Stability and Analytic Solutions of an Optimal Control Problem on the Schrödinger Lie Group

Remus-Daniel Ene; Camelia Pop; Camelia Petrişor

doi:10.1515/phys-2016-0060

Artikel Open Access

Stability and Analytic Solutions of an Optimal Control Problem on the Schrödinger Lie Group

Remus-Daniel Ene , Camelia Pop und Camelia Petrişor

Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 30. Dezember 2016

Veröffentlicht von

Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Manuskript einreichen Informationen für Autor*innen Erkunden Sie dieses Fachgebiet

Aus der Zeitschrift Open Physics Band 14 Heft 1

Abstract

The nonlinear stability and the existence of the periodic solutions for an optimal control problem on the Schrödinger Lie group are discussed. The analytic solutions via optimal homotopy asymptotic method of the dynamics and numerical simulations are presented, too.

Keywords: optimal control problem; nonlinear stability; periodic solutions; optimal homotopy asymptotic method

PACS: 02.20.Sv; 02.60.-x; 37J25; 65P40; 74H10; 37N20

1 Introduction

The role of the Schrödinger group in physics was always important and the literature on the subject is immense. The Schrödinger group and the Schrödinger algebra were first introduced by Niederer [13] and Hagen [14] as a nonrelativistic limit of the vector-field realization of the conformal algebra. The Schrödinger group could play the space configuration role in some concrete mechanical problems, like other important Lie groups do: SO(3) for aircraft dynamics, SE(3) for underwater dynamics, SO(2)× R² for the rolling-penny dynamics, R² × SO(3) for ball-plate problem, and so on. All these dynamics are modeled as invariant optimal control problems on the mentioned Lie groups. The study of the invariant optimal control problem on the Schrödinger Lie group naturally completes the short list from above. More details can be found in [5] or [9].

This article is concerned with some important comments on the behavior of a dynamical system arising from an optimal control problem on the Schrödinger Lie group presented in [10]. More specifically, we are interested in improving the stability results, proving that some equilibrium states are nonlinearly stable and finding the periodic orbits around them, and finally, we propose an alternative method for finding analytic solution of the system.

The system, which can be put into the equivalent form:

x1˙=−x2x3x2˙=−2x12+2x32−x42x3˙=x1x2−x4x5x4˙=x3x5x5˙=x1x4+kx4,(1)

k ∈ ℝ, has the Hamilton-Poisson realization (see [10]):

(R5,Π−,H),

where

Π−=02x1−x20−x4−2x102x3−x4x5x2−2x30−x500x4x50−kx4−x50k0

is the minus Lie-Poisson strcture and

H(x1,x2,x3,x4,x5)=12(x12+x32+x42)

is the Hamiltonian.Also, there exists only one functionally independent Casimir of our Poisson configuration, given by C : ℝ⁵ → ℝ,

C(x1,x2,x3,x4,x5)=2kx1x3+k2x22+x1x52+x2x4x5−x3x42.

Following [10], the equilibrium states of the dynamics (1) are:

e1P=(P,0,P,0,0) which are unstable for any P ∈ ℝ^*;
e2P=(P,0,−P,0,0) which are spectrally stable for Pk>0;
e3PQ=(0,P,0,0,Q) which are spectrally stable for any P,Q ∈ ℝ^*.

The paper is organized as follows: the second section is dedicated to the nonlinear stability results; also, the existence of the periodical orbits around the nonlinear stable states is proved. The existence of the Hamilton-Poisson realization offers the necessary geometric framework in order to obtain this results. Specific tools, such as the energy methods and the Moser Theorem, belong to this framework.

The Optimal Homotopy Asymptotic Method is presented in the third section. Using this method, the analytical approximate solution of the proposed dynamics is found in the fourth paragraph. A comparison with the Runge-Kutta 4th steps integrator obtained using MATHEMATICA 6.0 and numerical simulations are the subjects of the last part.

2 Nonlinear Stability Problems and Periodical Orbits

Let us present very briefly, the concept of nonlinear stable equilibrium point of a dynamical system. For more details, see [7].

Definition 2.1

An equilibrium state x_e is said to benonlinear stableif for each neighborhood U of x_e in D there is a neighborhood V of x_e in U such that trajectory x(t) initially in V never leaves U.

