Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1
CONTENTS
Table of contents
Abstract p4
I) Introduction p5
III) Controllability p 10
Bibliography p 46
2
List of Figures
3
Abstract
Control systems of the form
dx
= f ( x(t ), u (t )), t ≥ 0, x(t ) ∈ n u (t ) ∈ m .
dt
are explained and their applications are described. Moreover, the special case of linear
control systems of the form
d
x(t ) = Ax(t ) + Bu (t ), t ≥ 0, A ∈ n× n , B ∈ n× m , x(t ) ∈ n , u (t ) ∈ m .
dt
are solved in terms of the matrices A and B.
Conditions on the matrices A and B are given to make the system controllable, reachable
spaces are introduced, Hautus test for controllability is proved and also the Pole
Placement Theorem.
Finally, a Matlab code for the Pole Placement Theorem is given and a numerical
example solved by the program.
The necessary ideas of the exponentiation of a matrix and the Cayley-Hamilton theorem
are introduced in the last chapter.
4
Chapter I: Introduction
Control theory is a domain of applied mathematics that deals with the basic principles
behind the analysis of control systems. Roughly speaking, control systems are models
which are described by underdetermined differential equations of the type
dx
= f ( x(t ), u (t )), t ≥ 0, (*)
dt
f : n × m n , and
where for each t ≥ 0 we have x(t ) ∈ n and u (t ) ∈ m . The function u is called the
input, which can be frequently chosen, that is, it can be specified arbitrarily, and once
this is done, the differential equation (*) has a unique solution x (given an initial
condition x(0), and under some mild conditions on f ).
The models given by the differential equation (*) arise frequently in applications from
various sciences such as engineering, economics and biology.
One can think of a control system as a black box. This box, being given the input u,
manufactures the output x, according to the equation.
The aim in control theory is to choose the input u in such a manner that some desired
effect is produce on the output x.
5
Chapter II: Control Theory
As it has been just said above, in control theory, one studies models which are described
by underdetermined differential equations. This means that some of the variables
satisfying the differential equations are ‘free’. An example of an underdetermined
algebraic equation would be x 2 + u 2 = 1, where both x and u are non-negative real
numbers. In this case we can see that this equation does not have an unique solution of
the form ( x, u ). Rather, there is freedom in choosing one of the variables, say u, and
6
It is important to note that the underdetermined differential equation (**) is a special
case of the much more general underdetermined differential equation (*), where
f : n × m n is the linear function given by
Models described by equations of the type (**) occur frequently in applications (often
as linear approximation of more complicated non-linear models), and we give one
example below from the biological field.
Consider a lake with two species of fish whose populations x1 , x2 over a time period
d x1 (t ) a11 a12 x1 (t )
= for t ∈ [0, T ],
dt x2 (t ) a21 a22 x2 (t )
from x1i , x2i . Perhaps by then one of the species is nearing extinction, because we have
7
dx
Solution to = Ax(t ) + Bu (t )
dt
In this part of the chapter we shall find a unique solution of the differential equation
d
(E.II.1) x(t ) = Ax(t ) + Bu (t ), t ≥ 0, x(0) = x0
dt
Lemma
Suppose that A ∈ n× n , then the first-order linear differential equation
dx
(E.II.2) = Au (t ), t ≥ 0, x(0) = x0
dt
has the unique solution x(t ) = etA x0 .
Proof
Set x1 (t ) = etA x0 and compute
d d
x1 (t ) = (etA x0 ) = AetA x0 ,
dt dt
so t etA x0 does indeed solve (E.II.2). Furthermore x1 (0) = e0 A x0 = Ix0 = x0 .
Finally, uniqueness requires the product rule. Suppose x is a solution to (E.II.2),
consider the derivative of e − tA x(t )
d − tA
e x(t ) = − Ae− tA x(t ) + e −tA Ax(t ).
dt
However, A and etA commute, as it can be seen by the definition of the exponential
matrix, and hence the derivative of etA x(t ) is zero. This implies that etA x(t ) is a constant
column vector, say C, and x(t ) = etAC. Because x(0) = x0 , we have that x0 = e0 AC = C ,
Theorem
Suppose that A ∈ n× n and that B ∈ n×1.
If u is a continuous function, then the differential equation (E.II.1) has the unique
solution x(⋅) in [ 0, +∞ ) given by
8
t
x(t ) = etA x0 + ∫ e( t −τ ) A Bu (τ)d τ.
0
Proof.
First we show that this is indeed a solution. Formally, by working backwards we have
d tA d tA
t t
∫ ∫
( t −τ ) A
e x0 + e Bu ( τ ) d τ = e x0 + e tA
e( t −τ ) A Bu (τ) d τ
dt 0 dt 0
d tA ( t −τ ) A
t
= AetA x0 + e ∫e Bu (τ)d τ
dt 0
t
= AetA x0 + AetA ∫ e( t −τ ) A Bu (τ)d τ + etAe −tA Bu (t )
0
tA t
= A e x0 + e ∫ e( t −τ ) A Bu (τ)d τ + etA − tA Bu (t )
tA
0
t
= A etA x0 + etA ∫ e(t −τ ) A Bu (τ)d τ + Bu (t )
0
hence, this x(⋅) does indeed satisfy (E.II.1) and the initial condition follows by setting t
to be zero
0
e0 A x0 + ∫ e( t −τ ) A Bu (τ)d τ = Ix0 + 0 = x0 .
