Abstract
The paper deals with the problem of the existence of a normal form for a nearly-integrable real-analytic Hamiltonian with aperiodically time-dependent perturbation decaying (slowly) in time. In particular, in the case of an isochronous integrable part, the system can be cast in an exact normal form, regardless of the properties of the frequency vector. The general case is treated by a suitable adaptation of the finite order normalization techniques usually used for Nekhoroshev arguments. The key point is that the so called “geometric part” is not necessary in this case. As a consequence, no hypotheses on the integrable part are required, apart from analyticity. The work, based on two different perturbative approaches developed by Giorgilli et al., is a generalisation of the techniques used by the same authors to treat more specific aperiodically time-dependent problems.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The problem of casting an analytic nearly-integrable Hamiltonian system into normal form is deeply related to Poincaré’s challenging problème général de la dynamique, Poincaré (1892). Nowadays, normal forms are still one of the main technical tools used to deal with the issue raised by Poincaré in this context.
The particular case in which the unperturbed part is supposed to be linear in the actions (isochronous case), already investigated by Birkhoff (and for this reason also known as the Birkhoff problem) Birkhoff (1927), has a peculiar interest. The first rigorous statement concerning its stability can be found in Gallavotti (1986). The possibility to cast the considered Hamiltonian in normal form, up to some finite orderFootnote 1 r and to obtain, as a consequence, a stability time estimate “à la Nekhoroshev”, is directly related to a particularly simple small-divisors analysis: the non-resonant (Diophantine) hypothesis on the frequency vector \(\omega \) of the unperturbed system is sufficient in order to ensure the resolvability of the (standard) homological equation arising in the normalization algorithm. An extensive bibliography on this problem goes beyond the purposes of this paper, we only mention the recent generalisations for the planetary problem of Pinzari (2013) and of Bambusi (2005) for infinite dimensional systems.
It is well known that the extension to the non-isochronous case requires a careful analysis (geometric part, see Nekhoroshev 1977, 1979; Benettin and Gallavotti 1986) on the regions of the phase space in which the actions I are such that \(\omega =\omega (I)\) is non-resonant (non-resonant domains).
The problem of dealing with time-dependent perturbations without any hypothesis on the time dependence (e.g. periodic or quasi-periodic) has peculiar technical difficulties. After the pioneering works of Pustyl’nikov (1974) and Giorgilli and Zehnder (1992), the interest for this class of problems has been recently renewed in Bounemoura (2013), Fortunati and Wiggins (2014a) and subsequent papers. Examples of more general (i.e. aperiodic) non-autonomous perturbation in the context of the Lagrangian transport theory for fluids have been pointed out in Wiggins and Mancho (2014). Despite towards a different direction it is worth mentioning the stochastic perturbations of the Kepler problem discussed in Cresson et al. (2015), naturally arising in some Celestial Mechanics models.
From a technical point of view, the presence of an aperiodic time dependence, requires a different treatment of the homological equation which takes the form of a linear PDE. A first approach consists in keeping the terms involving the time derivative of the generating function (also called extra-terms) in the normal form and then providing a bound for them. This approach, originally suggested in Giorgilli and Zehnder (1992) then used in Fortunati and Wiggins (2014a), yields a normal form result for the case a of slow time dependence. This hypothesis provides a smallness condition for the mentioned extra-terms. Alternatively, those terms can be removed by including them into the homological equation, which turns out to be, in this way, a linear ODE in time. This has been profitably used in Fortunati and Wiggins (2014b), Fortunati and Wiggins (2015a) and in Fortunati and Wiggins (2015b) but requires (except for a particular case described in Fortunati and Wiggins 2015b) an important assumption. More precisely, it is necessary to suppose that the perturbation, as a function of t, belongs to the class of summable functions over the real semi-axis.Footnote 2 As in (3), those functions exhibiting a (slow) exponential decay will be used as a paradigmatic case. It will be shown that the consequences of this assumption in the isochronous case are remarkable: the normalization algorithm can be iterated an infinite number of times by means of a superconvergent method borrowed from KAM type arguments, see e.g. Chierchia (2009). The procedure leads to the so-called strong normal form i.e. in which the normalized Hamiltonian has the same form of the integrable part of the initial problem. Furthermore, no restrictions are imposed on \(\omega \), hence flows with arbitrary frequencies persist in the transformed system.
As it would be likely to expect, this phenomenon has an important consequence also in the non-isochronous case. The possibility to disregard the problems related to the small divisors implies that the well known geography of the resonances analysis, a key step of the Nekhoroshev theorem, is not necessary in this case and the results that can be stated are purely “analytic”. In such a way, the classical assumptions on the unperturbed part of the Hamiltonian (such as steepness, convexity etc.), are no longer required. As a common feature with the isochronous case, the obtained normal form does not exhibit resonant terms, as these have been annihilated in the normalization by using the time-dependent homological equation. This implies that, in this case, the plane of fast drift (see e.g. Giorgilli 2003) degenerates to a point. The paper uses in a concise but self-contained form, the tools developed in the above mentioned papers of the same authors, especially of Fortunati and Wiggins (2015b) in which the concept of “family” of canonical transformations parametrised by t is introduced. The proofs are entirely constructed by using the language and the tools of the Lie series and Lie transform methods developed by Giorgilli et al., see e.g. Giorgilli (2003).
2 Setting and main results
Consider the following nearly integrable Hamiltonian
with \((I,\varphi ,\eta ,t) \in G \times {\mathbb {T}}^n \times {\mathbb {R}}\times {\mathbb {R}}^+\), where \( G \subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\) and \(\hat{\varepsilon }>0\) is a small parameter, which is the “autonomous equivalent” in the extended phase space of Hamiltonian \(\mathcal {H}(I,\varphi ,t)=h(I) + \hat{\varepsilon } f(I,\varphi ,t)\).
