9 views

Uploaded by Kawther Ben

- AHP
- MM COURSE FILE -2010-2011
- Kelley_IterativeMethodsforLinearandNonlinearEqs
- Guang Xiao Thesis
- A Music Visual Interface via Emotion Detection Supervisor
- no absen 14.pdf
- Akira Takahashi and Shaul Mukamel- Anharmonic oscillator modeling of nonlinear susceptibilities and its application to conjugated polymers
- AcuSolve_Radioss_FSI
- old_isola_manual.pdf
- AHP
- 3382 05a Further Maths - Fp3 Questions v2
- Probabilistic Approach-based PMU Placement for Real-time Power System Vulnerability Assessment
- RR-7561
- Lecture 3 Eigenvalues
- AHPSurveyTechniques
- AHP Project-.pdf
- 613_1393682715_cs_mathematics
- ch09
- lect9_corner.pdf
- Rainwater in Montereal Island

You are on page 1of 6

Pseudo-Linear Transformation

Yu Kawano

Toshiyuki Ohtsuka

(Tel: +81-6-6850-6358; e-mail: kawano@sc.sys.es.osaka-u.ac.jp).

(e-mail: ohtsuka@i.kyoto-u.ac.jp)

Abstract: In the linear control theory, the observability Popov-Belevitch-Hautus (PBH) test

plays an important role in studying observability along with the observability rank condition and

observability Gramian. The observability rank condition and observability Gramian have been

extended to nonlinear systems and have found applications in the analysis of nonlinear systems.

On the other hand, there is no observability criterion for nonlinear systems corresponding to the

PBH test. In this study, we generalize the observability PBH test for nonlinear systems using

pseudo-linear transformation.

Keywords: Nonlinear systems, observability, pseudo-linear transformation, PBH test

1. INTRODUCTION

For linear systems, there are several criteria for observ-

ability such as the PBH (Popov-Belevitch-Hautus) test,

the observability rank condition, and the condition de-

scribed by the observability Gramian. Every condition

plays an important role in systems and control theory. For

nonlinear systems, observability is also studied, and the

rank condition and Gramian are generalized to the non-

linear system (Conte et al. [2007], Nijmeijer and van der

Schaft [1990], Scherpen [1993], Fujimoto and Scherpen

[2005]). The applications of the rank condition include the

decomposition of an unobservable nonlinear system into

an observable subsystem and an unobservable subsystem

(Conte et al. [2007], Nijmeijer and van der Schaft [1990]),

and the Gramian characterizes the balancing of nonlinear

systems (Scherpen [1993], Fujimoto and Scherpen [2005]).

Dierently from the rank condition and Gramian, the PBH

test has not been extended to nonlinear systems.

Pseudo-linear transformation (PLT) (Jacobson [1937],

Leroy [1995], Bronstein and Petkovsek [1996]) helps in

studying structures of nonlinear systems (Zheng et al.

[2011], Levine [2011], Halas [2008], Halas and Kotta

[2007]). In particular, the concept of a transfer function

of the nonlinear system is given using PLT (Halas [2008],

Halas and Kotta [2007]). Halas [2008], reported that the

PLT operates similarly to the Laplace transformation. The

Laplace transformation plays a key role in analyzing linear

systems. By using the Laplace transformation, not only

structures but also stability can be studied. On the other

hand, there is no application of PLT in analyses of stability

for the nonlinear system.

For a linear system described by a state-space represen-

tation, the eigenvalues of the system matrix are impor-

tant for analyzing the system, e.g., stability, observability

and controllability analyses. For PLT, the eigenvalues and

eigenvectors are dened (Leroy [1995], Lam et al. [2008])

and used in analyzing nonlinear systems (Aranda-Bricaire

and Moog [2004]). Aranda-Bricaire and Moog [2004] ex-

ploits the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of PLT to study the

existence of a coordinate transformation that transforms

a system into its feed-forward form, and in the linear

case showed that an eigenvalue of PLT is equivalent to

an eigenvalue of the system matrix. Their results indicate

that the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of PLT as well as

the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the system matrix of

a linear system may be useful for analyzing nonlinear

systems.

