Dual Representations and Proxy Characterization of H_2 Norm for Partial Integral Equations

Suppose x,v satisfy Eqn. (?), and \bar v,\bar x satisfy Eqn. (?). Define V(t) =\left\langle \bar x(t),\mathcal T x(T-t) \right\rangle for t \in [0,T]. Then

Hence, integrating in t over [0,T] we have

where we used the change of variables s=T-t. Now from Eqn. (?), we have \mathcal{T} x(0)= \mathcal B v and from Eqn. (?), we have \mathcal{T}^*\bar x(0)=0. Thus

as desired.

Recall that

To show that \|G(\mathcal{T}^*,\mathcal{A}^*,\mathcal{C}^*,\mathcal{B}^*,0)\|_{\infty,2}\le \|G(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{A},0,\mathcal{C},\mathcal{B})\|_{2,i}, we establish that for any T>0 and any \bar{v}, \bar{x} which satisfy satisfy Eq. (5) with \left\lVert{\bar{v}}\right\rVert_{L_2[0,T]}=1, we have that |\mathcal{B}^* x(T)|\le \|G(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{A},0,\mathcal{C},\mathcal{B})\|_{2,i}.

Specifically, for T>0 and any \bar{v}, \bar{x} which satisfy Eq. (5) with \left\lVert{\bar{v}}\right\rVert_{L_2[0,T]}=1, let v = \frac{1}{\left\lVert{\mathcal{B}^*\bar{x}(T)}\right\rVert}\mathcal{B}^*\bar{x}(T) and x,z satisfy Eq. (2) for this v. Then from Lem. 8,

as desired, where the final inequality holds from the definition of \|G(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{A},0,\mathcal{C},\mathcal{B})\|_{2,i} and the fact that v,x,z satisfy Eq. (2) with \left\lVert{v}\right\rVert=1. Since the bound holds uniformly for any T>0 and any \bar{v}, \bar{x} which satisfy Eq. (5) with \left\lVert{\bar{v}}\right\rVert_{L_2[0,T]}=1, we conclude that

Now, to show that \|G(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{A},0, \mathcal{C},\mathcal{B})\|_{2,i}\le \|G(\mathcal{T}^*,\mathcal{A}^*,\mathcal{C}^*,\mathcal{B}^*,0)\|_{\infty,2}, we similarly establish that for any T>0 and any v, z x which satisfy Eq. (?) with \left\lVert{v}\right\rVert=1, we have that \left\lVert{z}\right\rVert_{L_2[0,T)} \le \|G(\mathcal{T}^*,\mathcal{A}^*,\mathcal{C}^*,\mathcal{B}^*,0)\|_{\infty,2}.

Specifically, for T>0 and any v, z x which satisfy Eq. (?) with \left\lVert{v}\right\rVert=1, let \bar v(t) = \frac{1}{\left\lVert{z}\right\rVert_{L_2[0,T)}}z(T-t) and \bar x satisfy Eq. (?) for this \bar v. Then from Lem. 8,

where the final inequality holds from the definition of \|G(\mathcal{T}^*,\mathcal{A}^*,\mathcal{C}^*,\mathcal{B}^*,0)\|_{\infty,2} and the fact that \bar v,\bar x satisfy Eq. (?) with \left\lVert{\bar v}\right\rVert=1. Since the bound holds uniformly for any T>0 and any v, z x which satisfy Eq. (?) with \left\lVert{v}\right\rVert=1, we conclude that

as desired. We conclude that \|G(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{A},0,\mathcal{C},\mathcal{B})\|_{2,i}=\|G(\mathcal{T}^*,\mathcal{A}^*,\mathcal{C}^*,\mathcal{B}^*,0)\|_{\infty,2}.