0
The uniqueness follows by considering two different solutions x1 and x2 . It follows that
x := x1 − x2 satisfies the differential equation (E.II.2) with x(0) = 0 and so from the
previous Lemma we have that ∀t ≥ 0 : x(t ) = 0 which means that x1 = x2 . And this ends
the proof.
9
Chapter III: Controllability
We would like to define and characterize the property of controllability in terms of the
matrices A and B. To this end, we first define controllability and reachability of linear
systems.
Definition
The system
dx
(E.III.1) = Ax(t ) + Bu (t )
dt
for t ∈ [ 0, T ] is said to be controllable at time T if for every pair of vectors x0 , x1 in n ,
there exists a control u ∈ C [ 0, T ] such that the solution x of (E.III.1) with x(0) = x0
Examples
Let A = 0 and B = 1, so that system ( A, B ) becomes
dx
= u (t ) 0 ≤ t ≤ T .
dt
10
Given x0 , x1 ∈ , define u ∈ C [0, T ] to be the constant function
1
u (t ) = ( x1 − x0 ) 0 ≤ t ≤ T .
T
However, by the use of the fundamental theorem of calculus we can write
T T T
dx 1
x(T ) − x(0) = x(T ) − x0 = ∫ d τ = ∫ x '(τ)d τ = ∫ u (τ)d τ = ( x1 − x0 )(T − 0) = x1 − x0
0 dτ 0 0 T
and hence
x(T ) = x1.
The second equation implies that x2 (t ) = x2 (0)et , and so if x2 (0) > 0, then for all t ≥ 0
we have x2 (t ) > 0. This in turn means that a final state with the x2 − component negative
Definition
The reachable space of (E.III.1) at time T, denoted by ℜT , is defined as the set of all
Let us remark that this means that if we run the differential equation (E.III.1) with the
input u, and with initial condition x(0) = x0 , then x is the set of all points in the state
space that are ‘reachable’ at time T starting from 0 by means of some input u ∈ C [ 0, T ].
Formally we have
11
T
ℜT = x ∈ n | ∃u ∈ C[0, T ] s.t. u = ∫ e(T −τ ) A Bu (τ)d τ .
0
This means that ℜT is made up of all the controls u that make the system ( A, B )
controllable.
First we show that a reachable space is a subspace of n .
Lemma
The reachable space ℜT is a subspace of n .
Proof
In order to prove this claim, we need to show that ℜT is
- nonempty
- closed under addition
- closed under scalar multiplication.
If we take u = 0, then
T
∫e
(T −τ ) A
Bu (τ)d τ = 0,
0
and hence 0 ∈ ℜT .
Thus u := u1 + u2 ∈ C [ 0, T ] and
T T T
0 0 0
and hence x1 + x2 ∈ ℜT .
If α ∈ , then αu ∈ C [ 0, T ] and
12
T T
0 0
So far, we have proved that ℜT ⊂ n , now we want to give a necessary and sufficient
condition for ℜT to actually be n . As we will see, this condition depends on the rank
Definition
The rank of a matrix A, written rank( A), is equal to the maximum number of linearly
independent rows of A or, equivalently, the dimension of the row space of A.
Essentially, the rank counts the number of genuinely independent rows in the matrix A.
Theorem
The following propositions are equivalent
(1) ℜT = n ,
Proof
Let us do a contradiction to prove that (2) implies (1). To this end, suppose ℜT ≠ n ,
then there exists a x0 ≠ 0 belonging to n such that for all r ∈ ℜT we have x0T r = 0.
This is actually equivalent to the following equation
T
x0T ∫ e(T −τ ) A Bu (τ)d τ = 0 ∀u ∈ ([0, T ]) m .
0
T
In particular, it will still be true if we choose u = u ( τ) = B T e(T −τ ) A x0 , with t ∈ [0, T ]. As
a precaution it is worth reminding the reader that T and T have very different meanings
and the notation can become a bit tricky. This choice of u belongs to ([0, T ]) m .
So plugging this intro the integral gives
13
T T
0 = ∫ x0T e(T −τ ) A BB T e(T − τ) A x0 d τ = ∫ y (τ)T y (τ)d τ,
T
0 0
where
y1 (τ)
T (T −τ ) AT
y (τ) = B e x0 = ,
y (τ)
m
see the Appendix to justify the change of the transpose in the exponential.
The product inside the integral can be written as
T m m T
0 = ∫ ∑ yk (τ)2 d τ = ∑ ∫ yk (τ)2 d τ,
0 k =1 k =1 0
the inversion of the summation and integration symbols is justified because the sum is
T
finite. However, each ∫0
yk (τ)2 d τ is greater than or equal to zero, so the sum is only
T
zero if each ∫
0
yk (τ)2 d τ is actually zero, i.e.