This definition supposes well-defined dynamics and a specified topology. In terms of a norm ‖ ‖. nonlinear stability means that for each ε > 0 there is δ > 0 such that if

x(0)−xe<δ

then

x(t)−xe<ε,(∀)t>0.

It is clear that nonlinear stability implies spectral stability; the converse is not always true.

Proposition 2.2

The equilibrium statese2Pare nonlinearly stable ifPk>0,P,k∈R∗.

We will use Arnold’s technique. Consider the function

Fλ(x1,x2,x3,x4,x5)=H(x1,x2,x3,x4,x5)+λC(x1,x2,x3,x4,x5)=12(x12+x32+x42)+2kλx1x3+k2λx22+λx1x52+λx2x4x5−λx3x42.

The following conditions hold:

∇Fλ(e2P)=0ifλ=12k;
Taking now
W=ker⁡[dC(e2P)]=Span01000,00010,00001,
then, for all v ∈ W, i.e. v = (0,a,0,b,c), a, b, c ∈ ℝ, we have
v⋅∇2F12k(e2P)⋅vt=12a2+1+Pkb2+Pkc2
which is positive definite under the restriction Pk>0, and so
∇2F12k(e2P)|W×W
is also positive definite.

Hence, via Arnold’s technique, the equilibrium states e2PwithPk>0,P,k∈R∗ are nonlinear stable, as required.

As a consequence, we can find the periodic orbits of the equilibrium points e2PforPk>0,P,k∈R∗. More exactly, we can prove:

Proposition 2.3

IfPk>0,P,k∈R∗the reduced dynamics to the coadjoint orbit

2kx1x3+k2x22+x1x52+x2x4x5−x3x42=−2kP2(2)

has near the equilibrium pointe2Pat least two periodic solution whose period is close to

π22|P|andπkP+P2.

Proof

We will use Moser-Weinstein theorem with zero eigenvalue, see [3] for details.

The restriction of our dynamics (1) to the coadjoint orbit (2) gives rise to a classical Hamiltonian system.
The matrix of the linear part of our reduced dynamics to (1) has purely imaginary roots at the equilibrium of interest:
λ1=0,λ2,3=±2i2Pandλ4,5=±ikP+P2.
Span[∇C(e2P)]=ker⁡[A(e2P)]=Span−10100.
IfPk>0,P,k∈R∗, then the reduced Hamiltonian has a local minimum at the equilibrium state e2P.

Proposition 2.4

The equilibrium statese3PQ=(0,P,0,0,Q)are nonlinearly stable for any P,Q ∈ ℝ^*.

We will use energy-Casimir method, see [2] for details. Let

Fφ(x1,x2,x3,x4,x5)=H(x1,x2,x3,x4,x5)+φ[C(x1,x2,x3,x4,x5)]=12(x12+x32+x42)+φ(2kx1x3+k2x22+x1x52+x2x4x5−x3x42)

be the energy-Casimir function, where φ : ℝ → ℝ is a smooth real valued function.

Now, the first variation of F_φ is given by

δFφ(x1,x2,x3,x4,x5)=x1δx1+x3δx3+x4δx4+φ˙(2kx1x3+k2x22+x1x52+x2x4x5−x3x42)⋅[(2kx3+x52)δx1+(kx2+x4x5)δx2+(2kx1−x42)δx3+(x2x5−2x3x4)δx4+(2x1x5+x2x4)δx5]

so we obtain

δFφ(e3PQ)=φ˙k2P2(Q2δx1+kPδx2+PQδx4)

that is equals zero for any P,Q ∈ ℝ^* if and only if

φ˙k2P2=0.(3)

The second variation of F_φ at the equilibrium of interest is given by

δ2Fφ(e3PQ)=(δx1)2+(δx3)2+(δx4)2+φ¨k2P2(Q2δx1+kPδx2+PQδx4)2.

If we choose now φ such that the relation (3) is valid and

φ¨k2P2>0,

then the second variation of F_φ at the equilibrium of interest is positive definited and so our equilibrium states e3PQ are nonlinearly stable.

3 The Optimal Homotopy Asymptotic Method

Let us pass now to find the analytical approximate solutions for the nonlinear differential system given by the Eq. (1) with the boundary conditions

xi(0)=Ai,i=1,5¯,(4)

using the Optimal Homotopy Asymptotic Method (OHAM) (see [11], [12] for details). In the beginning, we briefly present the description of this method.

