Prove that maximal solutions are defined in $mathbb{R}$












2















Let $f:mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}^nto mathbb{R}^n$ be a continuously differentiable function. Suppose that exists $v:mathbb{R}to[0,infty)$ continuous such that $||f(t,x)||leq v(t)||x||; forall (t,x)in mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}^n$.
Prove that all maximal solutions for $dot{x}=f(t,x)$ are defined in $mathbb{R}$; what happens if $f$ is bounded?




I believe that the Picard–Lindelöf theorem is the way to go, but I don't know how to prove that $f$ satisfies the Lipschitz condition. In order to use it, if I understand correctly, I should prove that $v$ is bounded for every $t$ in a neighborhood of $(t_0,x_0)$ being the last a solution for the differential equation.



If $dot{x}=f(t,x)$ then $x(t)=displaystyleint f(t,x)dt$. Considering the hypothesis, $$displaystyle{||x||leqint||f(t,x)||dtleqint v(t) ||x||dt}\1leqint||f(t,x)||dtleqint v(t)dt$$



which doesn't seem useful at all....







First update



Alright, let's try it this way: The goal is to show that we always have a is defined in $mathbb{R}$ for any IVP. Suppose $(t_0,x_0)$ is a maximal solution for $dot{x}=f(t,x)$ with $x(t_0)=a$, then I should prove that exists an interval $[t_0-c,t_0+c]$ in which the solution exists.



$v$ is continuos, then for any $t_0$ we can pick $c$ and $[t_0-c,t_0+c]$ will be be bounded. Define $K=operatorname{max}{v(t):tin [t_0-c,t_0+c]}$. Then $f$ is Lipschitz for every $(t,x)in [t_0-c,t_0+c]times mathbb{R}^n$, this is, $||f(t,x)||leq v(t)||x||leq K ||x||;forall (t,x)in [t_0-c,t_0+c]timesmathbb{R}^n$



By the Picard-Lindelöf theorem, the IVP has an unique maximal solution. And $t_0,c$ were arbitrary, can I conclude that all maximal solutions are defined?





Second update



Looking about extensibility I found these notes about differential equation. The extensibility theorem and the corollary seem to be enough to prove that the solutions exists for all $mathbb{R}$.



I'll quote both here:






  • Suppose that $f$ is $C^1$ on $mathbb{R}^n$. Denote the unique solution by $x(t)$ and suppose $J:=(a,b)$ is the maximal interval of existence.



    Theorem 1.20 (Extensibility Theorem): For each compact set $Ksubset mathbb{R}^n$ there is a $tin J$ such that $x(t)notin K$; thus, $$lim_{tto b^-}|x(t)|=lim_{tto a^+}|x(t)|=+infty .$$



    Corollary 1.21: Without loss of generality, if $f:mathbb{R}^nto mathbb{R}^n$ is continuous, then the solutions to $dot{x}=f(x)$, $x(0)=x_0$ exist $forall tin mathbb{R}$.






With the corollary and the continuity of $f:mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}^ntomathbb{R}^n$, can I affirm that all maximal solutions can be defined in $mathbb{R}$ for the equation $dot{x}=f(t,x)$?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    You need some mild assumption on $v$, for example that it is continuous. If it is continuous, then it is bounded on compact intervals, which is exactly the local Lipschitz property that you need for Picard-Lindelof.
    – Ian
    Nov 10 '14 at 0:44










  • @Ian You're right, I missed that part when I was copying the problem. I updated the post with new attempt to solve it.
    – Cure
    Nov 10 '14 at 1:21






  • 1




    You are asked to prove that solutions are defined globally, for all $mathbb R$. The Picard theorem is essentially local, it guarantees the uniqueness and existence of solution on a some small interval. To work through your problem you need several facts about extensibility of solutions.
    – Artem
    Nov 10 '14 at 2:15