We define, for all \(t \in {\mathbb {R}}^+:=[0,+\infty )\), the following complexified domain \(\mathcal {D}_{\rho ,\sigma }:=\mathcal {G}_{\rho } \times {\mathbb {T}}_{\sigma }^n \times \mathcal {S}_{\rho }\), where \(\mathcal {G}_{\rho }:=\bigcup _{I \in G} \Delta _{\rho }(I)\) and
with \(\rho ,\sigma \in (0,1)\). For all \(g:\mathcal {G}_{\rho } \times {\mathbb {T}}_{\sigma }^n \times {\mathbb {R}}^+ \rightarrow {\mathbb {C}}\), write \(g=\sum _{k \in {\mathbb {Z}}^n} g_k(I,t) e^{i k \cdot \varphi }\), then define the Fourier norm (parametrized by t)
with \(|\cdot |_{\rho }\) is the usual supremum norm over \(\mathcal {G}_{\rho }\) and \(|k|:=\sum _{l=1}^n |k_l|\). For all \(w : \mathcal {G}_{\rho } \times {\mathbb {T}}_{\sigma }^n \times {\mathbb {R}}^+ \rightarrow {\mathbb {C}}^n\) we shall set \(\left\| w \right\| _{\rho ,\sigma }:=\sum _{l=1}^n\left\| w_l \right\| _{\rho ,\sigma }\). The standard framework (see eg. Benettin et al. 1984) is the space \({\mathfrak {C}}_{\rho ,\sigma }\), of continuous functions on \(\mathcal {G}_{\rho } \times {\mathbb {T}}_{\sigma }^n\), holomorphic in its interior for some \(\rho ,\sigma \) and real on \(G \times {\mathbb {T}}^n\) for allFootnote 3 \(t \in {\mathbb {R}}^+\). We shall suppose \(h(I) \in {\mathfrak {C}}_{\rho ,\cdot }\) and \(f \in {\mathfrak {C}}_{\rho ,\sigma }\) while it is sufficient to assume that, for all \(I \in \mathcal {G}_{\rho }, f_k(I,\cdot ) \in \mathcal {C}^1({\mathbb {R}}^+)\).
Similarly to Fortunati and Wiggins (2015b), we introduce the following
Hypothesis 2.1
(Time decay) There exists \(M_f>0\) and \(a \in (0,1)\)
Set \(\varepsilon :=\hat{\varepsilon } M_f\). We firstly state the following
Theorem 2.2
(Strong aperiodic Birkhoff) Consider Hamiltonian (1) with \(h(I):=\omega \cdot I\), under the Hypothesis 2.1 and the described regularity assumptions. Then, for all \(a \in (0,1)\) there exists \(\varepsilon _a>0\) such that the following statement holds true. For all \(\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon _a]\), it is possible to find \(0<\rho _*<\rho _0<\rho \) and \(0<\sigma _*<\sigma _0<\sigma \) and an analytic, canonical, \(\varepsilon -\)close and asymptotic to the identity change of variables \((I,\varphi ,\eta ) = \mathcal {B}(I^{(\infty )},\varphi ^{(\infty )},\eta ^{(\infty )}), \mathcal {B}:\mathcal {D}_{\rho _*,\sigma _*} \rightarrow \mathcal {D}_{\rho _0,\sigma _0}\) for all \(t \in {\mathbb {R}}^+\), casting Hamiltonian (1) into the strong Birkhoff normal form
Hence, in the new variables, the flow with frequency \(\omega \) persists for all \(\omega \), regardless of the numerical features of this vector, i.e. more specifically, no matter if it is resonant or not. Note that the absence of a non-resonance hypothesis on \(\omega \) implies also that (4) holds also if \(\omega \) has an arbitrary number of zero components.
With a straightforward adaptation of the notational setting, the result in the general case states as follows:
Theorem 2.3
There exist \(\varepsilon _a^*>0\) and \(r \in {\mathbb {N}}\setminus \{0\}\) such that, for all \(\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon _a^*]\) it is possible to find an analytic, canonical, \(\varepsilon -\)close and asymptotic to the identity change of variables \((I,\varphi ,\eta ) = \mathcal {N}_r\left( I^{(r)},\varphi ^{(r)},\eta ^{(r)}\right) , \mathcal {N}_r:\mathcal {D}_{\tilde{\rho _*},\tilde{\sigma _*}} \rightarrow \mathcal {D}_{\tilde{\rho _0},\tilde{\sigma _0}}\) for all \(t \in {\mathbb {R}}^+\), casting Hamiltonian (1) under the Hypothesis 2.1, into the normal form of order r
where \(\mathcal {R}^{(r+1)}\) is “exponentially small” with respect to r and vanishes forFootnote 4 \(t \rightarrow +\infty \). Moreover, for all \(I(0) \in G\) one has in (1): \(|I(t)-I(0)| \le \sqrt{\varepsilon } \tilde{\rho }_0/8\) for all \(t \in {\mathbb {R}}^+\).
Similarly to Fortunati and Wiggins (2015b) (and the mentioned previous papers), no lower bounds are imposed on a so that the decay can be arbitrarily slow. The (natural) consequence is that either \(\varepsilon _a\) or \(\varepsilon _a^*\) decrease with a, see (15) and (56).
We stress that, as a difference with the classical (non-autonomous) case, the stability property following from the above stated results, is an easy consequence of (3) and it could have been possible to show it directly from the equations of motion, by means of elementary method, without the use of the normal form approach.
3 Part I
4 Proof of Theorem 2.2
5 The normalization algorithm
Given a function \(G:=G (I,\varphi ,t)\), define the Lie series operator \(\exp ({\mathcal {L}}_{G}):={{\mathrm{Id}}}+\sum _{s \ge 1} (1/s!) \mathcal {L}_{G}^s\), where \(\mathcal {L}_{G} F :=\{F,G\} \equiv F_{\varphi } \cdot G_I - G_{\varphi } \cdot F_I- F_{\eta } G_t \). The aim is to construct a generating sequence \(\{\chi ^{(j)}\}_{j \in {\mathbb {N}}}\), such that the formal limit
where \(\mathcal {B}^{(j)}:=\exp (\mathcal {L}_{\chi ^{(j)}})\) is such that \(\mathcal {B} \circ H\) is of the form (4). The following statement shows that this is possible, at least at a formal level
Proposition 3.1
Suppose that for some \(j \in {\mathbb {N}}\) Hamiltonian (1) is of the form
Then \(H^{(j+1)} :=\mathcal {B}^{(j)} \circ H^{(j)} \) is still of the form (7) with
provided that \(\chi ^{(j)}\) solves the homological equation
Since Hamiltonian (1) is of the form (7), one can set \(H^{(0)}:=H\) with \(F^{(0)}:=\hat{\varepsilon } f\). Thus, by induction, the form (7) holds for all \(j \in {\mathbb {N}}\). Clearly, this does not guarantee that the objects involved in the algorithm are meaningful for all j, as it is well known their sizes can grow unboundedly as j increases, as a consequence of small divisors phenomena. The aim of Sect. 4 (and in particular of Lemma 4.5) is to show that this is not the case: the key ingredient is the time decay of f.