We prove that if the inequalities hold for some \mathcal{P}\succcurlyeq \epsilon I, \gamma>0, then \left\lVert{G(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{A},0,\mathcal{C},\mathcal{B})}\right\rVert_{2,i}^2 \leq \gamma, recalling that

Suppose there exist \mathcal{P}\succcurlyeq \epsilon I, \gamma>0 satisfying Eqn. (?). For any T>0, let z, x, v satisfy Eqn. (?) for t\in[0,T], given some initial condition with \left\lVert{v}\right\rVert_2=1. Define the storage functional V(x(t))=\left\langle x(t),\mathcal{T^*PT}x(t)\right\rangle_{L_2[a,b]}. Since \mathcal{P} is coercive, V(x)\ge \epsilon \left\lVert{\mathcal{T}x}\right\rVert^2 for any x\in L_2. Then, taking time derivative along solutions of Eqn. (?), we have that

and, since \mathcal{P} satisfies Eqn. (?), we further have that

Integrating \dot{V} w.r.t. t over [0,T], we have that

Then, since \mathcal{P}, \gamma satisfy Eqn. (?), we have that

Since the inequality holds uniformly for any T>0 and solution of Eqn. (?), by the definition of the impulse-to-energy norm, we conclude that \left\lVert{G(\mathcal{T,A},0,C,B)}\right\rVert_{2,i}^2 \leq \gamma, as desired.

We prove that if there exist \mathcal{P} \succcurlyeq \epsilon I, \gamma >0 satisfying Eqn. (?), then \|G(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B},\mathcal{C},0)\|_{\infty,2}^2 \leq \gamma, recalling that

Suppose there exist \mathcal{P}\succcurlyeq \epsilon I, \gamma>0 satisfying Eqn. (?). For any T>0, suppose z,x, v satisfy Eqn. (?), given some input with \left\lVert{v}\right\rVert_{L_2[0,T]} = 1. Define the storage functional V(x(t))=\left\langle x(t), \mathcal{T^* PT} x(t)\right\rangle. Then, V(x)\ge \epsilon \left\lVert{\mathcal{T}\bar{x}}\right\rVert^2 and 1012pt1012pt1012pt1012pt1012pt1012pt1012pt1012pt

implying that, since \mathcal{P} and \gamma satisfy Eqn. (?),

Integrating \dot{V} w.r.t. t over [0,T], we get

Then, since \mathcal{P} and \gamma satisfy Eqn. (?), we have that

Since the inequality holds uniformly for any T>0 and solutions of Eqn. (?), by the definition of the energy-to-peak norm, we conclude that \left\lVert{G(\mathcal{T,A,B,C},0)}\right\rVert_{\infty,2}^2 \leq \gamma, as desired.

As before, we first prove that if Eqn. (?) hold for some \mathcal{P}\succcurlyeq \epsilon I, \gamma>0, then \left\lVert{G(\mathcal{T^*,A^*},\mathcal{C}^*,\mathcal{B}^*,0)}\right\rVert_{\infty,2}^2 \leq \gamma, and use the duality result in Thm. 9. Suppose there exist \mathcal{P}\succcurlyeq \epsilon I, \gamma>0 satisfying Eqn. (?). Now, let \mathcal{T'=T^*}, \mathcal{A'=A^*}, \mathcal{B'=C^*}, and \mathcal{C'=B^*}. Since \mathcal{T,A,B,C} \in \pmb{\Pi} \subset \mathcal{L}(X) and (A^*)^*=A for any A\in \mathcal{L}(X), we can verify that the conditions of Thm. ?, ? hold for \mathcal{T}',\mathcal{A}',\mathcal{B}',\mathcal{C}' since

implying \left\lVert{G(\mathcal{T}',\mathcal{A}',\mathcal{B}',\mathcal{C}',0)}\right\rVert_{\infty,2}^2\leq \gamma. Now, from Thm. 9, we can conclude that