  • @Artem Thanks. Could you be a bit more explicity about the $text{several}$ facts about extensibility? I looked for it and I found the theorem I posted in the second update of the post, but I'm unaware of what other facts are needed to answer the question.
    – Cure
    Nov 10 '14 at 3:02






  • 1




    Not really. Again, the estimate $|f(t,x)|leq T|x|$ is essential, without it any proof doomed to be wrong (see my example above)
    – Artem
    Nov 10 '14 at 3:18
















2















Let $f:mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}^nto mathbb{R}^n$ be a continuously differentiable function. Suppose that exists $v:mathbb{R}to[0,infty)$ continuous such that $||f(t,x)||leq v(t)||x||; forall (t,x)in mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}^n$.
Prove that all maximal solutions for $dot{x}=f(t,x)$ are defined in $mathbb{R}$; what happens if $f$ is bounded?




I believe that the Picard–Lindelöf theorem is the way to go, but I don't know how to prove that $f$ satisfies the Lipschitz condition. In order to use it, if I understand correctly, I should prove that $v$ is bounded for every $t$ in a neighborhood of $(t_0,x_0)$ being the last a solution for the differential equation.



If $dot{x}=f(t,x)$ then $x(t)=displaystyleint f(t,x)dt$. Considering the hypothesis, $$displaystyle{||x||leqint||f(t,x)||dtleqint v(t) ||x||dt}\1leqint||f(t,x)||dtleqint v(t)dt$$



which doesn't seem useful at all....







First update



Alright, let's try it this way: The goal is to show that we always have a is defined in $mathbb{R}$ for any IVP. Suppose $(t_0,x_0)$ is a maximal solution for $dot{x}=f(t,x)$ with $x(t_0)=a$, then I should prove that exists an interval $[t_0-c,t_0+c]$ in which the solution exists.



$v$ is continuos, then for any $t_0$ we can pick $c$ and $[t_0-c,t_0+c]$ will be be bounded. Define $K=operatorname{max}{v(t):tin [t_0-c,t_0+c]}$. Then $f$ is Lipschitz for every $(t,x)in [t_0-c,t_0+c]times mathbb{R}^n$, this is, $||f(t,x)||leq v(t)||x||leq K ||x||;forall (t,x)in [t_0-c,t_0+c]timesmathbb{R}^n$



By the Picard-Lindelöf theorem, the IVP has an unique maximal solution. And $t_0,c$ were arbitrary, can I conclude that all maximal solutions are defined?





Second update



Looking about extensibility I found these notes about differential equation. The extensibility theorem and the corollary seem to be enough to prove that the solutions exists for all $mathbb{R}$.



I'll quote both here:






  • Suppose that $f$ is $C^1$ on $mathbb{R}^n$. Denote the unique solution by $x(t)$ and suppose $J:=(a,b)$ is the maximal interval of existence.



    Theorem 1.20 (Extensibility Theorem): For each compact set $Ksubset mathbb{R}^n$ there is a $tin J$ such that $x(t)notin K$; thus, $$lim_{tto b^-}|x(t)|=lim_{tto a^+}|x(t)|=+infty .$$



    Corollary 1.21: Without loss of generality, if $f:mathbb{R}^nto mathbb{R}^n$ is continuous, then the solutions to $dot{x}=f(x)$, $x(0)=x_0$ exist $forall tin mathbb{R}$.






With the corollary and the continuity of $f:mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}^ntomathbb{R}^n$, can I affirm that all maximal solutions can be defined in $mathbb{R}$ for the equation $dot{x}=f(t,x)$?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    You need some mild assumption on $v$, for example that it is continuous. If it is continuous, then it is bounded on compact intervals, which is exactly the local Lipschitz property that you need for Picard-Lindelof.
    – Ian
    Nov 10 '14 at 0:44










  • @Ian You're right, I missed that part when I was copying the problem. I updated the post with new attempt to solve it.
    – Cure
    Nov 10 '14 at 1:21






