Proof of preservation of non-collinearity of a triangular formation under a distance-based control law
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I am studying a 3-agent distance-based formation control problem. The position of each agent is denoted $pmb{p}_1$, $pmb{p}_2$, $pmb{p}_3 in mathbb{R}^2$. The desired distance between $i$ and $j$ is denoted with $d_{ij}^*$. (Of course, the triangular inequality shall be satisfied for $d_{12}^*$, $d_{23}^*$ and $d_{31}^*$). The closed-loop system equation can be expressed as
$$dot{tilde{pmb{p}}} =
begin{bmatrix}
dot{tilde{pmb{p}}}_{12} \
dot{tilde{pmb{p}}}_{23} \
dot{tilde{pmb{p}}}_{31}
end{bmatrix}
=
-2Kpmb{A}
begin{bmatrix}
rho_{12} tilde{pmb{p}}_{12} \
rho_{23} tilde{pmb{p}}_{23} \
rho_{31} tilde{pmb{p}}_{31}
end{bmatrix}
$$
where $K$ is a scaler constant, the relative displacements $tilde{pmb{p}}_{ij} = pmb{p}_i - pmb{p}_j in mathbb{R}^2$,
the state vector
$$tilde{pmb{p}} = [tilde{pmb{p}}_{12}^mathrm{T}, tilde{pmb{p}}_{23}^mathrm{T}, tilde{pmb{p}}_{31}^mathrm{T}]^mathrm{T} in D={ tilde{pmb{p}} in mathrm{R}^6 ;|; tilde{pmb{p}}_{12} + tilde{pmb{p}}_{23} + tilde{pmb{p}}_{31} = 0 },$$
matrix
$$
pmb{A} =
begin{bmatrix}
2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & -1 & 0\
0 & 2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & -1\
-1 & 0 & 2 & 0 & -1 & 0\
0 & -1 & 0 & 2 & 0 & -1\
-1 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 2 & 0\
0 & -1 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 2
end{bmatrix}
$$
and
$$
rho_{ij}
= frac{2 left(||tilde{pmb{p}}_{ij}||^4 - d_{ij}^{*4}right)}{||tilde{pmb{p}}_{ij}||^4}.
$$
This system has a set of desired equilibria
$$E_d = { tilde{pmb{p}} in D ;|; ||tilde{pmb{p}}_{12}|| = d_{12}^*, ||tilde{pmb{p}}_{23}|| = d_{23}^* , ||tilde{pmb{p}}_{31}|| = d_{31}^* },$$
and a set of undesired equilibria
$$E_u = { tilde{pmb{p}} in D backslash E_d ;|; rho_{12}tilde{pmb{p}}_{12} = rho_{23}tilde{pmb{p}}_{23} = rho_{31}tilde{pmb{p}}_{31} }.$$
When I was trying to prove the closed-loop system stability, I found it necessary to prove the following proposition first:
If $tilde{pmb{p}}_{12}$, $tilde{pmb{p}}_{23}$ and $tilde{pmb{p}}_{31}$ are not collinear at $t=0$, then $tilde{pmb{p}}_{12}$, $tilde{pmb{p}}_{23}$ and $tilde{pmb{p}}_{31}$ are not collinear for any $t > 0$.
Or equivalently,
Set $Omega= { tilde{pmb{p}} in D ;|; tilde{pmb{p}}_{12}^mathrm{T} tilde{pmb{p}}_{23} < ||tilde{pmb{p}}_{12} || cdot || tilde{pmb{p}}_{23} || }$ is a positively invariant set.
I have been stuck here for a few weeks now. Unless an analytic solution to the differential equation can be found, I cannot think of a method to prove the proposition. I did some numerical simulations and no counterexample has been found so far. Any ideas on how this can be proved would be appreciated.
differential-equations triangle control-theory
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I am studying a 3-agent distance-based formation control problem. The position of each agent is denoted $pmb{p}_1$, $pmb{p}_2$, $pmb{p}_3 in mathbb{R}^2$. The desired distance between $i$ and $j$ is denoted with $d_{ij}^*$. (Of course, the triangular inequality shall be satisfied for $d_{12}^*$, $d_{23}^*$ and $d_{31}^*$). The closed-loop system equation can be expressed as
$$dot{tilde{pmb{p}}} =
begin{bmatrix}
dot{tilde{pmb{p}}}_{12} \
dot{tilde{pmb{p}}}_{23} \
dot{tilde{pmb{p}}}_{31}
end{bmatrix}
=
-2Kpmb{A}
begin{bmatrix}
rho_{12} tilde{pmb{p}}_{12} \
rho_{23} tilde{pmb{p}}_{23} \
rho_{31} tilde{pmb{p}}_{31}
end{bmatrix}
$$
where $K$ is a scaler constant, the relative displacements $tilde{pmb{p}}_{ij} = pmb{p}_i - pmb{p}_j in mathbb{R}^2$,
the state vector
$$tilde{pmb{p}} = [tilde{pmb{p}}_{12}^mathrm{T}, tilde{pmb{p}}_{23}^mathrm{T}, tilde{pmb{p}}_{31}^mathrm{T}]^mathrm{T} in D={ tilde{pmb{p}} in mathrm{R}^6 ;|; tilde{pmb{p}}_{12} + tilde{pmb{p}}_{23} + tilde{pmb{p}}_{31} = 0 },$$
matrix
$$
pmb{A} =
begin{bmatrix}
2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & -1 & 0\
0 & 2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & -1\
-1 & 0 & 2 & 0 & -1 & 0\
0 & -1 & 0 & 2 & 0 & -1\
-1 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 2 & 0\
0 & -1 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 2
end{bmatrix}
$$
and
$$
rho_{ij}
= frac{2 left(||tilde{pmb{p}}_{ij}||^4 - d_{ij}^{*4}right)}{||tilde{pmb{p}}_{ij}||^4}.