T
∀k ∈ {1,..., m} : ∫ y (τ) d τ = 0,
2
k
0
Hence ∀τ ∈ [0, T ] : x0T e(T −τ ) A B = 0. Differentiate this last equation k times with respect
Let us now prove that (1) implies (2), set ℘ := rank[ B | AB | | An −1 B] < n. Then
x0T [ B | AB | | An −1B] = 0,
however, every matrix is a zero of its characteristic polynomial (by the Cayley-
Hamilton theorem) thus
n−2
x0T An B = x0T (α 0 I + α1 A + + α n An −1 ) B = x0T α n An −1 + ∑ α k Ak B = 0,
k =0
and by induction ∀k ≥ n : x0T Ak B = 0.
14
These last two equations give: ∀k ≥ 0 : x0T Ak B = 0.
Now,
∞
1 22 1
0 = x0T IB + x0T AtB + x0T A t B + = ∑ x0T Ak t k B
2! k =0 k!
since each term in the sum is zero, and we continue from here
∞ 1
0 = x0T ∑ Ak t k B = x0T etA B.
k =0 k !
However, this implies that x0 ∉ ℜT , since otherwise if some u ∈ ([0, T ]) m then
T
x0 = ∫ e(T − τ) A Bu (τ)d τ
0
T T
x0T x0 = ∫ x0T e(T − τ) A Bu (τ)d τ = ∫ 0 Bu (τ)d τ = 0
0 0
which gives x0 = 0, a contradiction, so the rank has to be exactly n. And this ends the
proof.
( A, B ) is controllable ⇔ rank[ B | AB | | An −1 B] = n.
Combining both results from the Lemma and from the Theorem we obtain:
Corollary
The following propositions are equivalent
(1) ( A, B ) is controllable
Before proceeding into the eigenvalue analysis for controllability let us return to the
examples we considered at the beginning and see why one of them is controllable and
the other is not using our new result: Corollary 3.5.
In the first example we had n = 1 and
15
rank[ B | AB | | An −1B] = rank[ B] = rank[1] = 1 = n,
which is indeed the dimension of , the state space.
However, on the second example, the state space was 2 , so n = 2 and we have
1 1
rank[ B | AB | | An −1B] = rank[ B | AB |] = rank = 1 ≠ 2 = n.
0 0
Lemma
Let A ∈ n× n , then the characteristic polynomial of A is the same as the characteristic
Proof
We have
det( I λ − T −1 AT ) = det(T −1 (λI − A)T )
Lemma
Let A be the following matrix
0 1 0
A= .
0 0 1
−a0 −a1 −an −1
Proof
One has
16
λ −1 0 0
0 λ −1 0
det(λI n − A) = det
0 0 0 −1
a0 a1 a2 λ + an −1
λ −1 0 0 −1 0
= λ det + det
0 0 −1 0 0 −1
a1 a2 λ + an −1 a0 a2 λ + an −1
λ −1 0
= λ det +a
0 0 −1 0
a1 a2 λ + an −1
= λ λ (λ(
(λ + an −1 ) + an − 2 )
) + a1 + a0
n −3 n −3
= λ n + λ n −1an −1 + λ n − 2 an − 2 + + λa1 + a0
n −1
= λ n + ∑ ak λ k .
k =0
Lemma
Proof
Because ( A, B) is controllable we have rank[ B | AB | | An −1 B] = n. So if we define
Ω as Ω = {B, AB,, An −1B}, then Ω forms a basis of n . With respect to this basis Ω,
the matrix of the linear transformation A is
17
0 0 −a0
1 0 − a1
Q= .
0 1 − an −1
n −3
p2 ( z ) = z n − 2 + an −1 z n − 3 + + a3 z + a2 = z n − 2 + ∑ ak + 2 z k
k =0
pn −1 ( z ) = z + an −1
pn ( z ) = 1.
These auxiliary polynomials satisfy the recursion relation (for i ∈ {1,, n})
zpi ( z ) = pi −1 ( z ) − ai −1 pn ( z ).
Now, also for i ∈ {1,, n} introduce the vectors ei = pi ( A) B. The auxiliary polynomials
18
0 1 0
.
0 0 1
−a0 − a1 − an −1
0
follows trivially.
Next we prove an if and only if lemma which says that if ( A, B) is controllable, then it
will still controllable after the multiplication of an invertible matrix T.
Lemma
Let T be an invertible matrix in n× n . Then the following propositions are equivalent
(1) ( A, B) is controllable
(2) (T −1 AT , T −1 B) is controllable.
Proof
Using the relation (T −1 AT ) n = T −1 AnT , we have that
Lemma
One has that ran[ B | AB | | An −1B] is the smallest A-invariant subspace containing
ran B.
19
Proof
Let us first prove that ran[ B | AB | | An −1B] is a subspace containing ran B.