For equations of the general form:

L(F(η))+N(F(η))=0,(5)

subject to the boundary/initial conditions of the type:

B(F(η),dF(η)dη)=0.(6)

we construct (see [11] and [12]) the homotopy given by:

H[L(F(η,p)),H(η,Ci),N(F(η,p))],(7)

where p ∈ [0, 1] is the embedding parameter, L is a linear operator and H(η, C_i), (H ≠ 0) is an auxiliary convergence-control function, depending on the variable η and on the parameters C₁, C₂, …, C_s.

One can prove that the following properties hold:

H[L(F(η,0)),H(η,Ci),N(F(η,0))]=L(F(η,0))=L(F0(η))(8)
H[L(F(η,1)),H(η,Ci),N(F(η,1))]=H(η,Ci)N(F(η,1)).(9)

If the function F is giving by:

F(η,p)=F0(η)+pF1(η,Ci),(10)

then, by substituting (10) in (7), the following relation is obtained:

H[L(F(η,p)),H(η,Ci),N(F(η,p))]=0.(11)

Consider the operator 𝓗 of the specific expression:

H[L(F(η,p)),H(η,Ci),N(F(η,p))]=L(F0(η))++p[L(F1(η,Ci))−H(η,Ci)N(F0(η))],(12)

where the governing equations of F₀(η) and F₁(η, C_i) can be obtained by equating the coefficients of p⁰ and p¹, respectively:

L(F0(η))=0,B(F0(η),dF0(η)dη)=0(13)

L(F1(η,Ci))=H(η,Ci)N(F0(η)),B(F1(η,Ci),dF1(η,Ci)dη)=0,i=1,s¯.(14)

The expression of F₀(η) can be found solving the linear equation (13). Also, to compute F₁(η, C_i) we solve the equation (14), by taking into consideration that the nonlinear operator N presents the general form:

NF0(η)=∑i=1mhi(η)gi(η),(15)

where m is a positive integer and h_i(η) and g_i(η) are known functions depending both on F₀(η) and N.

Although equation (14) is a nonhomogeneous linear equation, in most cases its solution can not be found.

In order to compute the function F₁(η, C_i) we will use the third modified version of OHAM (see [12] for details), consisting in the following steps:

– First we consider one of the following expressions for F₁(η, C_i):

F1(η,Ci)=∑i=1mHi(η,hj(η),Cj)gi(η),j=1,s¯,(16)

F1(η,Ci)=∑i=1mHi(y,gj(η),Cj)hi(η),j=1,s¯,BF1(η,Ci),dF1(η,Ci)dη=0.(17)

These expressions of H_i(η, h_j(η), C_j) contain both linear combinations of the functions h_j and the parameters Cj,j=1,s¯. The summation limit m is an arbitrary positive integer number.

– Next, by taking into account the equation (10), the first-order analytical approximate solution of the equations (5) - (6) is:

F¯(η,Ci)=F(η,1)=F0(η)+F1(η,Ci).(18)

– Finally, the convergence-control parameters C₁, C₂, …,C_s, which determine the first-order approximate solution (18), can be optimally computed by means of various methods, such as: the least square method, the Galerkin method, the collocation method, the Kantorowich method or the weighted residual method and so on. The first option should be minimizing the square residual error:

J(C1,C2,...,Cs)=∫(D)R2(η,C1,C2,...,Cs)dη(19)

where the residual R is given by

R(η,C1,C2,...,Cs)=Nf¯(η,Ci).(20)

The unknown parameters C₁, C₂, … , C_s can be identified from the conditions:

∂J∂C1=∂J∂C2=...=∂J∂Cs=0.(21)

With these parameters known (called optimal convergence-control parameters), the first-order approximate solution given by Eq.(18) is well-determined.

It should be emphasized that our procedure contains the auxiliary functions H_i(η, f_i, C_j), i = 1, …, m, j = 1, …, s which provides us with a simple way to adjust and control the convergence of the approximate solutions. It is very important to properly choose these functions H_i(η, f_i, C_j) which appear in the construction in the first-order approximation.