In this study, we derive two observability conditions: a

necessary condition and a sucient condition. In the linear

case, each condition is equivalent to the observability PBH

test. The observability PBH test on a linear system shows

that the eigenvalues of the system matrix characterize

observability. As in similarly the PBH test, our necessary

condition is described using the eigenvalues of PLT. That

is, our necessary condition shows that the eigenvalues

of PLT as well as the eigenvalues of the system matrix

of a linear system play important roles when testing

observability. In summary, our necessary condition can be

regarded as a generalization of the observability PBH test

for a nonlinear system.

Notation: Let N be the set of non-negative integers and

C be the eld of complex numbers. Moreover, let K be

the eld of the complex meromorphic functions dened

on C

n

with the variables x

1

, x

2

, . . . , x

n

. For the matrix

A(x) K

nm

, rank

K

A(x) = s means that the rank of

A(x) over the eld K is s. Thus, rank

K

A(x) = s does

not mean that rank

C

A(x) = s holds for all x C

n

,

but rank

C

A(x) = s holds for almost all x C

n

. The

Jacobian matrix of (x) K

n

is denoted by J

:=

9th IFAC Symposium on Nonlinear Control Systems

Toulouse, France, September 4-6, 2013

ThC3.4

Copyright 2013 IFAC 606

((x)/x) K

nn

. Let Di

n

K

(C) K

n

be the set of

K

n

such that rank

K

J

Di

n

K

(C), each Di

n

K

(C) is a locally dieomorphic

mapping from an open and dense subset M

C

n

to M

,

where M

over K generated by the one-forms dx

1

, dx

2

, . . . , dx

n

, i.e.,

X := span

K

{dx

1

, . . . , dx

n

}. Note that {dx

1

, . . . , dx

n

} is a

basis of X.

2. MOTIVATING EXAMPLES

Consider a continuous-time nonlinear system described by

_

dx/dt = f(x),

y = h(x),

(1)

where x C

n

and y C denote the state and output,

respectively. The elements f

i

(i = 1, 2, . . . , n) and h are

complex meromorphic functions of x.

The observability PBH (Popov-Belevitch-Hautus) test is

one of the criteria for observability of linear systems.

Proposition 2.1. (Observability PBH test) Suppose that

f = Ax and h = c

T

x in (1), where A C

nn

and c C

n

.

System (1) is observable if and only if

rank

C

_

I

n

A

c

T

_

= n, (2)

holds for all C.

In fact, it suces to check condition (2) only for all

eigenvalues C of A.

Our aim is to generalize condition (2) to nonlinear system

(1). First, in Examples 2.1 and 2.2 below, we consider the

relations between observability and

rank

K

_

I

n

f(x)/x

h(x)/x

_

= n (3)

for all K. Note that dierently from that considered

in condition (2), the eld considered in condition (3) is

the eld of meromorphic functions. It is not required that

condition (3) holds for all x C

n

.

We investigate the relations between observability and

condition (3) in the following examples.

Example 2.1. Consider a nonlinear system described by

_

_

_

x

1

= x

2

1

+ x

2

,

x

2

= x

1

x

2

,

y = x

1

.

(4)

It can be shown that the system is observable from

Denition 3.1 below. Condition (3) for system (4) holds

because we have

rank

K

_

2x

1

1

x

2

x

1

1 0

_

= rank

K

_

0 1

0 x

1

1 0

_

= rank

K

_

0 1

0 0

1 0

_

= 2.

Thus, in this example, an observable system satises

condition (3).

Example 2.2. Consider a nonlinear system described by

_

_

_

x

1

= (x

2

1

x

2

2

)/2,

x

2

= (x

1

x

2

)x

2

,

y = x

1

x

2

.

(5)

It is possible to show that system (5) is not observable.

Condition (2) for system (5):

rank

K

_

x

1

x

2

x

2

x

1

+ 2x

2

1 1

_

= 2

does not hold when = x

1

x

2

. This = x

1

x

2

is an eigenvalue of the PLT introduced in Section 3.2.