Suppose that x ∈ ran B, this means that there exists u ∈ m such that x = Bu, and this can
be seen my computing
u
0
[ B | AB | | A B] = Bu = x.
n −1
0
Next, let us show that ran[ B | AB | | An −1B] is an A-invariant subspace. To
u1
u
x = [ B | AB | | An −1B] 2
un
n
= Bu1 + ABu2 + + An −1Bun = ∑ Ak Buk +1
k =0
then
n −1
An = − an −1 An −1 − − a1 A − a0 I = −∑ ak Ak .
k =0
If we now substitute this new equation for An in the equation for Ax we have
Ax = ABu1 + A2 Bu2 + + An −1Bun −1 + (− an −1 An −1 − − a1 A − a0 I ) Bun
20
n −1
= B ⋅ 0 + ∑ Ak B(uk − ak un )
k =1
0
u −au
= [ B | AB | | An −1B] 1 1 n
un −1 − an −1un
∈ ran[ B | AB | | An −1B],
then the claim is that ran[ B | AB | | An −1B] ⊂ V . Let us proceed as in the previous
u1
u n
x = ran[ B | AB | | An −1 B] 2 = ∑ Ak −1 Buk .
k =1
u n
Since ∀ ∈ {1,, n} : Bu ∈ ran B, and since ran B ⊂ V , it follows that Bu ∈ V , for all
in the set {1, , n}. And, as we have shown, V is A-invariant, and so ∀k ≥ 0 : Ak Bu ∈ V .
21
Proof
Let us first prove that (1) implies (2). To achieve such goal, let ( A, B) be controllable.
We now consider two cases for λ. If λ is not an eigenvalue of A, then we have
rank[ B λI − A] = n. However, if λ happens to be an eigenvalue of A then there exists
If v T B = 0 then we have
v T [ B | AB | | An −1B] = [v T B | λv T B | |λ n −1v T An −1B] = 0
a contradiction to ( A, B) being controllable.
To show that (2) implies (1) let ( A, B) be non controllable. Choose a basis for
Now we define the state feedback which has the control u in terms of the variable x by
means of an appropriate matrix. It is called in such a way because it feeds the u into the
system in a closed loop manner.
State Feedback
Let F ∈ m× n , then u (t ) = Fx(t ).
Theorem
If ( A, B) is controllable then ( A + BF , B) is still controllable.
Proof
We have
1 − F
rank[ B λI − A − BF ] = rank [ B λI − A]
0 1
= rank[ B λI − A].
22
Chapter IV: The eigenvalue placement theorem
The state feedback has been defined in such a way so that we can create a closed loop
system, that is, a system that is fed u (t ) in terms of x(t ).
A sensible question to ask now is the following : what are the conditions on A and B
such that for every monic, real polynomial p of degree n there exists F ∈ m× n such that
the characteristic polynomial of A + BF is p?
In order to answer this question we first state and prove some technical lemmas which
will eventually lead to a major proposition called the Pole Placement Theorem.
23
Lemma
If ( A, B) is controllable and b ∈ ran B with b ≠ 0, then there exist u1 ,, un −1 such that
is independent.
Proof
We proceed by steps, x1 ≠ 0 , and therefore it is independent. Now suppose we have
constructed the sequence xi for i = 1,, k . Let ϑ = span { x1 ,, xk } , that is, the linear
Should this not be possible then ∀u : Axk + Buk ∈ ϑ (*). In particular choose u = 0 so we
∀u : Bu ∈ ϑ or the same in other words: ran B ⊂ ϑ. Finally for all i < k we have that
Axi = xi +1 − Bui ⊂ ϑ, since both xi +1 and Bui satisfy xi +1 ⊂ ϑ and Bui ⊂ ϑ.
This gives now gives that indeed Axi ⊂ ϑ for all i ∈ {1,, k} and so it follows that
Lemma
If ( A, B) is controllable and b ∈ ran B with b ≠ 0, then there exists F such that
( A + BF , b) is controllable.
Proof
It follows from the previous lemma. Define F by Fxk = uk , for k ∈ {1,, n − 1} and
Note: we could have used any other arbitrary vector in n to define Fxn .
24
We are now in a position to finally give a necessary and sufficient condition for the
system ( A, B ) to be controllable in terms of characteristic polynomials, this result is
called the:
Proof
Let us prove the ‘only if’ part first. Suppose that ( A, B) is not controllable. We want to
reach the conclusion that the characteristic polynomial of A + BF is never equal to p.
So, if ( A, B) is not controllable then there exist λ ∈ and v ∈ n such that v T A = λv T
∀F ∈ m× n , λ is an eigenvalue of A + BF .
Having this result now we take any monic polynomial p of degree n with real
coefficients such that p (λ) ≠ 0. This gives the conclusion that we were looking for,
which is that the characteristic polynomial of A + BF will never be equal to p.
[Note: take for instance the natural choice p( x) = x n , if λ ≠ 0 and p( x) = x n + 1 if
λ = 0. ]
The proof of the ‘if’ is considerably longer and needs to be divided into two cases, first
one with m = 1 and then a more general case for larger and arbitrary m.
For m = 1 find T such that
0 1 0 1
0
T −1 AT = and T −1b =
0 0 1
−a0 −a1 −an −1 0
Find f = [ f1 f n ] such that
25
0 1 0
T −1 AT + T −1bf = ,
0 0 1
−a0 ' −a1 ' −an −1 '
(this can be accomplish indeed with −a0 + f1 = −a0 ',, −an −1 + f n = −an −1 ')
where
n −1
λ n + ∑ λ k ak '
k =0
and so
0 1 0
−1
A + bfT −1 = T T
0 0 1
−a0 ' −a1 ' −an −1 '
The general case is now done as follows. First, suppose ( A, B) is controllable. Set
b ∈ ran B with b ≠ 0, then ∃F0 such that ( A + BF0 , b) is controllable.