Proof
We get \(\exp (\mathcal {L}_{\chi ^{(j)}})H^{(j)}=I \cdot \omega + \eta + F^{(j)}(I,\varphi ,t)+\mathcal {L}_{\chi ^{(j)}}( \omega \cdot I + \eta )+\sum _{s \ge 1} (1/s!) \mathcal {L}_{\chi ^{(j)}}^s F^{(j)}+ \sum _{s \ge 2} (1/s!) \mathcal {L}_{\chi ^{(j)}}^s (\omega \cdot I + \eta )\). The sum between the third and fourth terms of the r.h.s. of the latter equation vanishes due to (9). As for the last two terms, by setting \(F^{(j+1)}\) as the sum of them, one gets \(F^{(j+1)}=\sum _{s \ge 1} (1/s!) \mathcal {L}_{\chi ^{(j)}}[F^{(j)}+(s+1)^{-1}\mathcal {L}_{\chi ^{(j)}}(\omega \cdot I +\eta )]\), which immediately yields (8) by using (9). \(\square \)
The (formal) expansions \(\chi ^{(j)}=\sum _{k \in {\mathbb {Z}}^n} c_k^{(j)}(I,t)e^{i k \cdot \varphi }\) and \(F^{(j)}=\sum _{k \in {\mathbb {Z}}^n} f_k^{(j)}(I,t)e^{i k \cdot \varphi }\) yield (9) in terms of Fourier components
with \(\lambda (k):=\omega \cdot k\). The solution of (10) is
where \( c_k^{(j)}(I,0)\) will be chosen later.
6 Convergence
The classical argument requires the construction of a sequence of nested domains \(\mathcal {D}_{\rho _{j+1},\sigma _{j+1}} \subset \mathcal {D}_{\rho _j,\sigma _j} \ni (I^{(j)},\varphi ^{(j)},\eta ^{(j)})\), such that \(\mathcal {B}_j: \mathcal {D}_{j+1} \rightarrow \mathcal {D}_{j}\). The resulting progressive restriction is essential in order to use standard Cauchy tools, see Proposition 4.1. The estimates found in Lemma 4.2, concerning the solution of Eq. (9), will be used to prove Lemma 4.5, providing in this way the bound on \(F^{(j)}\) defined in Proposition 3.1. This is achieved for a suitable sequence of domains prepared in Lemma 4.4 via \(\{\rho _j\}\) and \(\{\sigma _j\}\). This allows us to conclude that the perturbation term is actually removed in the limit (6).
The final step consists of showing that \(\mathcal {B}\) defines an analytic map \(\mathcal {B} : \mathcal {D}_{\rho _*,\sigma _*} \ni (I^{(\infty )},\varphi ^{(\infty )},\eta ^{(\infty )}) \rightarrow \mathcal {D}_{\rho _0,\sigma _0} \ni (I^{(0)},\varphi ^{(0)},\eta ^{(0)}) \equiv (I,\varphi ,\eta )\), where \(\rho _* \le \rho _j\) and \(\sigma _* \le \sigma _j\) for all \(j \in {\mathbb {N}}\). This property is shown in Lemma 4.6. As \(\mathcal {D}_{\rho _*,\sigma _*}\) will be the domain of analyticity of the transformed Hamiltonian via \(\mathcal {B}\), it will be essential to require that \(\rho _*,\sigma _*>0\).
6.1 Some preliminary results
Proposition 4.1
Let \(F,G: \mathcal {G}_{\rho } \times {\mathbb {T}}_{\sigma }^n \times {\mathbb {R}}^+ \rightarrow {\mathbb {C}}\) such that \(\left\| F \right\| _{(1-d^{\prime })(\rho ,\sigma )}\) and \(\left\| G \right\| _{(1-d^{\prime \prime })(\rho ,\sigma )}\) are bounded for some \(d^{\prime },d^{\prime \prime } \in [0,1)\). Then, defining \(\delta :=|d^{\prime }-d^{\prime \prime }|\) and \({\hat{d}}:=\max \{d^{\prime },d^{\prime \prime }\}\), for all \(\tilde{d} \in (0,1-{\hat{d}})\) one has for all \(s \in {\mathbb {N}}\setminus \{0\}\)
where \(\tilde{\delta }_s=\delta \) if \(s=1\) and is zero otherwise.
Proof
Straightforward from (Giorgilli 2003, Lemmas 4.1, 4.2). \(\square \)
Lemma 4.2
Suppose that \(F^{(j)}\) satisfies \(\left\| F^{(j)} \right\| _{[{\hat{\sigma }},{\hat{\rho }}]} \le M^{(j)}\exp (-at)\) for some \(M^{(j)}>0, {\hat{\rho }} \le \rho \) and \({\hat{\sigma }} \le \sigma \). Define \(C_{\omega }:=1+|\omega |\), then for all \(\delta \in (0,1)\) the solution of (9) satisfies
Proof
First of all, by hypothesis \(\left| f_k^{(j)}(I,t)\right| \le M^{(j)} \exp (-|k|{\hat{\sigma }}-at)\), in particular, by choosing \(c_k^{(j)}(I,0):=-\int _{{\mathbb {R}}^+} \exp (i \lambda (k)s) f_k^{(j)}(I,s) ds\) we have that \(|c_k^{(j)}(I,0)|<+\infty \) for all \(I \in \mathcal {G}_{\rho }\). Substituting \(c_k^{(j)}(I,0)\) in (11) one gets \(|c_k^{(j)}(I,t)| \le \int _t^{\infty }|f_k^{(j)}(I,s)|ds \le (M^{(j)} /a) \exp (-|k|{\hat{\sigma }} -at)\) which yieldsFootnote 5 the first of (13). As for the second of (13), it is sufficient to use (10), which implies, \(|\partial _t c_k^{(j)}(I,t)| \le (M^{(j)}/a)(1+|\omega ||k|) \exp (-|k|{\hat{\sigma }}-a t)\) then proceed similarly. \(\square \)
Remark 4.3
It is immediate to notice that a hypothesis of non-resonance on \(\omega \) does not substantially improve the bounds (13). A more careful computation yields
Hence the estimate cannot be refined due to the presence of \(|c_0^{(j)}(I,t)|\), no matter what the minimum value of \((\omega \cdot k)\) is.
6.2 A suitable sequence of domains
Lemma 4.4
Let \(\{d_j\}_{j \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) be a (real valued) sequence such that \(0 \le d_j \le 1/6\). Consider, for all \(j \in {\mathbb {N}}\), the following sequences
with \(K>0\) and \(\tau :=2 n + 3\). Then, for all \(0<\rho _0 \le \rho , 0<\sigma _0 \le \sigma \) and \(\epsilon _0 \le \varepsilon _a\) where
it is possible to construct \(\{d_j\}_{j \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) such that \((\rho _*,\sigma _*)=(1/2)(\rho _0,\sigma _0)\), in particular they are strictly positive. Furthermore \(\lim _{j \rightarrow \infty } \epsilon _j=0\).
