ ∞ (6) Note that the sub-energy function is the invariant of the third difference equation ,namely the dynamics (4) , if we assume that :

𝑓_𝑐(𝑥^𝑛, 𝑥_𝑛−1, 𝑥_𝑛−2) = (𝑐 + 𝑥^𝑛+ 𝑥^𝑛−1+ 𝑥^𝑛−2)

 1+ 1

𝑥_𝑛

  1+ 1

𝑥_𝑛−1

  1+ 1

𝑥_𝑛−2



=constant, 𝑛 ≥ 0 (7) then the condition (6) is satisfied in (7) .see Lemma2 in ([14].p.4) .For RHS of (7) see also Theorem2.1 in ([6]p.31) ,And Since the invariant of the dynamic of (4) is constant then 𝑓𝑐 could be referred to as the conservation of energy along the path of the dynamical system.For some natural 𝑘 and all 𝑥 = (𝑥⁰, 𝑥1, 𝑥2) ∈ (0, ∞)³one has the "sub-energy"

inequality 𝑓𝑐(𝑇^𝑘𝑥) ≤ 𝑓^𝑐(𝑥), where 𝑇𝑥 := (𝑥¹, 𝑥2, 𝑥3), with 𝑥³= ^{𝑐+𝑥2+𝑥1}

𝑥0 , according to the dynamics. Of course, 𝑇^𝑘 is the 𝑘th power of the operator 𝑇. For 𝑘 = 1, the sub-energy inequality is the functional inequality

𝑓_𝑐

𝑥1, 𝑥2,𝑐+ 𝑥²+ 𝑥¹ 𝑥0



≤ 𝑓^𝑐(𝑥⁰, 𝑥1, 𝑥2) for all positive 𝑥⁰, 𝑥1, 𝑥2, (8) To construct a sub-energy function, one might want to start with some easy function 𝑓_𝑐,0such that 𝑓_𝑐,0(𝑥⁰, 𝑥1, 𝑥2) → ∞ as 𝑥0+ 𝑥¹+ 𝑥² → ∞, and then consider something like 𝑓𝑐,0∨ ( 𝑓𝑐,0◦ 𝑇^𝑘) ∨ ( 𝑓𝑐,0◦ 𝑇^2𝑘) ∨ . . . ,Inequality (8) can be obviously restated in the following more symmetric form:

𝑥0𝑥3=𝑐+ 𝑥¹+ 𝑥² =⇒ 𝑓^𝑐(𝑥¹, 𝑥2, 𝑥3) ≤ 𝑓^𝑐(𝑥⁰, 𝑥1, 𝑥2) (9) for all positive real 𝑥0, 𝑥1, 𝑥2, 𝑥3. The condition 𝑥0+ 𝑥¹+ 𝑥²→ ∞ in (6) can be replaced by any one of the following (stronger) conditions: (i) 𝑥0→ ∞ or (ii) 𝑥¹→ ∞ or (iii) 𝑥²→ ∞; this of course will replace condition (6) by a weaker condition, which will make it easier to construct a sub-energy function 𝑓_𝑐,Here are details: Suppose that (8) holds for some function 𝑓𝑐such that 𝑓𝑐(𝑥⁰, 𝑥1, 𝑥2) → ∞ as 𝑥⁰→ ∞. Suppose that, nonetheless, a positive sequence (𝑥⁰, 𝑥1, . . .) satisfying condition (4) is unbounded, so that, as 𝑘 → ∞, one has 𝑥𝑛𝑘→ ∞ for some sequence (𝑛𝑘) of natural numbers. Then 𝑓𝑐(𝑥^𝑛𝑘, 𝑥1+𝑛^𝑘, 𝑥2+𝑛^𝑘) → ∞ as 𝑘 → ∞. This contradicts (6), which implies, by induction, that 𝑓_𝑐(𝑥^𝑛, 𝑥1+𝑛, 𝑥2+𝑛) ≤ 𝑓^𝑐(𝑥⁰, 𝑥1, 𝑥2) for all natural 𝑛. Quite similarly one can do with (ii) 𝑥¹→ ∞ or (iii) 𝑥²→ ∞ in place of (i) 𝑥0→ ∞.

Also, instead of the dynamics of the triples (𝑥𝑛, 𝑥1+𝑛, 𝑥2+𝑛) one can consider the corresponding dynamics (in 𝑛) of the consecutive 𝑚-tuples (𝑥^𝑛, . . . , 𝑥_{𝑚−1+𝑛}) for any fixed natural 𝑚.