4 Application of Optimal Homotopy Asymptotic Method for Solving the Nonlinear Differential System (1)

Let us now apply the method described above to solve the nonlinear differential system given by the equations (1). We choose the linear operators:

Lx1(t)=x1′(t)+K1x1(t)Lx2(t)=x2′(t)+K1x2(t)Lx3(t)=x3′(t)+K1x3(t)Lx4(t)=x4′(t)+K1x4(t)Lx5(t)=x5′(t)+K1x5(t)−ax4(t)(22)

where K₁ > 0 is unknown parameter.

The corresponding linear equations for the initial approximationsx_i₀, i=1,5¯, becomes

Lxi0(t)=0,xi0(0)=Ai,i=1,5¯,(23)

whose solutions are

x10(t)=A1⋅e−K1tx20(t)=A2⋅e−K1tx30(t)=A3⋅e−K1tx40(t)=A4⋅e−K1tx50(t)=(A5+aA4t)⋅e−K1t.(24)

The nonlinear operators Nxi(t),i=1,5¯, are obtained from the equations (1) as follows:

Nx1(t)=−K1x1(t)+x2(t)x3(t)Nx2(t)=−K1x2(t)+2x12(t)−2x32(t)+x42(t)Nx3(t)=−K1x3(t)−x1(t)x2(t)+x4(t)x5(t)Nx4(t)=−K1x4(t)−x3(t)x5(t)Nx5(t)=−K1x5(t)−x1(t)x4(t).(25)

Substituting Eqs. (24) into Eqs. (25), we obtain

Nx10(t)=−K1x10(t)+x20(t)x30(t)Nx20(t)=−K1x20(t)+2x102(t)−2x302(t)+x402(t)Nx30(t)=−K1x30(t)−x10(t)x20(t)+x40(t)x50(t)Nx40(t)=−K1x40(t)−x30(t)x50(t)Nx50(t)=−K1x50(t)−x10(t)x40(t).(26)

Remark 4.1

a) We have a large freedom to choice the linear operator L, such as:

Lx1(t)=x1′(t)+K1x1(t)+g1(t)

and therefore, the nonlinear operator N becomes

Nx1(t)=−K1x1(t)+x2(t)x3(t)−g1(t)

where g₁(t) is an arbitrary continuous function that convergence-control the solution.

b) The function g₁(t) can be chosen as g₁(t) = B₁ cos ωt + C₁ sin ωt or g₁(t) = B₁ cos ωt + C₁ sin ωt + B₂ cos ω₂t + C₂ sin ω₂t or g₁(t) = B₁ cos ωt + C₁ sin ωt + B₂ cos 3ωt + C₂ sin 3ωt and so on.

The auxiliary convergence-control functions H_i are chosen such that the product H_i · N[x_i₀(t) has the same form like N[x_i₀(t). Then, the first approximation is:

xi1=B1cos⁡ωt+C1sin⁡ωt+B2cos⁡3ωt+C2sin⁡3ωt+B3cos⁡5ω1t+C3sin⁡5ω1t+B4cos⁡7ω1t+C4sin⁡7ω1t+B5cos⁡ω2t+C5sin⁡ω2t+B6cos⁡3ω2t+C6sin⁡3ω2t+B7cos⁡5ω3t+C7sin⁡5ω3t+B8cos⁡7ω3t+C8sin⁡7ω3t⋅e−K1t.(27)

Using now the third-alternative of OHAM and the equations (18), the first-order approximate solution can be put in the form

x¯i(t,Cj)=xi0(t)+xi1(t,Cj),i=1,5¯(28)

where x_i₀(t) and x_i₁(t, C_j) are given by (24) and (27), respectively.

For the nonlinear differential system given by Eq. (1) the corresponding residual functions given by Eq. (20) become:

R1(t,Bj,Cj)=x¯˙1+x¯2x¯3R2(t,Bj,Cj)=x¯˙2+2x¯12−2x¯32+x¯42R3(t,Bj,Cj)=x¯˙3−x¯1x¯2+x¯4x¯5R4(t,Bj,Cj)=x¯˙4−x¯3x¯5R5(t,Bj,Cj)=x¯˙5−x¯1x¯4−kx¯4,(29)

k ∈ ℝ.

5 Numerical Examples and Discussions

In this section, the accuracy and validity of the OHAM technique is proved using a comparison of our approximate solutions with numerical results obtained via the fourth-order Runge-Kutta method in the following case: we consider the initial value problem given by Eq. (1) with initial conditions Ai=0.1,i=1,5¯,k=50.