We can also write ∃f ' such that the characteristic polynomial of A + BF + bf ' is the
desired characteristic polynomial. However, there exists u such that b = Bu (because
we have that b ∈ ran B ).
Finally, define F = F0 + uf ', then characteristic polynomial of A + BF is the desired
polynomial.
We will do a numerical example using this theorem (about the linearized motion of a
satellite where the inputs are the thrust in the radial direction and the thrust in the
tangential direction) in the following Chapter.
We will also give the a code which was successfully impletemented in Matlab.
26
Chapter V: Algorithm and Program
% Given (A, B) and poles p, this function will find out if the given pair is controllable
and
% if so it will relocate the poles. The outputs are relocated poles and the feedback
matrix {z}.
[n,n]=size(A);
C=[];
for i=1:n,
C=[C A^(i-1)*B];
end
if rank(C)==n,
disp('(A,B) is controllable')
else
disp('(A,B) is uncontrollable'), RETURN
end
[n,m]=size(B);
r=n-1;
while r~=n,
% form a random matrix of size m x n
F=rand(m,n);
Ao=A+B*F;
% find the eigvenvalues of Ao
x=eig(Ao);
% to check whether they are distinct
27
V=[];
for i=1:n,
v=[];
for j=1:n,
v=[v x(i)^(j-1)];
end
V=[V;v];
end
r=rank(V);
end
r=n-1;
while r~=n,
% form a random matrix u of size m x 1
u=rand(m,1);
b=B*u;
% check for controllability
C=[];
for i=1:n,
C=[C Ao^(i-1)*b];
end
r=rank(C);
end
for i=1:n,
d(i)=x(i+1);
end
28
% to find the characteristic polynomial of A
x=eig(Ao);
y=[1 -x(1)];
for i=2:n,
y=conv(y,[1 -x(i)]);
end
for i=1:n,
ao(i)=y(i+1);
end
% Transformation matrix
P=[zeros(1,n); eye(n-1) zeros(n-1,1)];
x=[1];
for i=1:(n-1),
x=[ao(i) x];
end
U=x;
t=x;
for i=1:(n-1),
t=t*P;
U=[U;t];
end
T=C*U;
fo=[];
for i=1:n,
fo=[fo (d(n+1-i)-ao(n+1-i)) ];
end
fo=fo*inv(T);
x=eig(Ao-b*fo);
disp('poles for controllable pair have been relocated at');
disp(x);
disp('feedback matrix is');
z=(F-u*fo);
29
disp(z);
This system is the linearized equation of motion of a satellite where the input u1 is the
thrust in the radial direction and u2 the thrust in the tangential direction.
0 0
1 0
B= ,
0 0
0 1
and we define the points p(1) = 1, p(2) = 2, p(3) = 3, p(4) = 4, which are the
eigenvalues we wish to have in this system. We also try the eigenvalues p (1) = 1,
p (2) = −1, p (3) = 5, and p (4) = −2.
>> A = [0 1 0 0 ; 3 0 0 2 ; 0 0 0 1 ; 0 -2 0 0]
A=
0 1 0 0
3 0 0 2
0 0 0 1
0 -2 0 0
>> B = [0 0 ; 1 0 ; 0 0 ; 0 1]
B=
0 0
1 0
30
0 0
0 1
>> p(1)=1
p=
>> p(2)=2
p=
1 2
>> p(3)=3
p=
1 2 3
>> p(4)=4
p=
1 2 3 4
>> controllability
(A,B) is controllable
poles for controllable pair have been relocated at
4.0000
1.0000
3.0000
2.0000
feedback matrix is
118.8359 -24.5533 -5.2740 64.2453
64.0536 -13.1355 -2.5757 34.5533
>>
>> A = [0 1 0 0 ; 3 0 0 2 ; 0 0 0 1 ; 0 -2 0 0]
A=
0 1 0 0
3 0 0 2
0 0 0 1
0 -2 0 0
>> B = [0 0 ; 1 0 ; 0 0 ; 0 1]
B=
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 1
>> p(1) = 1
31
p=
>> p(2) = -1
p=
1 -1
>> p(3) = 5
p=
1 -1 5
>> p(4) = -2
p=
1 -1 5 -2
>> controllability
(A,B) is controllable
poles for controllable pair have been relocated at
5.0000
-2.0000
-1.0000
1.0000
feedback matrix is
3.6791 3.4798 4.2638 -0.4639
1.7086 2.0414 2.5879 -0.4798
>>
32
Chapter VI: exp( A), where A ∈ n× n and the Cayley-Hamilton theorem
The objective of this chapter is to set the necessary tools required in the process of
constructing a consistent control theory. The aim is to understand these tools now
instead of having to digress during the theory because this would take our attention
away.
The only required knowledge required is single variable calculus and some linear
algebra: namely vector spaces and matrix theory, in particular expansion of
determinants, digitalisation of matrices, eigenvalues and eigenvectors. The main
objective is not to go into the details of linear algebra, but to explain the exponentiation
of a matrix and the Cayley-Hamilton theorem.
The (i, j ) -entry of a generic matrix A will be denoted by ( Aij ), or by (aij ) once the
cofactors and minors are introduced.