In this example, an unobservable system does not satisfy

condition (3).

These two examples demonstrate that condition (3) is

potentially helpful for testing observability of a nonlinear

system as well as for the observability PBH test on a linear

system. From Example 2.2, an eigenvalue of PLT may play

an important role in testing observability of a nonlinear

system.

3. PRELIMINARIES

3.1 Observability of nonlinear system

In this paper, we consider the following observability

(Conte et al. [2007]).

Denition 3.1. A system (1) is said to be observable if

there exists an open and dense subset M C

n

such

that system (1) is locally weakly observable (Hermann and

Krener [1977]) at any initial state x

0

M.

The observability rank condition is a criterion for observ-

ability (Conte et al. [2007], Nijmeijer and van der Schaft

[1990]).

Proposition 3.1. System (1) is observable if and only if the

following observability rank condition holds:

rank

K

O

n1

(x) = n,

O

i

(x) :=

_

_

h(x)/x

L

f

h(x)/x

.

.

.

L

i

f

h(x)/x

_

_

, (6)

where L

0

f

h(x) = h(x) and L

i+1

f

h(x) := (L

i

f

h(x)/x)f(x)

(i N).

In general, the observability rank condition is a sucient

condition for local weak observability for all initial states

in C

n

. By restricting C

n

to an open and dense subset

M C

n

, the necessity is also guaranteed.

The observability rank condition has some applications in

analyzing observability of nonlinear systems. For example,

a system not satisfying rank condition (6) can be decom-

posed into an observable subsystem and an unobservable

subsystem (Conte et al. [2007], Nijmeijer and van der

Schaft [1990]).

Proposition 3.2. For system (1), let rank

K

O

n1

(x) = r <

n. Thus, there exists the coordinate transformation z =

(x) Di

n

K

(C) such that

Copyright 2013 IFAC 607

_

_

dz

1

/dt =

f

1

(z

1

, . . . , z

r

)

.

.

.

dz

r

/dt =

f

r

(z

1

, . . . , z

r

)

dz

r+1

/dt =

f

r+1

(z)

.

.

.

dz

n

/dt =

f

n

(z)

y = h(z

1

, . . . , z

r

)

(7)

holds.

3.2 PLT dened by the system

In this resarch, we study observability using PLT (Bron-

stein and Petkovsek [1996], Jacobson [1937], Leroy [1995]).

We give the denition of PLT. The derivation on the

eld K is an additive mapping : K K such that

(a + b) = (a) + (b), a, b K, (8)

(ab) = a (b) + b (a), a, b K. (9)

A eld K is a dierential eld if K is closed under a

derivation .

Let V be a vector space over K.

Denition 3.2. A mapping : V V is called PLT if

(u + v) = (u) + (v),

(au) = a(u) + (a)u

hold for any a K and u, v V .

We show a PLT dened by system (1). Let : K K be

the mapping

(a) :=

n

i=1

a

x

i

f

i

, a K. (10)

Note that (a) is the Lie derivative of a function a along

f in (1), which implies that depends on system (1). The

mapping satises conditions (8) and (9). Thus, is a

derivative of K, and K is a dierential eld because of

(a) K for any a K.

Next, let d : K X be the mapping

da =

n

i=1

a

x

i

dx

i

.

Finally, we dene the mapping s : X X.

s :=

n

i=1

((a

i

)dx

i

+ a

i

d(x

i

)) , =

n

i=1

a

i

dx

i

. (11)

For simplicity, we omit the symbol from (11). Note that

s is the Lie derivative of the one-form along f in

system (1). Thus, s depends on system (1).

From (11), for any a K and X, we have

s(a) = as + (a).

This equality implies that s : X X is a PLT.

For the PLT s : X X dened in (11), an eigenvalue and

an eigenvector are dened as follows (Leroy [1995], Lam

et al. [2008]).

Denition 3.3. K and X are called an eigenvalue

and an eigenvector of the PLT s : X X if s = holds.

Since the PLT dened in (11) depends on system (1), an

eigenvalue and eigenvector of the PLT s : X X are

determined by system (1).