The convergence-control parameters K1,ω,ω1,ω2,ω3,Bi,Ci,i=1,8¯ are optimally determined by means of the least-square method.

For all unknown functions x¯i,i=1,5¯,we findK1=2.278126552620239,ω=1.3762803403795802,ω1=0.47813539122122517,ω2=1.7711316031320425,ω3=0.7512679521244802.

The first-order approximate solutions given by the Eq. (28) are respectively:

–forx¯1:

x¯1(t)=e−2.2781265526t⋅(0.1−1539.2036537865cos⁡[1.3762803403t]+2146.5931060662cos⁡[1.7711316031t]−62.5789184515cos⁡[2.3906769561t]−2105.5202871126cos⁡[3.3469477385t]+2145.1995165251cos⁡[3.7563397606t]−556.6739392471cos⁡[4.1288410211t]−228.1069705054cos⁡[5.2588756648t]+200.2911465118cos⁡[5.3133948093t]−233.2354956045sin⁡[1.3762803403t]+1734.4533467178sin⁡[1.7711316031t]−2010.4690691105sin⁡[2.3906769561t]+498.9518111758sin⁡[3.3469477385t]+801.0961373896sin⁡[3.7563397606t]−690.0244186296sin⁡[4.1288410211t]+175.2647769735sin⁡[5.2588756648t]−131.0263973696sin⁡[5.3133948093t])(30)

–For x¯2:

x¯2(t)=e−2.2781265526t⋅(0.1−15260.7815681516cos⁡[1.3762803403t]+17108.5154597769cos⁡[1.7711316031t]+8461.8887319812cos⁡[2.3906769561t]−32725.7593591730cos⁡[3.3469477385t]+28565.1499752006cos⁡[3.7563397606t]−5471.1627975838cos⁡[4.1288410211t]−4896.0864779965cos⁡[5.2588756648t]+4218.2360359462cos⁡[5.3133948093t]−7070.7498432360sin⁡[1.3762803403t]+27060.1826811753sin⁡[1.7711316031t]−24769.1457444271sin⁡[2.3906769561t]−3740.4992886592sin⁡[3.3469477385t]+23255.2371244883sin⁡[3.7563397606t]−13866.5482555146sin⁡[4.1288410211t]+2281.1108262053sin⁡[5.2588756648t]−1610.8659095678sin⁡[5.3133948093t])(31)

–forx¯3:

x¯3(t)=e−2.2781265526t⋅(0.1+139431.2629341998cos⁡[1.3762803403t]−210104.0681072855cos⁡[1.7711316031t]+29008.5479815552cos⁡[2.3906769561t]+218012.8029626905cos⁡[3.3469477385t]−273969.5008187874cos⁡[3.7563397606t]+98280.7262884159cos⁡[4.1288410211t]+7067.2891846270cos⁡[5.2588756648t]−7727.0604254157cos⁡[5.3133948093t]+23048.1402575979sin⁡[1.3762803403t]−162846.7585419209sin⁡[1.7711316031t]+209729.6427073796sin⁡[2.3906769561t]−126581.7269534985sin⁡[3.3469477385t]+7138.6204759150sin⁡[3.7563397606t]+44499.4492217200sin⁡[4.1288410211t]−34929.8074534369sin⁡[5.2588756648t]+28628.4924527697sin⁡[5.3133948093t])(32)

–forx¯4:

x¯4(t)=e−2.2781265526t⋅(0.1+54326.5181638183cos⁡[1.3762803403t]−81607.7493425815cos⁡[1.7711316031t]+12684.9219591446cos⁡[2.3906769561t]+72363.6896622957cos⁡[3.3469477385t]−87183.8189010923cos⁡[3.7563397606t]+29386.8516596795cos⁡[4.1288410211t]+2874.7475267167cos⁡[5.2588756648t]−2845.1607279812cos⁡[5.3133948093t]+8009.4374135866sin⁡[1.3762803403t]−60498.9564060210sin⁡[1.7711316031t]+76948.1979148196sin⁡[2.3906769561t]−44204.7821282308sin⁡[3.3469477385t]+3333.9079540144sin⁡[3.7563397606t]+13491.0951467330sin⁡[4.1288410211t]−7813.5442603879sin⁡[5.2588756648t]+6208.0968314566sin⁡[5.3133948093t])(33)