Definition A.1
Let ⋅ denote the following norm
Clearly we have
(*) Aij | ≤ A
Although there are several possible choices for a norm, this one is convenient because it
allows a relatively straightforward proof of the convergence of the exponential of a
matrix.
Lemma A.2
Suppose that A and B are two real n-square matrices, then AB ≤ n A B .
Proof
This follows by using the inequality that we have pointed out previously, we first
estimate the absolute value of the general entry of the matrix AB, denoted by ( AB)ij ,
33
n
|( AB)ij | := ∑A B
k =1
ik kj
n
≤ ∑ |Aik Bkj | by the triangular inequality
k =1
n
= ∑ |Aik ||Bkj |
k =1
n
≤∑ A B by the inequality (*)
k =1
=n A B .
Lemma A.3
k
Suppose that A and B are two real n-square matrices, then Ak ≤ n k −1 A .
Finally we need to show one integer for which the statement is true.
This can be done by setting B = A, in Lemma A.2
2
AA = A2 ≤ n A A = n 2 −1 A .
Lemma A.4
Suppose A is a square matrix and I is the identity matrix, then the series
∞
1 k
eA = ∑ A , with A0 = I ,
k =0 k !
34
Proof
By the convention of our notation, the (i, j ) -entry of e A is
∞
1 k
(e A )ij = ∑ ( A )ij , with (A0 )ij = I ij .
k =0 k !
To show that this exponential of a matrix converges, we show that the series
∞
1 2 1
I ij + Aij + ( A )ij + = ∑ ( Ak )ij
2! k =0 k !
1 1 k 1 k
I ij ≤ I = 1 for k = 0, and ( Ak )ij ≤ A ≤ n k −1 A for k ≥ 1. (By Lemma A.3)
k! k! k!
Hence
1 1 1 2 1 3
I ij |+|Aij | + |( A2 )ij | + |( A3 )ij | + ≤ 1 + A + n A + n 2 A +
2! 3! 2! 3!
1 1 1
= 1 + a + a 2 + a3 +
n 2! 3!
ea − 1
=1+ .
n
The same in abbreviated notation
∞
1 ∞
1 1 ∞ 1 k ea − 1
∑ k ! |( A ) | ≤ ∑ k ! n ∑
k k −1 k
ij A =1+ a =1+ .
k =0 k =0 n k =1 k ! n
Lemma A.5
The series
1 r 1 s
∑∑k r + s=k
A B
r ! s ! ij
Proof
As in the proof above, let a = n A and b = n B and estimate double sum
1 r 1 s 1
∑∑
k r + s=k
A B =∑ ∑
r ! s ! ij k r + s = k r !s !
( Ar B s )ij
35
1
≤∑ ∑ Ar B s (by the (*) inequality)
k r + s = k r !s !
1
≤∑ ∑ n Ar B s (by Lemma A.2)
k r + s=k r ! s !
1
≤∑ ∑
r s
n(n r −1 A )(n s −1 B ) (by Lemma A.3)
k r + s = k r !s !
1 r +s−2
=∑ ∑
r s
n A B
k r + s = k r !s !
1 −2 r s
=∑ ∑ n ab
k r + s = k r !s !
1 r s
≤∑ ∑ ab
k r + s = k r !s !
= ea +b
< ∞.
Lemma A.6
Suppose that A and B are two real n-square matrices that commute, i.e. AB = BA, then
we have e A + B = e Ae B .
Proof
∞
1 ∞ 1 ∞ 1
Formally we have ea + b = ∑ (a + b) k and ea eb = ∑ a k ∑ b k .
k =0 k ! k = 0 k ! k = 0 k !
The terms of degree k in these expansions are respectively
1 1 1 r1 s
k!
( A + B)k = ∑
k ! r + s=k
( r ) A B and
k r s
∑
r + s=k r !
A B.
s!
Because of the binomial coefficients we have
1 k 1 k! 1 1 1
k!
( r )= = =
k ! r !(k − r )! r !(k − r )! r ! s !
,
and hence both terms are equal for all k and all r and s such that k = r + s.
Define
n
1 k
S n ( A) := ∑ A.
k =0 k !
Then
36
n 1 n 1 n n 1 1
S n ( A) S n ( B ) = ∑ Ar ∑ B s = ∑∑ Ar B s ,
r = 0 r ! s = 0 s ! r = 0 s = 0 r ! s !
but similarly
n n
1 1 r1 s
Sn ( A + B) = ∑ ∑ k !( ) A B = ∑ ∑
k
r
r s
A B.
k =0 r + s =k k =0 r + s =k r ! s!
When we compare terms, we realize that the expansion of the partial sum S n ( A + B )
The subtlety here is showing that the sum of the remaining terms (the ones r + s > n)
tend to zero as k grows large without bound.
By Lemma A.5 we have that the i, j-entry of S k ( A) S k ( B ) − S k ( A + B ) satisfies
1 r 1 s
( S k ( A) S k ( B ) − S k ( A + B))ij ≤ ∑
r + s>k
A A .
r ! s ! ij
However, by Lemma A.5, this sum tends to zero as k grows, but we also have that
S k ( A) S k ( B ) − S k ( A + B) → e A e B − e A + B ,
Lemma A.7
1
Suppose I is the identity matrix, then lim (ehA − I ) = A.
h→0 h
Proof
Expand the exponential (we have shown this to be a valid operation in Lemma A.4)
∞
1 hA 1
(e − I ) − A = ∑ h k −1 Ak
h k =2 k !