  • 1




    You are asked to prove that solutions are defined globally, for all $mathbb R$. The Picard theorem is essentially local, it guarantees the uniqueness and existence of solution on a some small interval. To work through your problem you need several facts about extensibility of solutions.
    – Artem
    Nov 10 '14 at 2:15










  • @Artem Thanks. Could you be a bit more explicity about the $text{several}$ facts about extensibility? I looked for it and I found the theorem I posted in the second update of the post, but I'm unaware of what other facts are needed to answer the question.
    – Cure
    Nov 10 '14 at 3:02






  • 1




    Not really. Again, the estimate $|f(t,x)|leq T|x|$ is essential, without it any proof doomed to be wrong (see my example above)
    – Artem
    Nov 10 '14 at 3:18














2












2








2








Let $f:mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}^nto mathbb{R}^n$ be a continuously differentiable function. Suppose that exists $v:mathbb{R}to[0,infty)$ continuous such that $||f(t,x)||leq v(t)||x||; forall (t,x)in mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}^n$.
Prove that all maximal solutions for $dot{x}=f(t,x)$ are defined in $mathbb{R}$; what happens if $f$ is bounded?




I believe that the Picard–Lindelöf theorem is the way to go, but I don't know how to prove that $f$ satisfies the Lipschitz condition. In order to use it, if I understand correctly, I should prove that $v$ is bounded for every $t$ in a neighborhood of $(t_0,x_0)$ being the last a solution for the differential equation.



If $dot{x}=f(t,x)$ then $x(t)=displaystyleint f(t,x)dt$. Considering the hypothesis, $$displaystyle{||x||leqint||f(t,x)||dtleqint v(t) ||x||dt}\1leqint||f(t,x)||dtleqint v(t)dt$$



which doesn't seem useful at all....







First update



Alright, let's try it this way: The goal is to show that we always have a is defined in $mathbb{R}$ for any IVP. Suppose $(t_0,x_0)$ is a maximal solution for $dot{x}=f(t,x)$ with $x(t_0)=a$, then I should prove that exists an interval $[t_0-c,t_0+c]$ in which the solution exists.



$v$ is continuos, then for any $t_0$ we can pick $c$ and $[t_0-c,t_0+c]$ will be be bounded. Define $K=operatorname{max}{v(t):tin [t_0-c,t_0+c]}$. Then $f$ is Lipschitz for every $(t,x)in [t_0-c,t_0+c]times mathbb{R}^n$, this is, $||f(t,x)||leq v(t)||x||leq K ||x||;forall (t,x)in [t_0-c,t_0+c]timesmathbb{R}^n$



By the Picard-Lindelöf theorem, the IVP has an unique maximal solution. And $t_0,c$ were arbitrary, can I conclude that all maximal solutions are defined?





Second update



Looking about extensibility I found these notes about differential equation. The extensibility theorem and the corollary seem to be enough to prove that the solutions exists for all $mathbb{R}$.



I'll quote both here:






  • Suppose that $f$ is $C^1$ on $mathbb{R}^n$. Denote the unique solution by $x(t)$ and suppose $J:=(a,b)$ is the maximal interval of existence.



    Theorem 1.20 (Extensibility Theorem): For each compact set $Ksubset mathbb{R}^n$ there is a $tin J$ such that $x(t)notin K$; thus, $$lim_{tto b^-}|x(t)|=lim_{tto a^+}|x(t)|=+infty .$$



    Corollary 1.21: Without loss of generality, if $f:mathbb{R}^nto mathbb{R}^n$ is continuous, then the solutions to $dot{x}=f(x)$, $x(0)=x_0$ exist $forall tin mathbb{R}$.