Proof
Choose \(\epsilon _j:=\epsilon _0 (j+1)^{-2 \tau }\) (so that \(\lim _{j \rightarrow \infty } \epsilon _j=0\) by construction). By the first of (14) one gets
hence, by (15), \(d_j \le \pi ^{-2} (j+1)^{-2}\). This implies \(\sum _{j \ge 0} d_j \le 1/6\) and then, trivially, \(d_j \le 1/6\) for all \(j \in {\mathbb {N}}\). Now we haveFootnote 6 \( \ln \Pi _{j \ge 0} (1-3 d_j)=\sum _{j \ge 0} \ln (1-3 d_j) \ge -6 \ln 2 \sum _{j \ge 0} d_j = - \ln 2\), hence \(\lim _{j \rightarrow \infty } \rho _j=\rho _0 \Pi _{j \ge 0} (1-3 d_j) \ge \rho _0/2 =: \rho _*\). Analogously \(\sigma _*:=\sigma _0/2\). \(\square \)
6.3 Bounds on the formal algorithm
Lemma 4.5
There exists \(K=K(\rho _0,\sigma _0)>0\) such that, if \(\varepsilon \le \varepsilon _a\) where \(\varepsilon _a\) satisfies (15), then
for all \(j \in {\mathbb {N}}\). Hence, the transformed Hamiltonian \(\mathcal {B} \circ H\) is in the form (4).
Proof
By induction. Note that (17) is true for \(j=0\) setting \(\epsilon _0:=\varepsilon \). The condition on \(\varepsilon \) ensures the validity of Lemma 4.4. Hence, supposing (17), by Lemmas 4.2 and 4.4, we get
By (8) and Proposition 4.1 with \(d^{\prime }=d_j, d^{\prime \prime }=0\) and \(\tilde{d}=d_j\) (the condition \(d_j \le 1-d_j\) holds as \(d_j \le 1/6\))
whereFootnote 7
is a sufficient condition for the convergence of the operator \(\exp (\mathcal {L}_{\chi ^{(j)}})\), from which \(\sum _{s \ge 1} \Theta ^s \le 2 \Theta \). Hence, by (19), (20), then by (18) one gets (use also \(\sigma _*,\rho _*,d_j<1\))
The latter is valid a fortiori in \(\mathcal {D}_{(1-3d_j)(\rho _j,\sigma _j)}\).
In conclusion, by choosing \(K:=n C_{\omega } (e/\sigma _*)^{\tau } \rho _*^{-1} =2^{\tau +1} n C_{\omega } (e/\sigma _0)^{\tau } \rho _0^{-1}\), from the first of (14), we have that (17) is satisfied for \(j \rightarrow j+1\). Furthermore, by the first of (14), condition (20) yields \(1 \ge 4 \epsilon _j K d_j a^{-1} d_j^{-\tau }e^{-at} =4 d_j (\epsilon _{j+1}/\epsilon _j) e^{-a t}\). The latter is trivially true for all \(t \in {\mathbb {R}}^+\) by the monotonicity of \(\epsilon _j\) and as \(d_j \le 1/6\). Furthermore this implies
Hence \(\exp (\mathcal {L}_{\chi ^{(j)}})\) is well defined for all \(j \in {\mathbb {N}}\). \(\square \)
In this way the value of \(\varepsilon _a\) mentioned in the statement of Theorem 2.2 is determined once and for all.
6.4 Estimates on the transformation of coordinates
Lemma 4.6
The limit (6) exists, it is \(\varepsilon -\)close to the identity and satisfies
in particular it defines an analytic map \(\mathcal {B}:\mathcal {D}_{\rho _*,\sigma _*} \rightarrow \mathcal {D}_{\rho _0,\sigma _0}\) and \(H^{(\infty )}\) is an analytic function on \(\mathcal {D}_{\rho _*,\sigma _*} \) for all \(t \in {\mathbb {R}}^+\).
Proof
Let us start with I. Note that \(\left\| \mathcal {L}_{\chi ^{(j)}} I^{(j+1)} \right\| _{(1-2d_j)(\rho _j,\sigma _j)} \le n (e d_j \rho _j)^{-1}\left\| \chi ^{(j)} \right\| _{(1- d_j)(\rho _j,\sigma _j)}\) by a Cauchy estimate [see (Giorgilli 2003, Lemma 4.1)], so that the presence of n in (20) is justified. Hence use Proposition 4.1 with \(F \leftarrow \mathcal {L}_{\chi ^{(j)}} I^{(j+1)}, s \leftarrow s-1\), obtaining \(\left\| \mathcal {L}_{\chi ^{(j)}}^{s} \varphi ^{(j+1)} \right\| _{(1-3d_j)(\rho _j,\sigma _j)} \le e^{-2}s!\Theta ^{s} \rho _0\). This implies
by (22). In particular \(|I^{(j+1)}-I^{(j)}|\) is \(\varepsilon -\) close to the identity by (16) for all \(j \in {\mathbb {N}}\), hence \(|I^{(\infty )}-I| \le \sum _{j \ge 0} |I^{(j+1)}-I^{(j)}|\) is. It is now sufficient to recall \(\sum _{j \ge 0} d_j \le 1/6\) in order to conclude.
The argument for \(\varphi \) is analogous while the variable \(\eta \) requires a slight modification. In particular, as one needs to set \(F \leftarrow \mathcal {L}_{\chi ^{(j)}} \eta =-\chi _t^{(j)}\), the use of the second of (13) requires the contribution of \(C_{\omega }\) in (20).
In conclusion, the obtained composition of analytic maps is uniformly convergent in any compact subset of \(\mathcal {D}_{\rho _*,\sigma _*}\). This implies that \(\mathcal {B}\) is analytic on \(\mathcal {D}_{\rho _*,\sigma _*}\) by the Weierstraß Theorem and hence the image of H via \(\mathcal {B}\) is an analytic function in the same domain. \(\square \)
7 Further perturbation examples
In this section we consider two alternative examples of perturbation. The main purpose is to show that the hypothesis of summability in time over the semi-axis is the only key requirement for the argument beyond the proof of Theorem 2.2.
In particular, we shall firstly consider a decay which is assumed to be quadratic in time, while in the second example a perturbation exhibiting a finite number of (differentiable) bumps is examined. The procedure is fully similar, with the exception of some bounds that will be explicitly given below.
7.1 Quadratic decay
Let us suppose that (3) is modified as
In the same framework, it is immediate to show that the analogous of Lemma 4.2 yields the following estimates
Clearly, in this case, the integration has led to a “loss of a power” in the decay. This is harmless as, by (19), \(\left\| F^{(j+1)} \right\| _{(1-2d_j)(\rho _j,\sigma _j)}=O(F^{j}) O(\chi ^{(j)})+h.o.t.\) and then \(F^{(j+1)} \sim (t+1)^{-3} \le (t+1)^{-2}\) so that the scheme can be iterated.Footnote 8
The rest of the proof is analogous provided that the term \(e^{-at}\) is replaced with 1 in the remaining estimates.