Example 3.1. Consider the same system as Example 2.2.

For instance, x

1

x

2

and d(x

1

x

2

) are an eigenvalue and

eigenvector of the PLT dened by the system, respectively.

Actually, we have

sd(x

1

x

2

) =sdx

1

sdx

2

=d

_

x

2

1

x

2

2

2

_

d ((x

1

x

2

)x

2

)

=(x

1

dx

1

x

2

dx

2

) (x

2

dx

1

+ (x

1

2x

2

)dx

2

)

=(x

1

x

2

)d(x

1

x

2

).

In Example 2.2, an unobservable system does not satisfy

condition (3) at an eigenvalue = x

1

x

2

of PLT. In

Section 4.1, we clarify the relations between observability

and the eigenvalues of PLT.

4. OBSERVABILITY CONDITIONS

4.1 Nonlinear case

An eigenvalue of PLT (11) characterizes observability of

the nonlinear system.

Theorem 4.1. If system (1) is observable, then

_

_

(s )I

n

I

n

((J

) + J

(f(x)/x))J

1

(h(x)/x)J

1

_

_

v = 0 (12)

holds for all Di

n

K

(C), K, v K

n

\ {0} and

X \ {0}.

Proof. We prove this by contraposition. If there exist

Di

n

K

(C), K, v K

n

\ {0} and X \ {0}

such that

_

_

(s )I

n

I

n

((J

) + J

(f(x)/x))J

1

(h(x)/x)J

1

_

_

v = 0 (13)

holds, then we have

_

sI

n

((J

) + J

(f(x)/x))J

1

(h(x)/x)J

1

_

v = 0.

Let u K

n

be J

1

v. The nonsingularity of J

implies

u = 0, and we have v = J

u. By substituting v = J

u

into the above equation, we obtain

_

J

(sI

n

(f(x)/x))

(h(x)/x)

_

u = 0,

and consequently, from the nonsingularity of J

,

_

sI

n

(f(x)/x)

(h(x)/x)

_

u = 0. (14)

Next, we show that equation (14) implies

Copyright 2013 IFAC 608

L

i

f

h

x

u = 0, i N (15)

by induction. Equation (14) yields

_

sI

n

f

x

_

u = 0, (16)

h

x

u = 0. (17)

When i = 0, equation (15) is nothing but (17).

Suppose that (15) holds when i = k, i.e.,

L

k

f

h

x

u = 0 (18)

holds. By premultiplying (L

k

f

h/x) by (16), we have

L

k

f

h

x

_

sI

n

f

x

_

u = 0. (19)

Also, by premultiplying s by (18), we have

s

L

k

f

h

x

u =

_

_

L

k

f

h

x

_

+

L

k

f

h

x

s

_

u = 0. (20)

By subtracting the left-hand side of (19) from the second

left-hand side of (20), we obtain

_

_

L

k

f

h

x

_

+

L

k

f

h

x

s

L

k

f

h

x

_

sI

n

f

x

_

_

u = 0

The left-hand side can be computed as follow

_

_

L

k

f

h

x

_

+

L

k

f

h

x

s

L

k

f

h

x

_

sI

n

f

x

_

_

u

=

_

2

L

k

f

h

x

2

f +

L

k

f

h

x

f

x

_

u

=

_

x

_

L

k

f

h

x

f

__

u =

L

k+1

f

h

x

u.

Thus, we have

L

k+1

f

h

x

u = 0.

Therefore, (15) holds.