With the corollary and the continuity of $f:mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}^ntomathbb{R}^n$, can I affirm that all maximal solutions can be defined in $mathbb{R}$ for the equation $dot{x}=f(t,x)$?










share|cite|improve this question
















Let $f:mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}^nto mathbb{R}^n$ be a continuously differentiable function. Suppose that exists $v:mathbb{R}to[0,infty)$ continuous such that $||f(t,x)||leq v(t)||x||; forall (t,x)in mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}^n$.
Prove that all maximal solutions for $dot{x}=f(t,x)$ are defined in $mathbb{R}$; what happens if $f$ is bounded?




I believe that the Picard–Lindelöf theorem is the way to go, but I don't know how to prove that $f$ satisfies the Lipschitz condition. In order to use it, if I understand correctly, I should prove that $v$ is bounded for every $t$ in a neighborhood of $(t_0,x_0)$ being the last a solution for the differential equation.



If $dot{x}=f(t,x)$ then $x(t)=displaystyleint f(t,x)dt$. Considering the hypothesis, $$displaystyle{||x||leqint||f(t,x)||dtleqint v(t) ||x||dt}\1leqint||f(t,x)||dtleqint v(t)dt$$



which doesn't seem useful at all....







First update



Alright, let's try it this way: The goal is to show that we always have a is defined in $mathbb{R}$ for any IVP. Suppose $(t_0,x_0)$ is a maximal solution for $dot{x}=f(t,x)$ with $x(t_0)=a$, then I should prove that exists an interval $[t_0-c,t_0+c]$ in which the solution exists.



$v$ is continuos, then for any $t_0$ we can pick $c$ and $[t_0-c,t_0+c]$ will be be bounded. Define $K=operatorname{max}{v(t):tin [t_0-c,t_0+c]}$. Then $f$ is Lipschitz for every $(t,x)in [t_0-c,t_0+c]times mathbb{R}^n$, this is, $||f(t,x)||leq v(t)||x||leq K ||x||;forall (t,x)in [t_0-c,t_0+c]timesmathbb{R}^n$



By the Picard-Lindelöf theorem, the IVP has an unique maximal solution. And $t_0,c$ were arbitrary, can I conclude that all maximal solutions are defined?





Second update



Looking about extensibility I found these notes about differential equation. The extensibility theorem and the corollary seem to be enough to prove that the solutions exists for all $mathbb{R}$.



I'll quote both here:






  • Suppose that $f$ is $C^1$ on $mathbb{R}^n$. Denote the unique solution by $x(t)$ and suppose $J:=(a,b)$ is the maximal interval of existence.



    Theorem 1.20 (Extensibility Theorem): For each compact set $Ksubset mathbb{R}^n$ there is a $tin J$ such that $x(t)notin K$; thus, $$lim_{tto b^-}|x(t)|=lim_{tto a^+}|x(t)|=+infty .$$



    Corollary 1.21: Without loss of generality, if $f:mathbb{R}^nto mathbb{R}^n$ is continuous, then the solutions to $dot{x}=f(x)$, $x(0)=x_0$ exist $forall tin mathbb{R}$.






With the corollary and the continuity of $f:mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}^ntomathbb{R}^n$, can I affirm that all maximal solutions can be defined in $mathbb{R}$ for the equation $dot{x}=f(t,x)$?







differential-equations






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 3 at 17:12









LutzL

56.4k42054




56.4k42054










asked Nov 10 '14 at 0:41









Cure

1,79811241




1,79811241








  • 1




    You need some mild assumption on $v$, for example that it is continuous. If it is continuous, then it is bounded on compact intervals, which is exactly the local Lipschitz property that you need for Picard-Lindelof.
    – Ian
    Nov 10 '14 at 0:44










  • @Ian You're right, I missed that part when I was copying the problem. I updated the post with new attempt to solve it.
    – Cure
    Nov 10 '14 at 1:21






  • 1




    You are asked to prove that solutions are defined globally, for all $mathbb R$. The Picard theorem is essentially local, it guarantees the uniqueness and existence of solution on a some small interval. To work through your problem you need several facts about extensibility of solutions.
    – Artem
    Nov 10 '14 at 2:15