We prove each statement separately

Proof of 1): Suppose 1) holds for some \mathcal{P} \succcurlyeq \epsilon I, \gamma>0. Then, \mathcal{P} \in \pmb{\Pi} \subset \mathcal{L}(X), and \mathcal{P},\gamma satisfy Eqn. (?). Now, we apply Lem. 12 using \mathcal{U}=-\mathcal{C} \in \mathcal{L}(X), \mathcal{R}=-(\mathcal{A^*PT+T^*PA}) \in \mathcal{L}(X), and \mathcal{S} = \gamma I \in \mathcal{L}(X). Since \mathcal{S} \succcurlyeq \epsilon I for any \epsilon\in(0,\gamma], the conditions of Lem. 12 are satisfied. Then, we have that

Then, statement 1) of Lem. 12 holds. This implies

Furthermore, \mathcal{P},\gamma satisfy Eqn. (?).

Now, we apply Lem. 12 using \mathcal{U}=\mathcal{PB} \in \mathcal{L}(X), \mathcal{R}=\gamma I \in \mathcal{L}(X), and \mathcal{S} = \mathcal{P} \in \mathcal{L}(X). Then, since \mathcal{S} =\mathcal{P} \succcurlyeq \epsilon I, the conditions of Lem. 12 are satisfied. Then, we have that

and hence, statement 1) of Lem. 12 holds. This implies

Next, let \hat{\mathcal{P}} =\mathcal{P}\gamma. Then, we have that \hat{\mathcal{P}} \succcurlyeq \gamma \epsilon I and

and hence \mathcal{\hat P}=\mathcal{P} \gamma, and \gamma^2 satisfy the conditions of Thm. ?, ?. This implies that \left\lVert{G(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{A},0,\mathcal{C},\mathcal{B})}\right\rVert_{2,i}^2 \leq \gamma^2, and hence \left\lVert{G(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{A},0,\mathcal{C},\mathcal{B})}\right\rVert_{2,i} \leq \gamma, as desired.

Proof of 2): Next, we prove statement 2) by showing that if there exist \mathcal{P} \succcurlyeq \epsilon I, \gamma >0 satisfying 2), then \|G(\mathcal{T}^*,\mathcal{A}^*,\mathcal{C}^*,\mathcal{B}^*,0)\|_{\infty,2} \leq \gamma, recalling that

Suppose there exist \mathcal{P}\succcurlyeq \epsilon I, \gamma>0 satisfying Eqn. (?).

Now, we apply Lem. 12, using \mathcal{U} =\mathcal{B^*} \in \mathcal{L}(X), \mathcal{R}=\mathcal{TPT^*} \in \mathcal{L}(X), and \mathcal{S}=\gamma I \in \mathcal{L}(X). Since \gamma I \succcurlyeq \epsilon I for any \epsilon\in(0,\gamma], the conditions of Lem. 12 are satisfied. We have

and hence, statement 1) of Lem. 12 holds. This implies

Next, let \hat{\mathcal{P}} =\mathcal{P}\gamma. Then, we have that \hat{\mathcal{P}} \succcurlyeq \gamma \epsilon I, and

and hence \mathcal{\hat P}=\mathcal{P} \gamma, and \gamma^2 satisfy the conditions of Cor. ?, ?. This implies \left\lVert{G(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{A},0,\mathcal{C},\mathcal{B})}\right\rVert_{2,i}^2\leq \gamma^2, and hence \left\lVert{G(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{A},0,\mathcal{C},\mathcal{B})}\right\rVert_{2,i}\leq \gamma is proven.