∞ 1 k −1 k ∞
1 k −1 k
∑
k!
k =2
h A ≤ ∑
ij k = 2 k !
h ( A )ij (by the triangle inequality)
∞
1 k −1 k
=∑ |h| |( A )ij |
k =2 k !
∞
1 k −1 k
≤∑ |h| A (by the (*) inequality)
k =2 k !
37
∞
1 k −1 k −1 k
≤∑ |h| n A (by Lemma A.3)
k =2 k !
∞
1 k −1 k −1 k − k − k
=∑ |h| n a n |h|
k =2 k !
1 ∞ 1 k
= ∑ a
n |h| k = 2 k !
A
= (e a − 1 − a )
a
ea − 1
= A − 1 .
a
At this point it is important to note that a → 0 as h → 0. However, the key here relies
on real analysis, which tells us that the derivative of the exponential function is the
exponential function itself,
ea − 1 d a
lim = e = e0 = 1,
a →0 a da a=0
Lemma 1.8
The function etA is a differentiable matrix-valued function of t, and its derivative is
AetA .
Proof
Apply Newton’s quotient definition of derivative
d tA 1
e = lim (e( t + h ) A − etA )
dt h→0 h
38
Nonetheless, there is straightforward case which can be computed easily, and that is
when the matrix A is diagonal, with diagonal entries λ i .
It is important to note that inspection of the series shows that e A is also diagonal in this
case, and that its diagonal entries are eλi . This can easily be seen by the definition, if A
is a diagonal matrix with entries λ i , then each term in the expansion of e A will be a
diagonal matrix with entries λ ik , each matrix being divided by k !, and hence e A is a
Definition A.9
A matrix A is diagonalizable if there exists a matrix P such that D := P −1 AP is a
diagonal matrix.
The following two lemmas are part of the details of linear algebra which we have
chosen to omit, so the proofs will not be given.
Lemma A.10
If A is diagonalizable, then A = PDP −1.
Lemma A.11
If A is diagonalizable, then ( PDP −1 ) k = PD k P −1.
Lemma A.12
If A is diagonalizable then
eλ1 0
e A = P P −1
0 eλn
where λi are the eigenvalues of A.
Proof
∞
1 k
One has e A = ∑ A , with A0 = I
k =0 k !
39
∞
1
= I +∑ ( PDP −1 ) k
k =1 k !
∞
1
= PIP −1 + ∑ ( PDP −1 ) k
k =1 k !
∞
1
= P I + ∑ D k P −1
k =1 k !
∞
1
= P I + ∑ D k P −1
k =1 k !
= Pe D P −1
eλ1 0
= P P −1.
0 eλn
Example
0 −θ
Compute e A for A = .
θ 0
Solution
The key step here is to realize that
J θ2 k
A2 k = 2 k
0
0
2k
J 2k θ
where J 2 k = {−+11 k is odd
k is even
.
− K 2 k +1θ2 k +1
A 2 k +1 =
0
K 2 k +1θ
2 k +1
0
where K 2 k +1 = {−+11 k is odd
k is even
.
Therefore
∞
1 k 1 1
eA = ∑ A = I + A + A2 + A3 +
k =0 k ! 2! 3!
1 0 0 −θ 1 −θ2 0 1 0 θ3
= + + + +
0 1 θ 0 2! 0 −θ2 3! −θ3 0
1 2 1 4 1 3 1 5
1 − 2! θ + 4! θ − −θ + 3! θ − 5! θ +
=
θ − 1 θ3 + 1 θ5 − −1 + 1 θ2 − 1 θ4 +
3! 5! 2! 4!
40
(−1) k 2 k (−1) k 2 k +1
∑ x − ∑ (2k + 1)! x
(2 k )!
=
(−1) k 2 k +1 (−1) k 2 k
∑ x −∑ x
(2k + 1)! (2k )!
cos θ − sin θ
= .
sin θ cos θ
Solution
λn 0
We already know the solution to this one, we know that An = 1 , and hence
0 λ 2n
∞
1 n ∞ 1 λ1n 0 eλ1 0
eA = ∑ A =∑ = .
n = 0 n! n = 0 n! 0 λ n2 0 eλ2
Example
0 1
Compute e A for A = .
0 0
Solution
The crucial step is detecting that this is a nilpotent matrix, i.e. A2 = 0, and so on, so we
only need to sum up a finite number of terms.
1 0 0 1 1 1
eA = I + A = + = .
0 1 0 0 0 1
Definition A.13
Suppose A is an n-square matrix. Let M ij denote the (n − 1) − square submatrix of A
obtained by deleting its ith row and jth column. The determinant det( M ij ) is called the
minor of the element aij of A, and we define the cofactor of aij , denoted by Aij , to be
41
Definition A.14
Consider a n-square matrix A over a field K. The classical adjoint, also called the
adjoint, of A, denoted by adj A is the transpose of the matrix of cofactors of A, i.e.
