Controllability Tests

  Рет қаралды 2,386

richard pates

richard pates

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 5
@mohamedelaminenehar333
@mohamedelaminenehar333 3 жыл бұрын
Thank you
@xiaoweilin8184
@xiaoweilin8184 2 жыл бұрын
I think there is some confusion in the derivation of ii) -> iii), if p is a vector that can be right multiplied by the controllability gramian, it should have a dimension of (n by 1), then b' * e^{-A't} * p will become a scalar because it's (1 by n)*(n by n)*(n by 1). And it's the same for the " v' ", which will also become a scalar instead of a vector. In this case, would "v" and " v' " become two same scalars so the term in the integral will be a scalar's square so it has to be zero? I tried some examples in MATLAB by defining vector p(n by 1), vector B(n by 1), and matrix A(n by n). When I calculate B' * A" * p and p' * A* B, it turns out to be two same scalars but I am not sure if this is true for all cases. If this is true, then p' B = 0(scalar), p'AB = 0 (scalar) and so on, and the conclusion will be the same.
@richard_pates
@richard_pates 2 жыл бұрын
Hello! Very good observation - you are correct, for a system with one input, v and v' are scalars. I should have made this clearer. As a side note though, we actually end up proving something more general. In systems with more than one input, the B matrix will by n by m, where m is the number of inputs. Then the vector v will not be a scalar anymore - but the argument in the video still works! So actually we are seeing a proof in the general case for systems with multiple inputs!
@NicolasSchmidMusic
@NicolasSchmidMusic 3 жыл бұрын
I think you did a mistake at the end when you gave us u(t) to show that iii) -> i) it should be u(t) = -(B^T)* e^(-(A^T) *t)*(W(T))^1 *x0 But thank you anyway, its the first time I understand this proof
@richard_pates
@richard_pates 3 жыл бұрын
Yes, you're right (but with a ((W(T))^(-1)?)! Thank you, and thank you also for the encouragement! I see also that I made another mistake - in the bottom left for i)->ii) expressions for x(t), I forgot to add in the B in front of the u(tau). There could be others, but I'm extremely happy that you stuck with this all the way to the end and were able to follow the ideas! These are quite advanced topics, but it is always satisfying to know what the justification for these results are.
Observability
10:43
richard pates
Рет қаралды 1,9 М.
Controllable and Observable Subspaces
20:52
richard pates
Рет қаралды 3,4 М.
Deadpool family by Tsuriki Show
00:12
Tsuriki Show
Рет қаралды 6 МЛН
Players push long pins through a cardboard box attempting to pop the balloon!
00:31
Правильный подход к детям
00:18
Beatrise
Рет қаралды 2,4 МЛН
Proving the Cayley Hamilton Theorem
17:11
richard pates
Рет қаралды 6 М.
Degrees of Controllability and Gramians [Control Bootcamp]
15:24
Steve Brunton
Рет қаралды 80 М.
Minimum Energy Control
29:27
richard pates
Рет қаралды 2 М.
Controllability [Control Bootcamp]
32:30
Steve Brunton
Рет қаралды 154 М.
The Kalman Decomposition
14:42
richard pates
Рет қаралды 10 М.
Exposing the SECRETS every polyglot knows but won’t tell you
12:39
Veronika's Language Diaries
Рет қаралды 13 М.
Concepts 9-15. Determinant, Gram matrix
21:47
ah! math
Рет қаралды 4,5 М.
The Cayley Hamilton Theorem
14:52
richard pates
Рет қаралды 3,8 М.
Reachability of State-space Models
30:01
richard pates
Рет қаралды 5 М.
Controllability
10:46
richard pates
Рет қаралды 3 М.
Deadpool family by Tsuriki Show
00:12
Tsuriki Show
Рет қаралды 6 МЛН