Also, instead of inequality 𝑓_𝑐(𝑥¹, 𝑥2, 𝑥3) ≤ 𝑓𝑐(𝑥⁰, 𝑥1, 𝑥2) in (6), one may consider a weaker inequality like 𝑓𝑐(𝑥², 𝑥3, 𝑥4) ≤ 𝑓_𝑐(𝑥⁰, 𝑥1, 𝑥2) ∨ 𝑓𝑐(𝑥¹, 𝑥2, 𝑥3) for all positive 𝑥⁰, . . . , 𝑥4 satisfying condition (4), Thanks to the invariant of Todd’s difference equation (7) which it is defined in our case to be a sub-energy function such that it is easy to see that the "if"

part of the conjecture would follow since the sub-energy 𝑓_𝑐is always found .In ([6], p.35) Authors showed that every positive solution of dynamics (4) using invariant are bounded and persist this result is the affirmation that invariant must be a constant sub-energy function which it is always found for all positive initial conditions [15] One can try to do the "only if" part in a similar manner. Suppose that 0 < 𝛽 ≠ 𝜆 > 0. Let 𝑢_𝑛:=𝑧_𝑛/√

𝛽𝜆, 𝑐 := 𝛼/(𝛽𝜆), and 𝑎 :=p

𝛽/𝜆 ≠ 1.

Then the dynamics (4) can be rewritten as:

𝑢_𝑛+1=𝑐+ 𝑎𝑢^𝑛+ 𝑢^𝑛−1/𝑎

𝑢_𝑛−2 , (10)

just with two parameters, 𝑐 ≥ 0 and 𝑎 > 0. Suppose one can construct, for each pair (𝑐, 𝑎) ∈ [0,∞) × (0,∞) \ {1}

and some 𝜌 = 𝜌_𝑐,𝑎∈ (1, ∞), a "𝜌-super-energy" function 𝑔 = 𝑔𝑎,𝑐;𝜌: (0, ∞)³→ (0, ∞) such that 𝑔 is bounded on each bounded subset of (0,∞)³and

𝑔

𝑢1, 𝑢2,𝑐+ 𝑎𝑢²+ 𝑢¹/𝑎 𝑢0



≥ 𝜌 𝑔(𝑢⁰, 𝑢1, 𝑢2) for all positive 𝑢⁰, 𝑢1, 𝑢2. (11) Then, by induction, 𝑔(𝑢𝑛, 𝑢1+𝑛, 𝑢2+𝑛) ≥ 𝜌^𝑛𝑔(𝑢⁰, 𝑢1, 𝑢2) → ∞ as 𝑛 → ∞, for any sequence (𝑢𝑛) satisfying (10). Therefore and because 𝑔 is bounded on each bounded subset of (0,∞)³, it would follow that the sequence (𝑢^𝑛) is unbounded.

For any pair (𝑐, 𝑎) ∈ [0,∞) × (0,∞)) and any 𝜌 ∈ (1,∞), there is no "𝜌-super-energy" function 𝑔 : (0,∞)³→ (0, ∞).

This follows because the point (𝑢^𝑎,𝑐, 𝑢_𝑎,𝑐, 𝑢_𝑎,𝑐) with 𝑢^𝑎,𝑐:=1+ 𝑎²+√

𝑎⁴+ 4𝑎²𝑐+ 2𝑎²+ 1

2𝑎 is a fixed point (in fact, the only fixed point) of the map 𝑇 given by the formula 𝑇 (𝑢⁰, 𝑢1, 𝑢2) =

𝑢1, 𝑢2,𝑐+ 𝑎𝑢²+ 𝑢¹/𝑎 𝑢0

. (If 𝑎 ≠ 1, then this point is the only fixed point [13] of the map 𝑇²as well.)

This also disproves, in general, the "only if" part of the conjecture defined in (3)

However, One may now try to amend this conjecture by excluding the initial point (𝑢^𝑎,𝑐, 𝑢_𝑎,𝑐, 𝑢_𝑎,𝑐). Then, ac- cordingly, the definition of a "𝜌-super-energy" function would have it defined on a subset (say 𝑆) of the set (0, ∞)³\ {(𝑢𝑎,𝑐, 𝑢_𝑎,𝑐, 𝑢_𝑎,𝑐)}, instead of (0, ∞)³; such a subset may be allowed to depend on the choice of the ini- tial point (𝑢⁰, 𝑢1, 𝑢2), say on its distance from the fixed point (𝑢^𝑎,𝑐, 𝑢_𝑎,𝑐, 𝑢_𝑎,𝑐), and one would then have to also prove that 𝑆 is invariant under the map 𝑇 , M. R. S. KULENOVIC showed in ([10] .p.4 ) that the construction of lyaponov function is possible for third-order generalizations of Lyness’ equation ,namely Todd’s equation which it is given by :

𝑉(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) = 𝐼 (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) − 𝐼 ( 𝑝, 𝑝, 𝑝) = 𝐼 (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) −( 𝑝 + 1)⁴

𝑝² (12)

Where 𝑝 is the equilibrum of Todd’s equation or the dynamics defined in (4) Consequently, 𝑝 is stable, Here 𝐼(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) is the invariant of todd’s equation which it is defined in (7), Assume 𝑆 = 𝐷_𝑝 =(0, ∞)³\ {(𝑢𝑎,𝑐, 𝑢_𝑎,𝑐, 𝑢_𝑎,𝑐)} is the neighborhood of 𝑝. Since the lyaponove function of the dynamics (10) exists [12] and well defined this means that all the following three conditions are satisfied .See ([11].p.177):

