
Let da(n,5) and dl(n,5) be the minimum weights of optimal binary [n,5] linear codes and linear complementary dual (LCD) codes, respectively. This article aims to investigate dl(n,5) of some families of binary [n,5] LCD codes when n=31s+t≥14 with s integer and t∈{2,8,10,12,14,16,18}. By determining the defining vectors of optimal linear codes and discussing their reduced codes, we classify optimal linear codes and calculate their hull dimensions. Thus, the non-existence of these classes of binary [n,5,da(n,5)] LCD codes is verified, and we further derive that dl(n,5)=da(n,5)−1 for t≠16 and dl(n,5)=16s+6=da(n,5)−2 for t=16. Combining them with known results on optimal LCD codes, dl(n,5) of all [n,5] LCD codes are completely determined.
Citation: Yang Liu, Ruihu Li, Qiang Fu, Hao Song. On the minimum distances of binary optimal LCD codes with dimension 5[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(7): 19137-19153. doi: 10.3934/math.2024933
[1] | Huizhen Qu, Jianwen Zhou . S-asymptotically ω-periodic dynamics in a fractional-order dual inertial neural networks with time-varying lags. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(2): 2782-2809. doi: 10.3934/math.2022154 |
[2] | Yuehong Zhang, Zhiying Li, Wangdong Jiang, Wei Liu . The stability of anti-periodic solutions for fractional-order inertial BAM neural networks with time-delays. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(3): 6176-6190. doi: 10.3934/math.2023312 |
[3] | Hongmei Zhang, Xiangnian Yin, Hai Zhang, Weiwei Zhang . New criteria on global Mittag-Leffler synchronization for Caputo-type delayed Cohen-Grossberg Inertial Neural Networks. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(12): 29239-29259. doi: 10.3934/math.20231497 |
[4] | Ivanka Stamova, Gani Stamov . Impulsive control strategy for the Mittag-Leffler synchronization of fractional-order neural networks with mixed bounded and unbounded delays. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(3): 2287-2303. doi: 10.3934/math.2021138 |
[5] | Yang Xu, Zhouping Yin, Yuanzhi Wang, Qi Liu, Anwarud Din . Mittag-Leffler projective synchronization of uncertain fractional-order fuzzy complex valued neural networks with distributed and time-varying delays. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 25577-25602. doi: 10.3934/math.20241249 |
[6] | Dan-Ning Xu, Zhi-Ying Li . Mittag-Leffler stabilization of anti-periodic solutions for fractional-order neural networks with time-varying delays. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(1): 1610-1619. doi: 10.3934/math.2023081 |
[7] | Pratap Anbalagan, Evren Hincal, Raja Ramachandran, Dumitru Baleanu, Jinde Cao, Michal Niezabitowski . A Razumikhin approach to stability and synchronization criteria for fractional order time delayed gene regulatory networks. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(5): 4526-4555. doi: 10.3934/math.2021268 |
[8] | Wei Liu, Qinghua Zuo, Chen Xu . Finite-time and global Mittag-Leffler stability of fractional-order neural networks with S-type distributed delays. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(4): 8339-8352. doi: 10.3934/math.2024405 |
[9] | Mohammed D. Kassim . A fractional Halanay inequality for neutral systems and its application to Cohen-Grossberg neural networks. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(2): 2466-2491. doi: 10.3934/math.2025115 |
[10] | Tiecheng Zhang, Liyan Wang, Yuan Zhang, Jiangtao Deng . Finite-time stability for fractional-order fuzzy neural network with mixed delays and inertial terms. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(7): 19176-19194. doi: 10.3934/math.2024935 |
Let da(n,5) and dl(n,5) be the minimum weights of optimal binary [n,5] linear codes and linear complementary dual (LCD) codes, respectively. This article aims to investigate dl(n,5) of some families of binary [n,5] LCD codes when n=31s+t≥14 with s integer and t∈{2,8,10,12,14,16,18}. By determining the defining vectors of optimal linear codes and discussing their reduced codes, we classify optimal linear codes and calculate their hull dimensions. Thus, the non-existence of these classes of binary [n,5,da(n,5)] LCD codes is verified, and we further derive that dl(n,5)=da(n,5)−1 for t≠16 and dl(n,5)=16s+6=da(n,5)−2 for t=16. Combining them with known results on optimal LCD codes, dl(n,5) of all [n,5] LCD codes are completely determined.