7.2 Differentiable bumps
Let \(L \in {\mathbb {N}}\setminus \{0\}\) and \(h>0\). Consider an increasing sequence \(\{t_l\}_{l=1,\ldots ,L} \in {\mathbb {R}}^+\) such that \(t_{l+1}-t_l>2h\), then the following function
where \(a_l \in {\mathbb {R}}\). Considering a function \(\tilde{f}(I,\varphi ) \in {\mathfrak {C}}_{\rho ,\sigma }\), we set as
In such case we find
with \(A:=\sum _{l=1}^L |a_l|\). The remaining part of the proof is straightforward with the obvious modifications. In particular, as for the proof of Lemma 4.5, one finds \(K=2 n C_{\omega } (e/\sigma _*)^{\tau } h A \rho _*^{-1}\).
8 Part II
9 Proof of Theorem 2.3
In order to simplify the notation, we shall use \((\rho _H,\sigma _H)\) in place of \((\rho ,\sigma )\) and \((\rho ,\sigma )\) in place of \((\tilde{\rho }_0,\tilde{\sigma }_0)\) from now on.
10 Formal algorithm
As in Giorgilli (2003), we write Hamiltonian (1) in the form
where
where \(\Lambda _s:=\{k \in {\mathbb {Z}}^n: (s-1)N \le |k| < sN\}\) and \(N \in {\mathbb {N}}\setminus \{0\}\) is meant to be determined.
Given a sequence of functions \(\{\chi ^{(s)}\}_{s\ge 1}:{\mathfrak {C}}_{\rho ,\sigma } \rightarrow {\mathbb {C}}\), the Lie transform operator is defined as
Let \(r \in {\mathbb {N}}\setminus \{0\}\) to be determined. A finite generating sequence of order r, denoted with \(\chi ^{[r]}\), is such that \(\chi ^{(s)} \equiv 0\) for all \(s >r\). Our aim is to determine it in such a way the effect of \(H_1,\ldots ,H_r\) is removed, i.e.
where the remainder \(\mathcal {R}^{(r+1)}\) contains \(H_{> r}\) and a moltitude of terms produced during the normalization, which Fourier harmonics lie on \(\Lambda _{>r}\). The smallness of the remainder is an immediate consequence of the decay property of the coefficients of an analytic function. The procedure is standard: condition (25), with the use of (24), yields a well known diagram which \(s-\)th level Footnote 9 is of the form
if \(s = 2,\ldots ,r\) and \(E_1 H_0+H_1=0\) if \(s=1\). As sum of all the “non-normalised” levels, the remainder easily reads as
By writing the first term of (26) in the form \(E_s=\mathcal {L}_{\chi ^{(s)}}+\sum _{j=1}^{s-1} (j/s) \mathcal {L}_{\chi ^{(j)}}E_{s-j}\) and using the manipulation described in (Giorgilli 2003, Chapter 5), one obtains a remarkable cancellation of the contribution of \(H_0\). In this way, the generating sequence is determined as a solution of
A formal expansion of \(\chi ^{(j)}\) and of \(\Psi _s:=\sum _{k \in {\mathbb {Z}}^n} \psi _k^{(s)}(I,t)e^{i k \cdot \varphi }\) yields for all \(s=1,\ldots ,r\)
where, as usual, \(\omega (I):=\partial _I h(I)\).
Remark 6.1
As a substantial difference with the isochronous case, the function \(\omega (I)\) is a complex valued vector as \(I \in \mathcal {G}_{\rho }\). In this way the exponent \(\lambda (k)t\) appearing in formula (11) is no longer purely complex. More precisely, one finds a term of the form \(\exp ((\omega _C (I)\cdot k) t)\), having denoted \(\omega (I)=\omega _R(I)+i \omega _C(I), \omega _{R,C}(I) \in {\mathbb {R}}^n\). The size of this term cannot be controlled without a cut-off on k. By restricting the analysis on the levels \(\Lambda _s\) and using the fact that \(|\omega _C(I)| \rightarrow 0 \) as \( \rho \rightarrow 0\), a loss “of part of time decay” at each step (see Lemma 7.1) will be the key ingredient to overcome this difficulty. The mentioned elements are clear obstructions to the limit \(r \rightarrow \infty \).
11 Convergence
11.1 Set-up and some preliminary results
The use of the analytic tools requires the usual construction of a sequence of nested domains. We shall choose, for all \(s=1,\ldots ,r\), the rule
with \(d \in (0,1/4]\). Clearly \(d_s < d\) for all \(s=1,\ldots ,r\). Consider also the monotonically decreasing sequence of non-negative real numbers \(\{a_s\}\) defined as follows
Given the analyticity domain of H expressed by \((\rho _H,\sigma _H)\), set \(\sigma :=\sigma _H/2\). Now consider the function \(\Omega (\rho ):=\sup _{I \in \mathcal {G}_{\rho }}|\omega _C(I)|\), clearly \(\Omega (0)=0\). From now on we shall suppose that \(\rho \) satisfies the following condition
The analyticityFootnote 10 of h(I) implies the existence of \(C_h \in [1,+\infty )\) such that the value of \(\rho \) can be determined as
once r and N will be chosen.
The scheme is constructed in such a way one can set \((\tilde{\rho }_*,\tilde{\sigma }_*):=(1-d)(\rho ,\sigma )\).
As a consequence of Hypothesis 2.1 and of the standard properties of analytic functions, one has
with \(\mathcal {F}:=\varepsilon \tilde{\mathcal {F}}\), where [see (Giorgilli 2003, Lemma 5.2)] \(\tilde{\mathcal {F}}:=[(1+\exp (-\sigma /2))/(1-\exp (-\sigma /2))]^n\) and
Lemma 7.1
Suppose that \(\left\| \Psi _s \right\| _{(1-d_{s})(\rho ,\sigma )} \le M^{(s)} \exp (-a_s t)\), for some \(M^{(s)}>0\). Then the solution of (28) satisfies
where \(C_r:=2^{2n+4}(r/d)^n\).
Proof
Use (29). Similarly to Lemma 4.2, we choose \(c_k^{(s)}(I,0):=-\int _{{\mathbb {R}}^+} \exp (-(\omega (I)\cdot k)\tau ) \psi _k^{(s)}(I,\tau )d \tau \). Note that \(|c_k^{(s)}(I,0)| \le M^{(s)} \exp (-(1-d_s)|k|\sigma ) \int _{{\mathbb {R}}^+} \exp (|\omega _C(I)||k|-a)\tau ) d \tau < +\infty \) on \(\Lambda _s\) by (32). By using again (32) one gets
The first of (36) is easily recognisedFootnote 11 by (31). The second of (36) follow from (37) and from (29). \(\square \)
Lemma 7.2
Let \(A,\Gamma ,\tau > 0\) and consider the real-valued sequences \(\{\kappa _s\}_{s \ge 1}\) and \(\{\gamma _l\}_{l \ge 0}\) defined as
where \(\kappa _1\) and \(\gamma _0\) are given. Define \(\Delta :=\tau +\Gamma \), then for all \(s \ge 2\) and \( l \ge 1\)
Proof
We shall denote with (38a) and (38b) the first and the second of (38), respectively. The same for (39). Let us suppose for a moment that (39a) is proven, then choose \(A=\Gamma \gamma _0\) and \(\kappa _1=\Gamma \gamma _0 = \gamma _1\). By substituting in (39a) one immediately gets (39b). Hence we need only to prove (39a).