Finally, we show that if (15) holds for u K

n

\ {0} and

X \{0}, then the observability rank condition does not

hold. Equation (15) implies that

O

n1

u = 0, (21)

where O

i

K

(i+1)n

is dened in (6). For any X,

there exists a vector a K

n

such that

= a

T

dx (22)

holds, where = 0 implies a

T

= 0 because {dx

1

, . . . , dx

n

}

is a basis of the K-vector space X. By substituting (22)

into (21), we have

O

n1

ua

T

dx = 0,

and consequently

O

n1

ua

T

= 0,

where u = 0 and a = 0 imply that (ua

T

) K

nn

is a nonzero matrix. Therefore, O

n1

is singular. That

is, the observability rank condition does not hold. From

Proposition 3.1, system (1) is not observable. 2

From Theorem 4.1, if nonlinear system (1) is not observ-

able, then (13) holds for some Di

n

K

(C), K,

v K

n

\ {0} and X \ {0}. Condition (13) can be

decomposed into

(s )v = 0 (23)

_

I

n

((J

) + J

(f(x)/x))J

1

(h(x)/x)J

1

_

v = 0. (24)

Condition (23) implies that K and all v

i

X

(i = 1, . . . , n) are eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the

PLT s : X X. That is, Theorem 4.1 shows that

the eigenvalues of PLT play important roles when testing

observability of nonlinear systems. For linear systems, the

observability PBH test shows that the eigenvalues, in the

sense of linear algebra, of a system matrix characterize

observability. Therefore, in Theorem 4.1, the eigenvalues

of PLT operate like those of a system matrix.

In Section 4.2 below, it is shown that the condition of

Theorem 4.1 is equivalent to the observability PBH test

in the linear case. Thus, Theorem 4.1 can be viewed as a

generalization of the observability PBH test on nonlinear

systems.

Condition (24) is equivalent to

_

I

n

((J

) + J

(f(x)/x))J

1

(h(x)/x)J

1

_

v = 0. (25)

Theorem 4.2 below shows that condition (25) also helps

in testing the observability of nonlinear system (1). Con-

dition (25) implies that K and v K

n

\ {0} are an

eigenvalue and right eigenvector of the matrix ((J

) +

J

(f(x)/x))J

1

K

nn

, respectively, in the linear

algebraic sense. Note that, the eigenvalues of ((J

) +

J

(f(x)/x))J

1

tion Di

n

K

(C

n

) due to the nonlinearity of system (1).

On the other hand, the eigenvalues of the PLT s : X X

are invariant with respect to a coordinate transformation.

Therefore, to check the condition of Theorem 4.1, we need

to nd a coordinate transformation such that an eigen-

value of ((J

)+J

(f(x)/x))J

1

becomes an eigenvalue

of PLT.

Condition (25) is also important in its own right when

testing observability of system (1).

Theorem 4.2. System (1) is observable if

_

I

n

((J

) + J

(f(x)/x))J

1

(h(x)/x)J

1

_

v = 0 (26)

holds for all Di

n

K

(C), K and v K

n

\ {0}.

Copyright 2013 IFAC 609

Proof. We prove this by contraposition. That is, we show

that if a system is not observable then there exist

Di

n

K

(C), K and v K

n

\ {0} such that (25) holds.

From Proposition 3.1, if system (1) is not observable,

then the observability rank condition does not hold. Let

rank

K

O

n1

(x) = r < n. Proposition 3.2 shows that

system (1) can be transformed into (7) by a coordinate

transformation z = (x) Di

n

K

(C). By choosing as ,

condition (25) becomes

_

_

I

r

(

f

1

( z

1

)/ z

1

) 0

(

f

2

(z)/ z

1

) I

nr

(

f

2

(z)/ z

2

)

(

h( z

1

)/ z

1

) 0

_

_

v = 0,

(27)

where z

1

= [z

1

, . . . , z

r

]

T

K

r

, z

2

= [z

r+1

, . . . , z

n

]

T

K

nr

,

f

1

= [

f

1

, . . . ,

f

r

]

T

K

r

and

f

2

= [

f

r+1

, . . . ,

f

n

]

T

K

nr

.

It suces to show the existence of K and v K

n

\{0}

satisfying condition (27). Let

K and v K

nr

\{0} be

an eigenvalue and eigenvector of the matrix (

f

2

(z)/ z

2

)

K

nn

in the sense of linear algebra. Then, for :=

K

and v := [0 v]

T

K

n

\ {0}, condition (27) holds. 2

The condition of Theorem 4.2 holds if and only if

rank

K

_

I

n

((J

) + J

(f(x)/x))J

1

(h(x)/x)J

1

_

= n (28)

holds for all Di

n

K

(C) and K. When Di

n

K

(C)

is the identity mapping, i.e., J

K

nn

is the identity

matrix, condition (28) is nothing but condition (3). Thus,

condition (3) is a necessary condition for Theorem 4.2.