We prove that if Eqn. (?) hold for some \mathcal{P}\succcurlyeq \epsilon I, \gamma>0, then \left\lVert{G(\mathcal{T^*,A^*},0,\mathcal{B}^*,\mathcal{C}^*)}\right\rVert_{2,i}^2 \leq \gamma. We use duality, in Thm. 9, to assert that \left\lVert{G(\mathcal{T,A,B,C},0)}\right\rVert_{\infty,2}^2 \leq \gamma. Suppose there exist \mathcal{P}\succcurlyeq \epsilon I, \gamma>0 satisfying Eqn. (?). Let \mathcal{T'=T^*}, \mathcal{A'=A^*}, \mathcal{B'=C^*}, and \mathcal{C'=B^*}. By Thm. 11.3 of Chapter II of [gohbergVol1], (A^*)^*=A for any A\in \mathcal{L}(X). Since \mathcal{T,A,B,C} \in \pmb{\Pi} \subset \mathcal{L}(X), we have (\mathcal{T}')^*=\mathcal{T}, (\mathcal{A}')^*=\mathcal{A}, (\mathcal{C}')^*=\mathcal{B}, and (\mathcal{B}')^*=\mathcal{C} and consequently, conditions of Thm. ?, ? hold,

and hence we conclude that \left\lVert{G(\mathcal{T}',\mathcal{A}',0,\mathcal{C}',\mathcal{B}')}\right\rVert_{2,i}^2\leq \gamma. Lastly, from Thm. 9, we have that

We use the duality result of Thm. 9, to prove that the LPIs in statements 1) and 2) imply \left\lVert{G(\mathcal{T,A,B,C},0)}\right\rVert_{\infty,2} \leq \gamma. First, we show 1) implies \left\lVert{G(\mathcal{T}',\mathcal{A}',0,\mathcal{C}',\mathcal{B}')}\right\rVert_{2,i} \leq \gamma.

Suppose 1) holds for some \mathcal{P}\succcurlyeq \epsilon I,\gamma>0. Then, \mathcal{P}, \gamma satisfy Eqn. (?).

Now, let \mathcal{T'=T^*}, \mathcal{A'=A^*}, \mathcal{B'=C^*}, and \mathcal{C'=B^*}. Then, statement 1) of Thm. ?, ? hold for G(\mathcal{T}',\mathcal{A}',0,\mathcal{C}',\mathcal{B}'):

which implies that \left\lVert{G(\mathcal{T}',\mathcal{A}',0,\mathcal{C}',\mathcal{B}')}\right\rVert_{2,i}\leq \gamma.

Next, we show that 2) implies \left\lVert{G(\mathcal{T}',\mathcal{A}',0,\mathcal{C}',\mathcal{B}')}\right\rVert_{2,i} \leq \gamma. Suppose 2) holds for some \mathcal{P}\succcurlyeq \epsilon I,\gamma>0. Then, \mathcal{P}, \gamma satisfy Eqn. (?). Hence, statement 2) of Thm. ?, ? hold for G(\mathcal{T}',\mathcal{A}',0,\mathcal{C}',\mathcal{B}'). Specifically, we have that 1012pt1012pt1012pt1012pt1012pt1012pt1012pt1012pt

which implies that \left\lVert{G(\mathcal{T}',\mathcal{A}',0,\mathcal{C}',\mathcal{B}')}\right\rVert_{2,i}\leq \gamma.

Now, we are in position to invoke Thm. 9, using G(\mathcal{T}',\mathcal{A}',0,\mathcal{C}',\mathcal{B}'), which states that

Since \mathcal{T,A,B,C} \in \pmb{\Pi} \subset \mathcal{L}(X), we have that, by Thm. 11.3 of Chapter II of [gohbergVol1], (\mathcal{T}')^*=\mathcal{T}^{**}=\mathcal{T}, (\mathcal{A}')^*=\mathcal{A}^{**}=\mathcal{A}, (\mathcal{B}')^*=\mathcal{B}^{**}=\mathcal{B}, and (\mathcal{C}')^*=\mathcal{C}^{**}=\mathcal{C}, and hence

Since both 1) and 2) imply \left\lVert{G(\mathcal{T}',\mathcal{A}',0,\mathcal{C}',\mathcal{B}')}\right\rVert_{2,i}\leq \gamma, both imply \left\lVert{G(\mathcal{T,A,B,C},0)}\right\rVert_{\infty,2}\leq \gamma, as desired.