$$
This system has a set of desired equilibria
$$E_d = { tilde{pmb{p}} in D ;|; ||tilde{pmb{p}}_{12}|| = d_{12}^*, ||tilde{pmb{p}}_{23}|| = d_{23}^* , ||tilde{pmb{p}}_{31}|| = d_{31}^* },$$
and a set of undesired equilibria
$$E_u = { tilde{pmb{p}} in D backslash E_d ;|; rho_{12}tilde{pmb{p}}_{12} = rho_{23}tilde{pmb{p}}_{23} = rho_{31}tilde{pmb{p}}_{31} }.$$
When I was trying to prove the closed-loop system stability, I found it necessary to prove the following proposition first:
If $tilde{pmb{p}}_{12}$, $tilde{pmb{p}}_{23}$ and $tilde{pmb{p}}_{31}$ are not collinear at $t=0$, then $tilde{pmb{p}}_{12}$, $tilde{pmb{p}}_{23}$ and $tilde{pmb{p}}_{31}$ are not collinear for any $t > 0$.
Or equivalently,
Set $Omega= { tilde{pmb{p}} in D ;|; tilde{pmb{p}}_{12}^mathrm{T} tilde{pmb{p}}_{23} < ||tilde{pmb{p}}_{12} || cdot || tilde{pmb{p}}_{23} || }$ is a positively invariant set.
I have been stuck here for a few weeks now. Unless an analytic solution to the differential equation can be found, I cannot think of a method to prove the proposition. I did some numerical simulations and no counterexample has been found so far. Any ideas on how this can be proved would be appreciated.
differential-equations triangle control-theory
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I am studying a 3-agent distance-based formation control problem. The position of each agent is denoted $pmb{p}_1$, $pmb{p}_2$, $pmb{p}_3 in mathbb{R}^2$. The desired distance between $i$ and $j$ is denoted with $d_{ij}^*$. (Of course, the triangular inequality shall be satisfied for $d_{12}^*$, $d_{23}^*$ and $d_{31}^*$). The closed-loop system equation can be expressed as
$$dot{tilde{pmb{p}}} =
begin{bmatrix}
dot{tilde{pmb{p}}}_{12} \
dot{tilde{pmb{p}}}_{23} \
dot{tilde{pmb{p}}}_{31}
end{bmatrix}
=
-2Kpmb{A}
begin{bmatrix}
rho_{12} tilde{pmb{p}}_{12} \
rho_{23} tilde{pmb{p}}_{23} \
rho_{31} tilde{pmb{p}}_{31}
end{bmatrix}
$$
where $K$ is a scaler constant, the relative displacements $tilde{pmb{p}}_{ij} = pmb{p}_i - pmb{p}_j in mathbb{R}^2$,
the state vector
$$tilde{pmb{p}} = [tilde{pmb{p}}_{12}^mathrm{T}, tilde{pmb{p}}_{23}^mathrm{T}, tilde{pmb{p}}_{31}^mathrm{T}]^mathrm{T} in D={ tilde{pmb{p}} in mathrm{R}^6 ;|; tilde{pmb{p}}_{12} + tilde{pmb{p}}_{23} + tilde{pmb{p}}_{31} = 0 },$$
matrix
$$
pmb{A} =
begin{bmatrix}
2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & -1 & 0\
0 & 2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & -1\
-1 & 0 & 2 & 0 & -1 & 0\
0 & -1 & 0 & 2 & 0 & -1\
-1 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 2 & 0\
0 & -1 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 2
end{bmatrix}
$$
and
$$
rho_{ij}
= frac{2 left(||tilde{pmb{p}}_{ij}||^4 - d_{ij}^{*4}right)}{||tilde{pmb{p}}_{ij}||^4}.
$$
This system has a set of desired equilibria
$$E_d = { tilde{pmb{p}} in D ;|; ||tilde{pmb{p}}_{12}|| = d_{12}^*, ||tilde{pmb{p}}_{23}|| = d_{23}^* , ||tilde{pmb{p}}_{31}|| = d_{31}^* },$$
and a set of undesired equilibria
$$E_u = { tilde{pmb{p}} in D backslash E_d ;|; rho_{12}tilde{pmb{p}}_{12} = rho_{23}tilde{pmb{p}}_{23} = rho_{31}tilde{pmb{p}}_{31} }.$$
When I was trying to prove the closed-loop system stability, I found it necessary to prove the following proposition first:
If $tilde{pmb{p}}_{12}$, $tilde{pmb{p}}_{23}$ and $tilde{pmb{p}}_{31}$ are not collinear at $t=0$, then $tilde{pmb{p}}_{12}$, $tilde{pmb{p}}_{23}$ and $tilde{pmb{p}}_{31}$ are not collinear for any $t > 0$.