Proof
Omitted.
Lemma A.16
Suppose A is an n-square matrix, and suppose B is the matrix obtained from A by
∑
n
replacing the ith row of A by the row vector ( bi1 bi 2 ... bin ) . One has b Aij .
j =1 ij
Additionally, if i ≠ j then
n n
∑a
k =1
jk Aik = ∑ akj Aki = 0.
k =1
Proof
As usual with our convention B = (bij ), and by the Laplace expansions in Lemma A.15
we have
n
det B = ∑ bij Bij .
j =1
Now, we can safely say that Bij = Aij for j = 1,..., n since Bij does not depend upon the
42
This proves the first part of the claim, the second part requires us to introduce the matrix
A’ obtained from A by replacing the ith row of A by its jth row. However, determinant
theory gives that det A ' = 0 since A’ has two identical rows (this is also a classical result
in linear algebra). Using the first part of the claim we have
n
0 = det A ' = ∑ a jk Aik .
k =1
The final argument is to use the also classical fact det A ' = det A, which gives
n
∑a
k =1
kj Aki = 0.
Lemma A.17
Suppose A is an n-square matrix, then A ⋅ (adj A) = (adj A) ⋅ A = det( A) I .
Proof
As usual with our notation, the elements of A are denoted by aij , and the elements of
The ith row of A is ( ai1 ai 2 ... ain ) . Since adj A is the transpose of the matrix of
cofactors, the jth column of adj A is the transpose of the cofactors of the jth row of A,
T
i.e. ( Aj1 Ai 2 ... Ain ) . However, we can obtain bij by multiplying these two vectors
together, i.e.
n
Ai 2 ... Ain ) = ∑ aik Ajk .
T
bij = ( ai1 ai 2 ... ain ) ⋅ ( Aj1
k =1
bij = {det(
0,
A), if i = j
otherwise
.
Hence A ⋅ (adj A) is the diagonal matrix with each diagonal element det( A), this means
that A ⋅ (adj A) = det( A) I . The exact same reasoning gives (adj A) ⋅ A = det( A) I .
Now we reach the second important proposition of this chapter since we have developed
all the necessary tools to state it and prove it.
43
Proposition A.18 (Cayley-Hamilton theorem)
Every matrix is a root of its characteristic polynomial.
Proof
Suppose that A is an arbitrary real n-square matrix, and let ∆ (t ) denote its characteristic
polynomial, say
n −1
∆ (t ) = det(tI − A) = t n + an −1t n −1 + + a1t + a0 = t n + ∑ ak t k .
k =0
Now let B (t ) denote the classical adjoint of the matrix tI − A. The elements of B (t ) are
cofactors of the matrix tI − A and hence are polynomials in t of degree not exceeding
n − 1, thus
n −1
B (t ) = Bn −1t n −1 + + B1t + B0 = ∑ Bk t k .
k =0
n −1 n −1
(tI − A) ∑ Bk t k = t n + ∑ ak t k I .
k =0 k =0
The key step is now to equate the coefficients of corresponding powers of t, this can be
done since both sides are of order n,
Bn −1 = I
Bn − 2 − ABn −1 = an −1I
B0 − AB1 = a1I
− AB0 = a0 I .
An Bn −1 = I
An −1Bn − 2 − An Bn −1 = an −1 An −1
AB0 − A2 B1 = a1 A
− AB0 = a0 I .
44
n −1
0 = An + an −1 An −1 + an − 2 An − 2 + + a0 I = An + ∑ ak Ak = ∆ ( A),
k =0
Lemma A.19
Let A and B be two real n-square matrices, then ( AB) T = B T AT , where the T denotes the
transpose of a matrix.
Proof
∑
n
According to our notation, A = (aij ) and B = (bij ) so the ij-entry of AB is a b ,
k =1 ik kj
Lemma A.20
For any real n-square matrix A we have: ( AT ) k = ( A k ) T.
Now assume P (n) is true for some integer n, then ( AT ) n = ( A n ) T , multiply both sides
by AT , this gives ( AT ) n AT = ( A n ) T AT. The left hand side is simply ( AT ) n +1, whereas
45
We finish with two lemmas concerning the determinants and transpose of the
exponential of a square matrix.
Lemma A.21
Suppose A is a real n-square matrix, then det e A = eTr A .
Proof
Let us start by a reduction of A of the form A = P −1TP, where T is upper triangular.
Note that since T k will still be triangular, with diagonal entries equal to (t kjj ), eT will be
t
triangular as well, with diagonal entries equal to (e jj ).
Hence
det eT = ∏ e jj = exp ∑ t jj = eTr T ,
t
j j
Lemma A.22
Suppose A is a real n-square matrix, then (e A ) T = exp( A T ), where exp denotes
exponential of a square matrix as usual.
Proof
By definition and Lemma A.4 we have
T T
∞ 1 ∞
1 ∞
1 ∞
1
(e ) = ∑ Ak = ∑ Ak = ∑ ( Ak ) T = ∑ ( A T ) k = exp( A T ),
A T
k =0 k ! k =0 k ! k =0 k ! k =0 k !
we have used Lemma A.20 to invert the transpose and the exponentiated power.
46
Bibliography
47