For this purpose we use the well-known generating function method (see e.g. Wilf 2006). Namely, define \(g(z):=\sum _{n=1}^{\infty } w_n z^n\), multiply each equation obtained from (38a) by \(z^s\) as s varies, then “sum” all the equations. This leads to \(g(z)=[1-\Delta z]^{-1}(\kappa _1 (z-\tau z^2)+A \tau z^2)=(1+\Delta z + \Delta ^2 z^2+\ldots )(\kappa _1 (z-\tau z^2)+A \tau z^2)=\kappa _1 z + (\Gamma \kappa _1 + \tau A) \sum _{n \ge 2} \Delta ^{n-2} z^n\), which is the (39a). \(\square \)
11.2 Bounds on the generating function
Proposition 7.3
For all \(s \le r\), the following estimate holds
where the sequence \(\{\beta _s\}_{s=1,\ldots ,r} \in {\mathbb {R}}^+\) is determined by the following system
with \(\{\theta _l\}_{l=0,\ldots ,r-1} \in {\mathbb {R}}^+\) and
under the conditionsFootnote 12 \(\beta _1=\theta _0=1\).
First of all note that by (24) and (34), one has \(\left\| \Psi _1 \right\| _{(1-d_{1})(\rho ,\sigma )} \le \mathcal {F}\exp (-a_1 t)\) and \(\left\| E_0 H_m \right\| _{(1-d_{})(\rho ,\sigma )} \le \mathcal {F} h^{m-1} \exp (-a_1 t)\) (recall (31)). Hence, given by \(s \le r\), we can suppose by induction to know \(\beta _1,\ldots ,\beta _{s-1}\) and \({\tilde{\theta }}_{0,m},\ldots ,{\tilde{\theta }}_{s-2,m}\), for all \(m \ge 1\), with \(\beta _1=1\) and \({\tilde{\theta }}_{0,m}=h^{m-1}\), such that the the following bounds hold for all \(j=1,\ldots ,s-1\) and \(l=0,\ldots ,s-2\)
By (43a) and Lemma 7.1, the bound (40) holds with j in place of s. Hence by Proposition 4.1 with \(G=\chi ^{(j)}, F=E_{s-j-1}H_m\) then \({\hat{d}}=\max _{j=1,\ldots ,s-1}\{d_{j+1/2},d_{s-j}\}=d_{s-1/2}\) and finally \(\tilde{d}:=d_s-d_{s-1/2}=d/(2r)\), one has (by setting \(\delta =0\))
where the property \(a_{j+1} + a_{l-j+1} \ge a_{l+1}\) has been used. Recalling (24), we have that (43b) holds also for \(l=s-1\), where
Furthermore, it is easy to show from the latter that \({\tilde{\theta }}_{l,m}=h^{m-1} {\tilde{\theta }}_{l,1}\) in such a way, defined \(\theta _l:={\tilde{\theta }}_{l,1}\) one gets \({\tilde{\theta }}_{l,m}=h^{m-1}\theta _l\), and then the second of (41), provided \(\theta _0=1\). In conclusion, by using (34), and the second of (41) in the definition of \(\Psi _s\) as in (28), we get that (43a) is satisfied if \(\beta _s\) is defined as in the first of (41). Bound (40) follows from Lemma 7.1.
Proposition 7.4
The sequence \(\beta _s\) defined by (41) satisfies
for \(s=1,\ldots ,r\), if
Proof
The property (46) is trivially true for \(s=1\), hence let us suppose it for \(j=1,\ldots ,s-1\) and proceed by induction with \(\tau \) to be determined. Define \({\tilde{\theta }}_l:=\theta _l(\beta _j)|_{\beta _j=\tau ^{j-1}/j}\), then \({\hat{\theta }}_l:={\tilde{\theta }}_l/l\), obtaining \( {\hat{\theta }}_l=\Gamma \sum _{j=1}^{l} \tau ^{j-1} {\hat{\theta }}_{l-j} \). Clearly \(\theta _l \le {\tilde{\theta }}_l \le {\hat{\theta }}_l/l\), furthermore \(\theta _0 = {\tilde{\theta }}_0={\hat{\theta }}_0=1\). Hence, by Lemma 7.2 we have
Now choose \(\tau ,\Gamma \) as in (47). By using (34) and (48) in the first of (41) one gets that (46) is satisfied simply by checking that the inequality
holds true for allFootnote 13 \(s=1,\ldots ,r\). \(\square \)
11.3 Estimates on the coordinates transformation
From now on we shall suppose that h and \(\varepsilon \) are chosen in such a way
In particular, by definition and by (47), this immediately implies that
As in Giorgilli (2003) it is used that, despite the generating sequence is finite, one can use the bound obtained from 7.3
with \(\beta _s\) satisfying (46) for all s, as it would be, trivially, \(\beta _{>r}=0\).
Proposition 7.5
Define \((I^{(r)},\varphi ^{(r)},\eta ^{(r)}):=T_{\chi ^{[r]}}(I,\varphi ,\eta )\). Then the following estimates hold
Proof
Let us start from the variable I. Firstly, note that \(\left\| I-T_{\chi ^{[r]}}I \right\| _{(1-d_{})(\rho ,\sigma )}\le \sum _{s \ge 1} \left\| E_s I \right\| _{(1-d_{})(\rho ,\sigma )}\). In addition
with \(D_{\sigma }:=n r C_r/(2 d \sigma a)\) by Prop. 7.3. Hence suppose \(\left\| E_l I \right\| _{(1-d_{l+1})(\rho ,\sigma )} \le \mathcal {F} u_l \exp (-a_{r+1}t)\) for all \(l=1,\ldots ,s-1\) with \(u_1=D_{\sigma }\) and proceed by induction.