Or equivalently,
Set $Omega= { tilde{pmb{p}} in D ;|; tilde{pmb{p}}_{12}^mathrm{T} tilde{pmb{p}}_{23} < ||tilde{pmb{p}}_{12} || cdot || tilde{pmb{p}}_{23} || }$ is a positively invariant set.
I have been stuck here for a few weeks now. Unless an analytic solution to the differential equation can be found, I cannot think of a method to prove the proposition. I did some numerical simulations and no counterexample has been found so far. Any ideas on how this can be proved would be appreciated.
differential-equations triangle control-theory
I am studying a 3-agent distance-based formation control problem. The position of each agent is denoted $pmb{p}_1$, $pmb{p}_2$, $pmb{p}_3 in mathbb{R}^2$. The desired distance between $i$ and $j$ is denoted with $d_{ij}^*$. (Of course, the triangular inequality shall be satisfied for $d_{12}^*$, $d_{23}^*$ and $d_{31}^*$). The closed-loop system equation can be expressed as
$$dot{tilde{pmb{p}}} =
begin{bmatrix}
dot{tilde{pmb{p}}}_{12} \
dot{tilde{pmb{p}}}_{23} \
dot{tilde{pmb{p}}}_{31}
end{bmatrix}
=
-2Kpmb{A}
begin{bmatrix}
rho_{12} tilde{pmb{p}}_{12} \
rho_{23} tilde{pmb{p}}_{23} \
rho_{31} tilde{pmb{p}}_{31}
end{bmatrix}
$$
where $K$ is a scaler constant, the relative displacements $tilde{pmb{p}}_{ij} = pmb{p}_i - pmb{p}_j in mathbb{R}^2$,
the state vector
$$tilde{pmb{p}} = [tilde{pmb{p}}_{12}^mathrm{T}, tilde{pmb{p}}_{23}^mathrm{T}, tilde{pmb{p}}_{31}^mathrm{T}]^mathrm{T} in D={ tilde{pmb{p}} in mathrm{R}^6 ;|; tilde{pmb{p}}_{12} + tilde{pmb{p}}_{23} + tilde{pmb{p}}_{31} = 0 },$$
matrix
$$
pmb{A} =
begin{bmatrix}
2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & -1 & 0\
0 & 2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & -1\
-1 & 0 & 2 & 0 & -1 & 0\
0 & -1 & 0 & 2 & 0 & -1\
-1 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 2 & 0\
0 & -1 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 2
end{bmatrix}
$$
and
$$
rho_{ij}
= frac{2 left(||tilde{pmb{p}}_{ij}||^4 - d_{ij}^{*4}right)}{||tilde{pmb{p}}_{ij}||^4}.
$$
This system has a set of desired equilibria
$$E_d = { tilde{pmb{p}} in D ;|; ||tilde{pmb{p}}_{12}|| = d_{12}^*, ||tilde{pmb{p}}_{23}|| = d_{23}^* , ||tilde{pmb{p}}_{31}|| = d_{31}^* },$$
and a set of undesired equilibria
$$E_u = { tilde{pmb{p}} in D backslash E_d ;|; rho_{12}tilde{pmb{p}}_{12} = rho_{23}tilde{pmb{p}}_{23} = rho_{31}tilde{pmb{p}}_{31} }.$$
When I was trying to prove the closed-loop system stability, I found it necessary to prove the following proposition first:
If $tilde{pmb{p}}_{12}$, $tilde{pmb{p}}_{23}$ and $tilde{pmb{p}}_{31}$ are not collinear at $t=0$, then $tilde{pmb{p}}_{12}$, $tilde{pmb{p}}_{23}$ and $tilde{pmb{p}}_{31}$ are not collinear for any $t > 0$.
Or equivalently,
Set $Omega= { tilde{pmb{p}} in D ;|; tilde{pmb{p}}_{12}^mathrm{T} tilde{pmb{p}}_{23} < ||tilde{pmb{p}}_{12} || cdot || tilde{pmb{p}}_{23} || }$ is a positively invariant set.
I have been stuck here for a few weeks now. Unless an analytic solution to the differential equation can be found, I cannot think of a method to prove the proposition. I did some numerical simulations and no counterexample has been found so far. Any ideas on how this can be proved would be appreciated.
differential-equations triangle control-theory
differential-equations triangle control-theory
edited Nov 14 at 19:03
asked Nov 12 at 23:57
Zhuo Chen
12
12
add a comment |
add a comment |
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2996082%2fproof-of-preservation-of-non-collinearity-of-a-triangular-formation-under-a-dist%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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