  • @Artem Thanks. Could you be a bit more explicity about the $text{several}$ facts about extensibility? I looked for it and I found the theorem I posted in the second update of the post, but I'm unaware of what other facts are needed to answer the question.
    – Cure
    Nov 10 '14 at 3:02






  • 1




    Not really. Again, the estimate $|f(t,x)|leq T|x|$ is essential, without it any proof doomed to be wrong (see my example above)
    – Artem
    Nov 10 '14 at 3:18














  • 1




    You need some mild assumption on $v$, for example that it is continuous. If it is continuous, then it is bounded on compact intervals, which is exactly the local Lipschitz property that you need for Picard-Lindelof.
    – Ian
    Nov 10 '14 at 0:44










  • @Ian You're right, I missed that part when I was copying the problem. I updated the post with new attempt to solve it.
    – Cure
    Nov 10 '14 at 1:21






  • 1




    You are asked to prove that solutions are defined globally, for all $mathbb R$. The Picard theorem is essentially local, it guarantees the uniqueness and existence of solution on a some small interval. To work through your problem you need several facts about extensibility of solutions.
    – Artem
    Nov 10 '14 at 2:15










  • @Artem Thanks. Could you be a bit more explicity about the $text{several}$ facts about extensibility? I looked for it and I found the theorem I posted in the second update of the post, but I'm unaware of what other facts are needed to answer the question.
    – Cure
    Nov 10 '14 at 3:02






  • 1




    Not really. Again, the estimate $|f(t,x)|leq T|x|$ is essential, without it any proof doomed to be wrong (see my example above)
    – Artem
    Nov 10 '14 at 3:18








1




1




You need some mild assumption on $v$, for example that it is continuous. If it is continuous, then it is bounded on compact intervals, which is exactly the local Lipschitz property that you need for Picard-Lindelof.
– Ian
Nov 10 '14 at 0:44




You need some mild assumption on $v$, for example that it is continuous. If it is continuous, then it is bounded on compact intervals, which is exactly the local Lipschitz property that you need for Picard-Lindelof.
– Ian
Nov 10 '14 at 0:44












@Ian You're right, I missed that part when I was copying the problem. I updated the post with new attempt to solve it.
– Cure
Nov 10 '14 at 1:21




@Ian You're right, I missed that part when I was copying the problem. I updated the post with new attempt to solve it.
– Cure
Nov 10 '14 at 1:21




1




1




You are asked to prove that solutions are defined globally, for all $mathbb R$. The Picard theorem is essentially local, it guarantees the uniqueness and existence of solution on a some small interval. To work through your problem you need several facts about extensibility of solutions.
– Artem
Nov 10 '14 at 2:15




You are asked to prove that solutions are defined globally, for all $mathbb R$. The Picard theorem is essentially local, it guarantees the uniqueness and existence of solution on a some small interval. To work through your problem you need several facts about extensibility of solutions.
– Artem
Nov 10 '14 at 2:15












@Artem Thanks. Could you be a bit more explicity about the $text{several}$ facts about extensibility? I looked for it and I found the theorem I posted in the second update of the post, but I'm unaware of what other facts are needed to answer the question.
– Cure
Nov 10 '14 at 3:02




@Artem Thanks. Could you be a bit more explicity about the $text{several}$ facts about extensibility? I looked for it and I found the theorem I posted in the second update of the post, but I'm unaware of what other facts are needed to answer the question.
– Cure
Nov 10 '14 at 3:02




1




1




Not really. Again, the estimate $|f(t,x)|leq T|x|$ is essential, without it any proof doomed to be wrong (see my example above)
– Artem
Nov 10 '14 at 3:18




Not really. Again, the estimate $|f(t,x)|leq T|x|$ is essential, without it any proof doomed to be wrong (see my example above)
– Artem
Nov 10 '14 at 3:18










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1















By the Picard-Lindelöf theorem, the IVP has an unique maximal solution. And $t_0,,c$ were arbitrary, can I conclude that all maximal solutions are defined?