4.2 Linear Case

In the linear case, we show that the conditions of Theorems

4.1 and 4.2 are equivalent. The condition of Theorem

4.2 is a sucient condition for observability, and that of

Theorem 4.1 is a necessary condition. Thus, the condition

of Theorem 4.2 is a sucient condition for that of Theorem

4.1. Here, the converse is shown in the linear case.

Proposition 4.1. Suppose that f = Ax and h = c

T

x in (1),

where A C

nn

and c C

n

. If condition (12) holds for

all Di

n

K

(C), K, v K

n

\ {0} and X \ {0},

then condition (26) holds for all Di

n

K

(C), K and

v K

n

\ {0}.

Proof. We prove this by contraposition. That is, we show

that if there exist Di

n

K

(C), K and v K

n

\ {0}

satisfying condition (25), then there exists X\{0} such

that condition (13) holds for the same , and v.

In condition (25), let Di

n

K

(C) be the identity

mapping. Then, J

K

nn

is the identity matrix. In the

linear case, C K and v (C

n

\ {0}) (K

n

\

{0}) satisfying (25) are one of the eigenvalues and right

eigenvectors of the matrix A in the sense of linear algebra.

It suces to show the existence of X \ {0} such that

(13) holds for the above , and v. Condition (13) can

be decomposed into (23) and (25). Since (25) holds for the

above , and v, we show the existence of X \ {0}

satisfying (23) for the same , and v. Let X \ {0}

be a

T

dx, where a (C

n

\ {0}) (K

n

\ {0}) is a left

eigenvector of matrix A corresponding to the eigenvalue

. By substituting = a

T

dx into the left-hand side of

(23), we have

(s )va

T

dx = va

T

(AI

n

)dx = 0.

That is, condition (23) holds. 2

In the linear case, the conditions of Theorems 4.1 and

4.2 are equivalent, and the condition of Theorem 4.2 is

equivalent to the observability PBH test. Therefore, the

condition of Theorem 4.1 is equivalent to the observability

PBH test.

5. EXAMPLE

By using our results, we test the observability of the

following system.

_

_

dx

dt

=

_

_

x

2

+ x

2

3

x

2

1

x

3

x

2

1

/2

_

_

,

y = x

1

.

We check the necessary condition of Theorem 4.1 for this

system. Here, we consider nding Di

n

K

(C), K,

v K

n

\ {0} and X \ {0} such that condition (13)

holds. First, we nd an eigenvalue and an eigenvector of

the PLT dened by the system. One of the eigenvalues

and one of the eigenvectors of such PLT are 0 K and

d(x

2

+ x

2

3

) X, respectively.

Next, we nd a coordinate transformation Di

n

K

(C)

such that an eigenvalue of the matrix ((J

)+J

(f/x))

J

1

[x

1

x

2

+ x

2

3

x

3

], we have

J

:=

_

1 0 0

0 1 2x

3

0 0 1

_

, (J

) :=

_

_

0 0 0

0 0 x

2

1

0 0 1

_

_

,

and thus

_

(J

) + J

f(x)

x

_

J

1

=

_

0 1 0

0 0 0

x

1

0 0

_

.

Then, 0 is an eigenvalue of ((J

) + J

(f/x))J

1

, and

one of its right eigenvectors is v := [0 0 1]

T

.

Finally, we check condition (12) for := [x

1

x

2

+ x

2

3

x

3

],

:= 0, v := [0 0 1]

T

and := d(x

2

+ x

2

3

). We obtain

_

_

(s )I

3

I

3

((J

) + J

(f(x)/x))J

1

(h(x)/x)J

1

_

_

v

=

_

_

sI

3

_

0 1 0

0 0 0

x

1

0 0

_

[ 1 0 0 ]

_

_

_

0

0

1

_

d(x

2

+ x

2

3

) = 0.

