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.










share|cite|improve this question




























    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.










    share|cite|improve this question


























      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.










      share|cite|improve this question















      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






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 14 at 19:03

























      asked Nov 12 at 23:57









      Zhuo Chen

      12




      12



























          active

          oldest

          votes











          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',
          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%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






























          active

          oldest

          votes













          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes
















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded



















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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





















































          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

          Probability when a professor distributes a quiz and homework assignment to a class of n students.

          Aardman Animations

          Are they similar matrix