• 1) 𝑉( 𝑝) = 𝐼 ( 𝑝) − 𝐼 ( 𝑝) = 0

• 2) 𝑉(𝑆) = 𝐼 (𝑆) − 𝐼 ( 𝑝) > 0, for𝑥 ∈ 𝑆

• 3)(𝑉𝑇)(𝑆) = 𝐼 (𝑇 (𝑆)) − 𝐼 ( 𝑝) = 𝐼 (𝑆) − 𝐼 ( 𝑝) = 𝑉 (𝑆)

we use the fact that 𝐼 is an invariant implies 𝑆 is invariant under the map 𝑇 using both of conditions 2) and 3)

ConclusionWe disproved the only if part of the titled conjecture using both of sub energy function and boundedness of Todd’s difference equation then the conjecture is true only for the if part but not in general ,Existence of sub energy function implies strongly energy conservation along path of dynamical system which indicate the stability and boundedness of dynamics ,Conversely the dynamics would be chaotic .

AcknowledgementsThe Author thanks Iosif Pinelis from Department of Mathematical Sciences Michigan Technolog- ical University for his help to contribute the best to this paper .

Funding

No funding supported this research . Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request Competing interor the estsThe author declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

Author contributed to the writing of the present article. He also read and approved the final manuscript

Authors’ information (Optional)University of Batna2.Algeria ,. 53, Route de Constantine. Fésdis, Batna 05078.De- partement of mathematics

High school Hamla3. Benflis Taher

References

[1] G. LADAS, G. LUGO AND F. J. PALLADINO OPEN PROBLEMS AND CONJECTURES ON RATIONAL SYSTEMS IN THREE DIMENSIONS, In SARAJEVO JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS Vol.8 (21) (2012), 311–321 [2] Y.S. Huang and P.M. Knopf On the boundedness of solutions of a class of third-order rational difference equations,

In J. Difference Equ. Appl. 24(10) (2018), pp. 1541–1587

[3] Ying Sue Huang and Peter M. Knopf Boundedness properties of the generalized Todd’s difference equation, In Journal of Difference Equations and Applications, 25:5, 676-707,10.1080/ 10236198.2019.1619711 [4] E. Camouzis and G. Ladas Dynamics of Third-Order Rational Difference Equations with Open Problems and

Conjectures, In Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2008

[5] G. Lugo and F.J. Palladino Unboundedness for some classes of rational difference equations, In Int. J. Differ. Equ.

4(1) (2009), pp. 97–113.

[6] E.A. Grove and G. Ladas Periodicity in nonlinear difference equations, Revista Cubo May 2002, 195–230, In Revista Cubo May 2002, 195–230.

[7] M.R.S. Kulenovic and G. Ladas Dynamics of Second Order Rational Difference Equations With Open Problems and Conjectures, In Chapman and Hall/CRC Press,

[8] M.GAO and Y.KATO Some invariants for k’th -order Lyness equation,

In Material Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima, 739-8527, Japan, Applied Mathematics Letters 17 (2004) 1183-1189

[9] R. Hirota, K. Kimura and H. Yahagi How to find the conserved quantities of nonlinear discrete equations, J. Phys.

In A: Math. Gen. 34, 10377-10386, (2001).

[10] M. R. S. KULENOVIC Invariants and Related Liapunov Functions for Difference Equations ,

In Department of Mathematics University of Rhode Island Kingston, RI 02881, U,S.A. (Received and accepted January 2000) ,Applied Mathematics Letters 13 (2000) 1-8

[11] W.G. Kelley and A.C. Peterson Difference Equations, In Academic Press, (1991)

[12] V. Z. GRINES, M. K. NOSKOVA, AND O. V. POCHINKA THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ENERGY FUNC- TION FOR THREE-DIMENSIONAL CASCADES WITH A TWO-DIMENSIONAL EXPANDING ATTRAC- TOR,

In Article electronically published on November 18, 2015

Trudy Moskov. Matem. Obw. Trans. Moscow Math. Soc. Tom 76 (2015), vyp. 2)

[13] Senada Kalabušić, Emin Bešo, Naida Mujić and Esmir Pilav Stability analysis of a certain class of difference equations by using KAM theory,

In Advances in Difference Equations volume 2019, Article number: 209 (2019)

[14] G. Bastien and M. Rogalski Results and Conjectures about Order q Lyness’ Difference Equation , with a Particular Study of the Case q = 3

In Advances in Difference Equations Volume 2009, Article ID 134749, 36 pages doi:10.1155/2009/134749

[15] ANNA CIMA, ARMENGOL GASULL and VÍCTOR MAÑOSA DYNAMICS OF SOME RATIONAL DIS- CRETE DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS VIA INVARIANTS,

In AInternational Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos VOL. 16, NO.

03,https:// doi.org/ 10.1142/S0218127406015027