Therefore, condition (12) does not hold. From Theorem

4.1, the system is not observable.

Copyright 2013 IFAC 610

6. CONCLUSION

In this paper, we have derived two observability conditions

for the nonlinear system: a necessary condition and a

sucient condition. Our necessary condition shows that

observability of the nonlinear system is characterized by

the eigenvalues of the PLT dened by the system. In

the linear case, each eigenvalue of the PLT is nothing

but an eigenvalue, in the sense of linear algebra, of the

system matrix. Both our conditions are equivalent to the

observability PBH (Popov-Belevitch-Hautus) test in the

linear case. Therefore, our necessary condition can be

viewed as a generalization of the observability PBH test

for the nonlinear system.

REFERENCES

E. Aranda-Bricaire and C.H. Moog. Invariant codistribu-

tions and the feedforward form for discrete-time nonlin-

ear systems. Systems & Control Letters, 52(2):113122,

2004.

M. Bronstein and M. Petkovsek. An introduction to

pseudo-linear algebra. Theoretical Computer Science,

157:333, 1996.

G. Conte, C.H. Moog, and A.M. Perdon. Algebraic Meth-

ods for Nonlinear Control Systems. Springer-Verlag,

London, 2007.

K. Fujimoto and J.M.A. Scherpen. Nonlinear input-

normal realizations based on the dierential eigenstruc-

ture of Hankel operators. IEEE Transactions on Auto-

matic Control, 50(1):218, 2005.

M. Halas. An algebraic framework generalizing the concept

of transfer functions to nonlinear systems. Automatica,

44(5):11811190, 2008.

M. Halas and

U. Kotta. Transfer functions of discrete-

time nonlinear control systems. Proc. Estonian Acad.

Sci. Phys. Math., 56(4):322335, 2007.

R. Hermann and A.J. Krener. Nonlinear controllability

and observability. IEEE Transactions on Automatic

Control, 22(5):728740, 1977.

N. Jacobson. Pseudo-linear transformation. Annals of

Mathematics, 38(2):484507, 1937.

T.Y. Lam, A. Leroy, and A. Ozturk. Wedderburn polyno-

mials over division rings, ii. Proceedings of the Contem-

porary Mathematics, pages 7398, 2008.

A. Leroy. Pseudo linear transformations and evaluation in

ore extensions. Bull. Belg. Math. Soc., 2:321347, 1995.

J. Levine. On necessary and sucient conditions for

dierential atness. Applicable Algebra in Engineering,

Communication and Computing, 22(1):4790, 2011.

H. Nijmeijer and A.J. van der Schaft. Nonlinear Dynamical

Control Systems. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1990.

J.M.A. Scherpen. Balancing for nonlinear systems. Sys-

tems & Control Letters, 21(2):143153, 1993.

Y. Zheng, J.C. Willems, and C. Zhang. A polynomial

approach to nonlinear system. IEEE Transactions on

Automatic Control, 46(11):17821788, 2011.