–forx¯5:

x¯5(t)=e−2.2781265526t⋅(0.1+5t+666138.0110648051cos⁡[1.3762803403t]−934387.5696542863cos⁡[1.7711316031t]+20014.4603906560cos⁡[2.3906769561t]+1.0440⋅106cos⁡[3.3469477385t]−1.1650⋅106cos⁡[3.7563397606t]+366120.7836513140cos⁡[4.1288410211t]+52146.2063124158cos⁡[5.2588756648t]−49094.7503855498cos⁡[5.3133948093t]+154782.8235333784sin⁡[1.3762803403t]−860435.8794097108sin⁡[1.7711316031t]+987341.6977387308sin⁡[2.3906769561t]−397550.2105036524sin⁡[3.3469477385t]−178937.7585760594sin⁡[3.7563397606t]+259533.5676211552sin⁡[4.1288410211t]−116116.0139910701sin⁡[5.2588756648t]+92653.0757278590sin⁡[5.3133948093t])(34)

Finally, Tables 1 – 5 emphasizes the accuracy of the OHAM technique by comparing the approximate analytic solutions x¯i,i=1,5¯ presented above with the corresponding numerical integration values.

Table 1

Comparison between OHAM results given by Eq. (30) and numerical results for a = 50 (relative error:εx1=|x¯1OHAM−x1numeric|)

t	x_{1_numeric}	x¯1OHAM given by Eq. (30)	ε_x₁
0	0.1	0.1	0
3/10	0.0973010122	0.0972949303	6.0819 ⋅10⁻⁶
3/5	0.0965692103	0.0965689390	2.7124 ⋅10⁻⁷
9/10	0.0991855835	0.0991976718	0.0000120883
6/5	0.1015502519	0.1015493062	9.4564 ⋅10⁻⁷
3/2	0.1006520393	0.1006486235	3.4157 ⋅10⁻⁶
9/5	0.0984666978	0.0984700813	3.3834 ⋅10⁻⁶
21/10	0.0961160804	0.0961129077	3.1726 ⋅10⁻⁶
12/5	0.0945455752	0.0945487305	3.1552 ⋅10⁻⁶
27/10	0.0951860425	0.0951870172	9.7470 ⋅10⁻⁷
3	0.0973969241	0.0973980345	1.1103 ⋅10⁻⁶

Table 2

Comparison between OHAM results given by Eq. (31) and numerical results for a = 50 (relative error: εx2=|x¯2OHAM−x2numeric|)

t	x_{2_numeric}	x¯2OHAMgiven by Eq. (31)	ε_x₂
0	0.1	0.1	0
3/10	0.0956818544	0.0955888648	0.0000929895
3/5	0.0854263073	0.0853278319	0.0000984753
9/10	0.0844198193	0.0844564095	0.0000365902
6/5	0.0813803193	0.0815382784	0.0001579590
3/2	0.0716411788	0.0715346587	0.0001065201
9/5	0.0694602859	0.0694944333	0.0000341473
21/10	0.0690947046	0.0691593470	0.0000646424
12/5	0.0631772363	0.0630046297	0.0001726066
27/10	0.0546946007	0.0549241257	0.0002295250
3	0.0582053904	0.0584816646	0.0002762741

Table 3

Comparison between OHAM results given by Eq. (32) and numerical results for a = 50 (relative error: εx3=|x¯3OHAM−x3numeric|)

t	x_{3_numeric}	x¯3OHAMgiven by Eq. (32)	ε_x₃
0	0.1	0.1	0
3/10	0.0730628883	0.0729788225	0.0000840657
3/5	-0.0383195601	-0.0381175983	0.0002019617
9/10	-0.1416782781	-0.1410317691	0.0006465089
6/5	-0.0207374035	-0.0209948054	0.0002574018
3/2	0.0852662107	0.0850579261	0.0002082845
9/5	0.1144957877	0.1149014176	0.0004056299
21/10	0.1050522552	0.1045957626	0.0004564926
12/5	0.0353041031	0.0356142019	0.0003100987
27/10	-0.1157519839	-0.1153154206	0.0004365633
3	-0.0932578835	-0.0928098350	0.0004480484