The bound of \(E_l I\) can be treated in the same way of (43b) with the difference that in this case the term \(\mathcal {L}_{\chi ^{(l)}} I\) appearing in \(E_l I\) needs to be bounded separately by using (40) and a Cauchy estimate. This leads to \(u_l=\beta _l D_{\sigma }+ \Gamma /l \sum _{j=1}^{l-1} j \beta _j u_{l-j}\). By using the same procedure used in the proof of Proposition 7.4 for \(\theta _l\) one gets \(u_l \le (D_\sigma /l) \Delta ^{l-1}\). The required bound easily follows as \( \mathcal {F} \sum _{s \ge 1 } u_s \le 2 \mathcal {F} D_{\sigma } \le \Gamma d \rho \le \sqrt{\varepsilon } d \rho /8\), where the second inequality follows from (51) and the last one from (50b) then from (50a). The procedure for the variables \(\varphi \) and \(\eta \) is similar. The analyticity of the transformation \(\mathcal {N}_r:=T_{\chi ^{[r]}}^{-1}\) easily follows from the bounds (53) and the invertibility of the Lie transform operator, see Giorgilli (2003). \(\square \)
11.4 Bound on the remainder
Proposition 7.6
Define \(A:=10 \tilde{\mathcal {F}}\) then for all \(r \ge 1\)
Proof
Define \((\rho ^{\prime },\sigma ^{\prime }):=(1-d)(\rho ,\sigma )\). Now recall (27) and suppose by induction, for all \(l=1,\ldots ,s-1, m=0,\ldots ,s-2\) with \(s \in {\mathbb {N}}\)
Indeed one can set \(\zeta _{0,n}=h^{n-1}\) and \(\epsilon _1=\beta _1=1\) as \(\mathcal {L}_{\chi ^{(1)}}H_0=-\Psi _1\) by (28). We stress that, despite based on the same computations, the argument is conceptually different from the previous estimates as \(s \in (r,+\infty )\) and the use of \(\delta \) in (12) plays here a key role. More precisely, use Proposition 4.1 with \(G=\chi ^{(j)}\) and \(F=E_{s-j}H_0\) hence \(d^{\prime \prime }=0\) then \({\hat{d}}=d^{\prime }=\delta =d(s-j)/s\) from which \(\tilde{d}=(j/s)d\). This leads to \(\left\| \mathcal {L}_{\chi ^{(j)}} E_{s-j} H_0 \right\| _{(1-d)(\rho ^{\prime },\sigma ^{\prime })} \le \Gamma (s/j)\beta _j \epsilon _{s-j} \exp (-a_{r+1}t)\), implyingFootnote 14 that the first of (55) holds for \(l=s\) provided \(\epsilon _s=\beta _s+\Gamma \sum _{j=1}^{s-1} \beta _j \epsilon _{s-j} = \Delta ^{s-1}\), the latter by Lemma 7.2. This implies \(\left\| \sum _{l=1}^s E_{s-l}H_l \right\| _{(1-d)(\rho ^{\prime },\sigma ^{\prime })} \le \mathcal {F} (s+1) \Delta ^{s-1} \exp (-a_{r+1}t)\) by using (34) and the trivial bound \(h \le \Delta \). Similarly one finds \(\zeta _{s,n}=h^{n-1}\Delta ^{s-1}\), hence
by (51). Noticing that \(\mathcal {D}_{(1-2d)(\rho ,\sigma )} \subset \mathcal {D}_{(1-d)^2(\rho ,\sigma )}\), the bound (54) easily follows from (51) and from the simple inequality \((r+4)e^r \le 5 (4^r)\). \(\square \)
11.5 Choice of the parameters
Let us discuss a possible choice of the parameters in such a way the convergence conditions are satisfied. More precisely by (35), condition (50a) holds if \(N=\lceil 2 \sigma ^{-1}(1+3 \log 2) \rceil \), where \(\lceil \cdot \rceil \) denotes the rounding to the greater integer. This implies that \( h \ge 1/(16 e) \), hence (50b) holds if \(2^5 e r^2 \Gamma \le \sqrt{\varepsilon }\). Hence, recalling (32) and (42), this condition is achieved by choosing (see also Giorgilli and Galgani 1985)
whereFootnote 15 \(\gamma =5+n\) and \(\lfloor \cdot \rfloor \) denotes the rounding to the lower integer. The condition \(\varepsilon \le \varepsilon _a^*\), as in the statement of Theorem 2.3, clearly ensures that \( r \ge 1\). The final value of \(\rho \) is determined with (33).
Let us write the usual bound \(|I(t)-I(0)| \le |I(t)-I^{(r)}(t)|+|I^{(r)}(t)-I^{(r)} (0)|+|I^{(r)}(0)-I(0)|\). The first and third term of the r.h.s. are bounded by \(\sqrt{\varepsilon }d \rho /8\) by (53). As for the second one, from the equations of motion \(\dot{I}^{(r)}=-\partial _{\varphi }H^{(r)}=-\partial _{\varphi }\mathcal {R}^{(r+1)}\), furthermore \(\left\| \partial _{\varphi } \mathcal {R}^{(r+1)} \right\| _{(1-2d)(\rho ,\sigma )} \le \varepsilon A (e d \sigma )^{-1} \exp (-(r+a_{r+1}t))\) by a Cauchy estimate and by (54). Hence
as \(a_{r+1}=a(2r-1)(2r-2)\ldots (r)/(2r)^r>a2^{-r}\).
Remark 7.7
The bound (57) is the key difference with the standard Nekhoroshev theorem, despite a normal form of finite order. The remainder, which is bounded by a constant in the classical Nekhoroshev estimate and then produces a linearly growing bound for the quantity \(|I^{(r)}(t)-I^{(r)} (0)|\), is now summable over \({\mathbb {R}}^+\). Hence, a restriction to exponentially large times is no longer necessary.
It is immediate from (57) that for all \(\varepsilon \le \varepsilon _a^*\) one has \(|I^{(r)}(t)-I^{(r)} (0)|\le 2 \varepsilon _a^* A (a d e^2 \sigma )^{-1}\) which is clearly smaller than \(\sqrt{\varepsilon } d \rho /4\) by (56). Hence \(|I(t)-I(0)| \le \sqrt{\varepsilon } d \rho /2\).
Notes
It is easy to see that any attempt to consider the limit \(r \rightarrow \infty \) would imply the degeneration into a trivial problem, (i.e. in which the allowed perturbation size reduces to zero, see also Giorgilli and Galgani 1985, formula (46), P. 105).
We stress that this hypothesis is usually not satisfied in the case of periodic or quasi-periodic time dependence.
In particular, if \(g \in {\mathfrak {C}}_{\rho ,\sigma }\) then \(|g_k|_{\rho } \le \left\| g \right\| _{\rho ,\sigma } \exp (-|k|\sigma )\) for all \(t \in {\mathbb {R}}^+\).
See bound (54).
Recall (2), then use the inequality \(\sum _{k \in {\mathbb {Z}}^n} \exp (-\delta |k|{\hat{\sigma }}) \le (e \delta ^{-1} {\hat{\sigma }}^{-1})^{2n}\). Its variant \(\sum _{k \in {\mathbb {Z}}^n} (1+|\omega ||k|)\exp (-\delta |k|{\hat{\sigma }}) \le C_{\omega } (e \delta ^{-1} {\hat{\sigma }}^{-1})^{2n}\) is used to obtain the second of (13).
Use the inequality \( \ln (1-x) \ge -2 x \ln 2\), valid for all \(x \in [0,1/2]\).