Copyright 2013 IFAC 611

- AHPUploaded byArun Fred
- MM COURSE FILE -2010-2011Uploaded byshantan02
- Kelley_IterativeMethodsforLinearandNonlinearEqsUploaded byRaul Gonzalez
- Guang Xiao ThesisUploaded bysamanf64
- A Music Visual Interface via Emotion Detection SupervisorUploaded byInternational Organization of Scientific Research (IOSR)
- no absen 14.pdfUploaded byAliJunko
- Akira Takahashi and Shaul Mukamel- Anharmonic oscillator modeling of nonlinear susceptibilities and its application to conjugated polymersUploaded byGlade680
- AcuSolve_Radioss_FSIUploaded byRaghu Samraat
- old_isola_manual.pdfUploaded byGunadi Suryo Jatmiko
- AHPUploaded byyasir509
- 3382 05a Further Maths - Fp3 Questions v2Uploaded bydoctorguy77
- Probabilistic Approach-based PMU Placement for Real-time Power System Vulnerability AssessmentUploaded byAndres Ortiz
- RR-7561Uploaded byVasquez JC
- Lecture 3 EigenvaluesUploaded byRamzan8850
- AHPSurveyTechniquesUploaded byAnant Garg
- AHP Project-.pdfUploaded bybniryono788
- 613_1393682715_cs_mathematicsUploaded byAnish Bhanushali
- ch09Uploaded byDonghyun Kim
- lect9_corner.pdfUploaded byOreochoco
- Rainwater in Montereal IslandUploaded bySampurna Maharjan
- 2009 Final AnsUploaded byCody Sage
- FXSUploaded byAbdullah Farooque
- Heavy_18022011Uploaded byJulian Langer
- 923514.pdfUploaded byYalçın Sabiha
- A Matrix-Algebraic Approach to Successive Interference Cancellation in CDMAUploaded byshabash2all
- a1Uploaded byPydipati Sai
- Book 3 IntroUploaded bymxjoe
- City VologiannidisUploaded bysvol7503
- Ah p TutorialUploaded byCham Bauer
- Creative 20Decisions 2Uploaded bykiller drama

- lmibookUploaded bywakaltuti
- Digital Signal Processing ApplicationsUploaded byPramod Putta
- rej27g0020_thyristorsUploaded byKawther Ben
- Lecture 31Uploaded byKawther Ben
- inv-subUploaded byKawther Ben
- s2notesUploaded byKawther Ben
- Chapter 3 Controllability ObservabilityUploaded byKawther Ben
- ee580_note10Uploaded byKawther Ben
- cem2 (24)Uploaded byKawther Ben
- Ar Explanation of the Three Fundamental IbnBazUploaded byKawther Ben

- PowerWizard Range(GB)(0311)Uploaded bysfantu_29
- PMO Charter Template with ExampleUploaded byMegan Wale
- Program Final WebUploaded bypoonam_ranee3934
- FinalUploaded bynidduzzi
- 17389.pdfUploaded byRehab Khoumania
- RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION AND STRUCTURAL INTERPRETATION OF SEISMIC PROFILE A CASE STUDY OF Z FIELD NIGER DELTA NIGERIA (1).pdfUploaded bySanjeev Singh Negi
- S2T1_Chap_1_Additional_lecture_notes_on_GlobalisationUploaded bymoni0007
- International Journal of ManPowerUploaded byadesti
- g413.3-12Final7-22-10 (1)Uploaded byluv_y_kush3575
- 70090aUploaded bydudualberti
- Marcin Czaplicki CV (1)asdasdasdasUploaded byEu Genio
- Ibm Placement PaperUploaded byMunimohan Kunchi
- Biometric ArchitectureUploaded byMahaManthra
- BIOS Setup Access KeysUploaded bymanuel99a2k
- frm1cio01_talkUploaded byMichael Lin
- F2 1st Term Maths Teaching Material (1st Edition)Uploaded byapi-3854339
- Direct Incorporation CCM MyCoid (1).pdfUploaded bySanjevee Nathan
- Structural and Geomorphological Evolution of the Area around Narella, Andhra Pradesh, India: A Study Based on Field Investigation, GIS and Remote SensingUploaded bySEP-Publisher
- A2 Magazine QuestionnaireUploaded byHarrygeopreston
- Fundamentals_of_Highway_Bridge_Demolitio.pdfUploaded byDiogo Yssau Yamashita
- Mckinsey’s 7s Framework_pptUploaded byfar_07
- qqqUploaded byGede Sthandila
- BoilerUploaded byrasheedshaikh2003
- is.5484.1997Uploaded byCristian Walker
- SDLINC Profile NDT TrainingUploaded bysdlinc
- Jayeeta ResumeUploaded byshalaka
- FisherRoss&10-Interviewing Witnesses and VictimsUploaded byMichelle Gomes
- Anson E Typs Gate Valve With Fail Safe Closed ActuatorUploaded byWeniton Oliveira
- k 80010691Uploaded byВиталий Хебибулин
- Engineering DrawingsUploaded byAjith Kj