Table 4

Comparison between OHAM results given by Eq. (33) and numerical results for a = 50 (relative error: εx4=|x¯4OHAM−x4numeric|)

t	x_{4_numeric}	x¯4OHAMgiven by Eq. (33)	ε_x₄
0	0.1	0.1	0
3/10	0.1232652896	0.1236011513	0.0003358616
3/5	0.1385857661	0.1395600389	0.0009742728
9/10	-0.0094601354	-0.0098563956	0.0003962601
6/5	-0.1387713846	-0.1397827486	0.0010113640
3/2	-0.1122445225	-0.1110756747	0.0011688478
9/5	-0.0848234365	-0.0860525897	0.0012291532
21/10	-0.0986190756	-0.0975498076	0.0010692680
12/5	-0.1407648758	-0.1422493287	0.0014844528
27/10	-0.0868394736	-0.0858697722	0.0009697013
3	0.1087050948	0.1113663977	0.0026613028

Table 5

Comparison between OHAM results given by Eq. (34) and numerical results for a = 50 (relative error:εx5=|x¯5OHAM−x5numeric|)

t	x_{5_numeric}	x¯5OHAMgiven by Eq. (34)	ε_x₅
0	0.1	0.1	0
3/10	1.7320338592	1.7342008834	0.0021670242
3/5	3.7978866255	3.7953347600	0.0025518655
9/10	5.0024384519	4.9983900602	0.0040483916
6/5	3.6279293668	3.6330997784	0.0051704116
3/2	1.6646925061	1.6610151733	0.0036773328
9/5	0.2287079437	0.2314404046	0.0027324609
21/10	-1.0961112512	-1.0968882365	0.0007769853
12/5	-2.8949929928	-2.8954177486	0.0004247557
27/10	-4.8662294199	-4.8621480187	0.0040814011
3	-4.6466195413	-4.6458791721	0.0007403691

The Figures 1 – 5 present a comparison between the analytical approximate solutions obtained by OHAM method and numerical results obtained by Runge-Kutta 4th steps integrator. We can see that the analytical approximate solutions offer us the same numerical results as Runge-Kutta 4th integrator.

$Figure 1 Comparison between the approximate solutions x¯1 $\bar{x}_1 $ given by Eq. (30) and the corresponding numerical solutions: ————— numerical solution,· · · · · · · · · · · OHAM solution.$

Figure 1

Comparison between the approximate solutions x¯1 given by Eq. (30) and the corresponding numerical solutions: ————— numerical solution,· · · · · · · · · · · OHAM solution.

$Figure 2 Comparison between the approximate solutions x¯2 $\bar{x}_2 $ given by Eq. (31) and the corresponding numerical solutions: ————— numerical solution,· · · · · · · · · · · OHAM solution.$

Figure 2

Comparison between the approximate solutions x¯2 given by Eq. (31) and the corresponding numerical solutions: ————— numerical solution,· · · · · · · · · · · OHAM solution.

$Figure 3 Comparison between the approximate solutions x¯3 $\bar{x}_3 $ given by Eq. (32) and the corresponding numerical solutions: ————— numerical solution,· · · · · · · · · · · OHAM solution.$

Figure 3

Comparison between the approximate solutions x¯3 given by Eq. (32) and the corresponding numerical solutions: ————— numerical solution,· · · · · · · · · · · OHAM solution.

$Figure 4 Comparison between the approximate solutions x¯4 $\bar{x}_4 $ given by Eq. (33) and the corresponding numerical solutions: ————— numerical solution,· · · · · · · · · · · OHAM solution.$

Figure 4

Comparison between the approximate solutions x¯4 given by Eq. (33) and the corresponding numerical solutions: ————— numerical solution,· · · · · · · · · · · OHAM solution.

$Figure 5 Comparison between the approximate solutions x¯5 $\bar{x}_5 $ given by Eq. (34) and the corresponding numerical solutions: ————— numerical solution,· · · · · · · · · · · OHAM solution.$

Figure 5

Comparison between the approximate solutions x¯5 given by Eq. (34) and the corresponding numerical solutions: ————— numerical solution,· · · · · · · · · · · OHAM solution.

For the analytic approximate solutions given by Eqs. (30) - (34), the corresponding numerical value of the square residual are presented in Table 6.