No, you cannot conclude this, because, as I mentioned, Picard's theorem is local.



To finish your prove you need to have
$$
x(t)=x_0+int_{t_0}^t f(tau,x)dtau,
$$
which implies that
$$
|x(t)|leq |x_0|+K|x|(t-t_0),
$$
using your notations. After this you will need a Grownwall's inequality, to find that
$$
|x(t)|leqldots,
$$
which, together with my previous remarks, finished the proof. I think you should be able to fill in the necessary details.






share|cite|improve this answer





















    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1014253%2fprove-that-maximal-solutions-are-defined-in-mathbbr%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    1















    By the Picard-Lindelöf theorem, the IVP has an unique maximal solution. And $t_0,,c$ were arbitrary, can I conclude that all maximal solutions are defined?




    No, you cannot conclude this, because, as I mentioned, Picard's theorem is local.



    To finish your prove you need to have
    $$
    x(t)=x_0+int_{t_0}^t f(tau,x)dtau,
    $$
    which implies that
    $$
    |x(t)|leq |x_0|+K|x|(t-t_0),
    $$
    using your notations. After this you will need a Grownwall's inequality, to find that
    $$
    |x(t)|leqldots,
    $$
    which, together with my previous remarks, finished the proof. I think you should be able to fill in the necessary details.






    share|cite|improve this answer


























      1















      By the Picard-Lindelöf theorem, the IVP has an unique maximal solution. And $t_0,,c$ were arbitrary, can I conclude that all maximal solutions are defined?




      No, you cannot conclude this, because, as I mentioned, Picard's theorem is local.



      To finish your prove you need to have
      $$
      x(t)=x_0+int_{t_0}^t f(tau,x)dtau,
      $$
      which implies that
      $$
      |x(t)|leq |x_0|+K|x|(t-t_0),
      $$
      using your notations. After this you will need a Grownwall's inequality, to find that
      $$
      |x(t)|leqldots,
      $$
      which, together with my previous remarks, finished the proof. I think you should be able to fill in the necessary details.






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        1












        1








        1







        By the Picard-Lindelöf theorem, the IVP has an unique maximal solution. And $t_0,,c$ were arbitrary, can I conclude that all maximal solutions are defined?




        No, you cannot conclude this, because, as I mentioned, Picard's theorem is local.



        To finish your prove you need to have
        $$
        x(t)=x_0+int_{t_0}^t f(tau,x)dtau,
        $$
        which implies that
        $$
        |x(t)|leq |x_0|+K|x|(t-t_0),
        $$
        using your notations. After this you will need a Grownwall's inequality, to find that
        $$
        |x(t)|leqldots,
        $$
        which, together with my previous remarks, finished the proof. I think you should be able to fill in the necessary details.






        share|cite|improve this answer













        By the Picard-Lindelöf theorem, the IVP has an unique maximal solution. And $t_0,,c$ were arbitrary, can I conclude that all maximal solutions are defined?




        No, you cannot conclude this, because, as I mentioned, Picard's theorem is local.



        To finish your prove you need to have
        $$
        x(t)=x_0+int_{t_0}^t f(tau,x)dtau,
        $$
        which implies that
        $$
        |x(t)|leq |x_0|+K|x|(t-t_0),
        $$
        using your notations. After this you will need a Grownwall's inequality, to find that
        $$
        |x(t)|leqldots,
        $$
        which, together with my previous remarks, finished the proof. I think you should be able to fill in the necessary details.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Nov 10 '14 at 3:40









        Artem

        11.4k32245




        11.4k32245






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1014253%2fprove-that-maximal-solutions-are-defined-in-mathbbr%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            1300-talet

            1300-talet

            Display a custom attribute below product name in the front-end Magento 1.9.3.8