The reason for using \(n C_{\omega }\) in the definition of \(\Theta \) will be clear in the proof of Lemma 4.6.
A similar (and even stronger) phenomenon could have been noticed in the original setting. Namely, suppose by induction that \(\left\| F^{(j)} \right\| _{(\rho _j,\sigma _j)} \le \epsilon _j \exp (-a_j t)\). By Lemma 4.2 and (19), one finds that \(\left\| F^{(j+1)} \right\| _{(\rho _{j+1},\sigma _{j+1})} \le \epsilon _{j+1} \exp (- 2 a_j t)\) and so on. This leads to a remarkable rate of decay (\(a_j=2^{j}a\)) but not to a substantial improvement of the estimates and of the threshold (15) of \(\varepsilon _a\), as these are uniform in j.
Namely, those terms of the diagram which Fourier harmonics belong to \(\Lambda _s\).
Obviously, \(\Omega (\rho ) \equiv 0\) for all \(\rho \) in the case of an isochronous system, so that (32) would impose no restrictions on \(\rho \).
Use the inequality \(\sum _{|k| \ge (s-1)N} \exp (-\delta |k|\sigma ) \le \exp (-N \delta n (s-1) \sigma ) (\sum _{m=0}^{+\infty }\exp (-\delta m \sigma ))^n \le (2/\delta )^n\), where in this case \(\delta :=d_{s+\frac{1}{2}}-d_s= d/(2r)\).
From a “computational” point of view, first compute \(\theta _1\) then proceed with \(\beta _s,\theta _s\) for all \(s=2,\ldots ,r.\)
Clearly (49) holds for \(s \le r\) if \(y(r)\le \exp (r-1)\) for all \(r \ge 3\) (let it be directly checked for \(r=1,2\)). Hence set \(r=n+1\) and prove that \(y(r)_{r=n+1} \le \exp (n)\) for all \(n \ge 2\), conclusion that is immediate as one can find that \(y(n) \le n+1 + 3 e^n/(4n)\).
The use of (12) with \(\delta =0\) would have given \((s/j)^2\) instead of (s / j), producing in this way a troublesome factorial in the estimates.
References
Bambusi, D.: Birkhoff normal form for some quasilinear Hamiltonian PDEs. XIVth International Congress on Mathematical Physics, pp. 273–280. World Sci. Publ., Hackensack (2005)
Benettin, G., Galgani, L., Giorgilli, A., Strelcyn, J.-M.: A proof of Kolmogorov’s theorem on invariant tori using canonical transformations defined by the Lie method. II Nuovo Cimento B 79(2), 201–223 (1984)
Benettin, G., Gallavotti, G.: Stability of motions near resonances in quasi-integrable Hamiltonian systems. J. Stat. Phys. 44(3–4), 293–338 (1986)
Birkhoff, G.: Dynamical Systems. American Mathematical Society colloquium publications. American Mathematical Society, Providence (1927)
Bounemoura, A.: Effective stability for slow time-dependent near-integrable Hamiltonians and application. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 351(17–18), 673–676 (2013)
Chierchia, L.: Kolmogorov–Arnold–Moser (KAM) theory. In: Meyers, R.A. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, pp. 5064–5091. Springer, New York (2009)
Cresson, J., Pierret, F., Puig, B.: The Sharma-Parthasarathy stochastic two-body problem. J. Math. Phys. 56(3), 032701 (2015). 21
Fortunati, A., Wiggins, S.: Normal form and Nekhoroshev stability for nearly integrable Hamiltonian systems with unconditionally slow aperiodic time dependence. Regul. Chaotic Dyn. 19(3), 363–373 (2014a)
Fortunati, A., Wiggins, S.: Persistence of Diophantine flows for quadratic nearly integrable Hamiltonians under slowly decaying aperiodic time dependence. Regul. Chaotic Dyn. 19(5), 586–600 (2014b)
Fortunati, A., Wiggins, S.: A Kolmogorov theorem for nearly-integrable Poisson systems with asymptotically decaying time-dependent perturbation. Regul. Chaotic Dyn. 20(4), 476–485 (2015a)
Fortunati, A., Wiggins, S.: Normal, forms à la Moser for aperiodically time-dependent Hamiltonians in the vicinity of a hyperbolic equilibrium. Accepted for the publication on Discr. Dyn. Sys.-S, Cont (2015b)
Gallavotti, G.: Quasi-integrable mechanical systems. In: Phénomènes critiques. systèmes aléatoires, théories de jauge, Part I, II (Les Houches, 1984), pp. 539–624. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1986)
Giorgilli, A.: Exponential stability of Hamiltonian systems. Dynamical systems. Part I, pp. 87–198. Pubbl. Cent. Ric. Mat. Ennio Giorgi, Scuola Norm. Sup., Pisa (2003)
Giorgilli, A., Galgani, L.: Rigorous estimates for the series expansions of Hamiltonian perturbation theory. Celest. Mech. 37(2), 95–112 (1985)
Giorgilli, A., Zehnder, E.: Exponential stability for time dependent potentials. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 43(5), 827–855 (1992)
Nekhoroshev, N.N.: An exponential estimate on the time of stabilty of nearly-integrable Hamiltonian systems. Russ. Math. Surveys 32, 1–65 (1977)
Nekhoroshev, N.N.: An exponential estimate on the time of stabilty of nearly-integrable Hamiltonian systems II. Trudy Sem. Petrovs. 5, 5–50 (1979)
Pinzari, G.: Aspects of the planetary Birkhoff normal form. Regul. Chaotic Dyn. 18(6), 860–906 (2013)
Poincaré, H.: Les méthodes nouvelles de la mécanique céleste. Gauthier-Villars, Paris (1892)
Pustyl’nikov, L.D.: Stable and oscillating motions in nonautonomous dynamical systems. A generalization of C. L. Siegel’s theorem to the nonautonomous case. Math. Sb. (N.S.) 94(136), 407–429 (1974). 495
Wiggins, S., Mancho, A.M.: Barriers to transport in aperiodically time-dependent two-dimensional velocity fields: Nekhoroshev’s theorem and nearly invariant tori. Nonlinear Process. Geophys. 21(1), 165–185 (2014)
Wilf, H.: Generating functionology: Third Edition. Ak Peters Series. Taylor & Francis, Milton Park (2006)
Acknowledgments
The first author is grateful to Proff. D. Bambusi, L. Biasco, A. Giorgilli and T. Penati for very useful discussions on a preliminary version of this paper. This research was supported by ONR Grant No. N00014-01-1-0769 and MINECO: ICMAT Severo Ochoa project SEV-2011-0087.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fortunati, A., Wiggins, S. Negligibility of small divisor effects in the normal form theory for nearly-integrable Hamiltonians with decaying non-autonomous perturbations. Celest Mech Dyn Astr 125, 247–262 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10569-016-9684-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10569-016-9684-1