Table 6

Numerical value of the square residual ∫0tmaxRi2(t,Bj,Cj)dt,i=1,5¯ given by Eq. (29) for a = 50

∫0tmaxR12(t,Bj,Cj)dt	6.442716947059657 ⋅10⁻⁸
∫0tmaxR22(t,Bj,Cj)dt	0.00001343436774938075
∫0tmaxR32(t,Bj,Cj)dt	0.00005505233000649044
∫0tmaxR42(t,Bj,Cj)dt	0.0005461686827488749
∫0tmaxR52(t,Bj,Cj)dt	0.013216857418541084

6 Conclusion

The main goal of this paper is to present some comments about the nonlinear stability and the periodic orbits for some equilibrium points of a dynamical system. Its solutions are the optimal controls that minimize a cost function which steer a left-invariant drift-free control system on the Schrödinger Lie group from an initial state to a final state (see [10]).

A lot of similar left-invariant drift-free control system on matrix Lie groups were studied so far in [6], [4], [1], [8].

In the last section the approximate analytic solutions of the considered controlled system (1) are established using the optimal homotopy asymptotic method (OHAM). %Numerical simulations via Mathematica 6.0 software and the approximations deviations are presented. Both numerical simulations via Mathematica 6.0 software and approximations deviations were presented. The accuracy of our results is pointed out by means of the approximate residual of the solutions. We can see that the proposed method, even if it does not use a Poisson integrator, offers better results that the Lie-Trotter integrator used in [10].

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank the referees very much for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Conflict of Interests: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

References

[1] Aron A., Pop C., Puta M., An Optimal Control Problem on the Lie Group SE(2, ℝ) × SO(2), Boletin de la Sociedad Mexicana, 2009, 15(2).Suche in Google Scholar

[2] Birtea P., Puta M., Equivalence of energy methods in stability theory, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 2007, 48(4), 81-99.10.1063/1.2716201Suche in Google Scholar

[3] Birtea P., Puta M., Tudoran R. M., Periodic orbits in the case of a zero eigenvalue, Comptes Rendus Mathématique. Académie des Sciences, Paris, 2007, 344(12), 779-784.10.1016/j.crma.2007.05.003Suche in Google Scholar

[4] David D., Holm D., Multiple Lie-Poisson structures, reduction and geometric phases for the Maxwell-Bloch traveling wave equations, J. Nonlinear Sci, 1992, 2, 241-262.10.1007/BF02429857Suche in Google Scholar

[5] Jurdjevic V., Geometric Control Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997.10.1017/CBO9780511530036Suche in Google Scholar

[6] Leonard N. E., Averaging and motion control systems on Lie groups, PhD Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 1994.Suche in Google Scholar

[7] Ortega J. P., Planas-Bielsa V., Ratiu T.S., Asymptotic and Lyapunov stability of constrained and Poisson equilibria, J. Differ. Eq., 2005, 214(1), 92–127. 10.1016/j.jde.2004.09.016Suche in Google Scholar

[8] Pop C., A Drift-Free Left Invariant Control System on the Lie Group SO(3) × R³ × R³, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2015, vol. 2015, Article ID 652819, 9 pages.10.1155/2015/652819Suche in Google Scholar

[9] Puta M., Hamiltonian Mechanical Systems and Geometric Quantization, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1993, 10.1007/978-94-011-1992-4.Suche in Google Scholar

[10] Sahoo S. R., Sahoo S. P., Jena A., Pati K. C., Optimal control on Schrödinger Lie group and the behavior of the dynamics, IMA Journal of Mathematical Control and Information, 2016, 1–17, 10.1093/imamci/dnw045.Suche in Google Scholar

[11] Marinca V., Herişanu N., Bota C., Marinca B., An optimal homotopy asymptotic method applied to the steady flow of a fourth grade fluid past a porous plate, Applied Mathematics Letters, 2009, 22, 245-251.10.1016/j.aml.2008.03.019Suche in Google Scholar

[12] Marinca V., Herişanu N., The Optimal Homotopy Asymptotic Method: Engineering Applications, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 2015.10.1007/978-3-319-15374-2Suche in Google Scholar

[13] Niederer U., The maximal kinematical invariance group of the free Schrödinger equation, Helv. Phys. Acta, 1972, 45, 802-810.Suche in Google Scholar

[14] Hagen C. R., Scale and conformal transformations in galilean-covariant field theory, Phys. Rev. D5, 1972, 377-388.10.1103/PhysRevD.5.377Suche in Google Scholar

Received: 2016-8-27

Accepted: 2016-11-17

Published Online: 2016-12-30

Published in Print: 2016-1-1

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.