In 1986, Babcock and Westervelt [1] first introduced an inertial term into neural networks. Second-order inertial neural networks are an extension of traditional neural networks that include a second-order term in their update formula. In the practical application of neural networks, such addition of inertial terms can lead to more complicated dynamical behaviors, such as bifurcation and chaos [2]. In the past decade, researchers have applied second-order inertial neural networks to various tasks, including recommendation systems, image recognition, and natural language processing. They have shown that these networks can achieve faster convergence and better generalization compared to traditional neural networks. Many efforts have been devoted for stability analysis of the inertial neural networks, and many interesting results have been established, such as [3,4,5].
Fuzzy cellular neural networks are combined with fuzzy logic and neural networks, which were initially introduced by Yang and Yang [6] in 1996. For neural networks, fuzzy logic can be used to handle uncertain inputs or outputs by defining fuzzy membership functions, which enables the network to make decisions based on partial or ambiguous information. Since fuzzy neural networks are more suitable and potential to tackle practical general problems, during the past few decades, a lot of results on the stability behaviors for fuzzy neural networks with delay have been obtained, see [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14] and the references therein.
As we all know, compared with integer-order derivative, fractional-order derivatives provide a magnificent approach to describe memory and hereditary properties of various processes. Thus, it becomes more convenient and accurate to neural networks using fractional-order derivatives than integer-order ones. Dynamical behavior analysis, as well as existence, uniqueness, and stability of the equilibrium point of fractional order neural networks, has concerned growing interest in the past decades. Recently, the various kinds of stability problems for fractional-order neural networks, including Mittag-Leffler stability, asymptotic stability and uniform stability have been widely discussed, and some excellent results were obtained in both theory and applications. See, for example, previous works [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23], and the references therein.
Fractional-order fuzzy cellular neural networks (FOFCNNs) are a type of neural network that combines the concepts of fuzzy logic and fractional calculus. They have been applied in various fields, including image processing, control systems, and pattern recognition. The analysis of stability for fractional-order fuzzy cellular neural networks requires the use of specialized methods, such as the fractional Lyapunov method and the Lyapunov function based on fuzzy sets to verify global, asymptotic and finite-time stability. For example, by using the fractional Barbalats lemma, Riemann-Liouville operator and Lyapunov stability theorem, Chen et.al. in [24] studied the asymptotic stability of delayed fractional-order fuzzy neural networks with fixed-time impulse. Zhao et.al. [25] investigated the finite-time synchronization for a class of fractional-order memristive fuzzy neural networks with leakage and transmission delays. In [26], Yang et.al. studied the finite-time stability for fractional-order fuzzy cellular neural networks involving leakage and discrete delays. By applying Lyapunov stability theorem and inequality scaling skills, Syed Ali et.al. [27] considered the impulsive effects on the stability equilibrium solution for Riemann-Liouville fractional-order fuzzy BAM neural networks with time delay. Recently, Hu et.al. [28] studied the finite-time stabilization of fractional-order quaternion-valued fuzzy NNs.
To the best of our knowledge, there is no paper on the global Mittag-Leffler stability of the fractional order fuzzy inertial neural networks with delays in the literature. There are several difficulties in handling fractional-order fuzzy inertial neural networks (FOFINNs). First, designing the structure and parameters of FOFINNs is challenging because of the high dimensionality of the network. Second, training FOFINNs is computationally intensive and requires specialized optimization algorithms. Finally, the interpretability and explainability of FOFINNs can be difficult, as the fuzzy logic, fractional calculus components and inertial terms can make it difficult to understand the underlying mechanisms of the model.
Motivated by the previous works mentioned above, we first propose a class of new Capoto fractional-order fuzzy inertial neural networks (CFOFNINND) with delays. The primary contributions of this paper can be summarized as follows:
(1) The global fractional Halanay inequalities and Lyapunov functional approach for studying the global Mittag-Leffler stability (MLS) of Caputo fractional-order fuzzy neural-type inertial neural networks with delay (CFOFNINND) are introduced;
(2) A new sufficient condition of the existence and uniqueness of the equilibrium solution for an CFOFNINND is established by means of Banach contraction mapping principle;
(3) The GMLS conditions are established, which are concise and easy to verify.
The remaining of this paper is structured as follows. In section 2, we will provide some lemmas that will help us to prove our main results. In section 3, the existence and uniqueness of equilibrium point of CFOFNINND are proved by using contraction mapping principle. Moreover, by constructing suitable Lyapunov functional, using the global fractional Halanay inequalities, the global Mittag-Leffler stability of CFOFNINND is derived. Additionally, a numerical example is provided to show the feasibility of the approaches in section 4. Finally, this article is concluded in Section 5.
In this paper, we consider the following fractional-order fuzzy neural-type inertial neural networks with delay (FOFNINND):
CDβ(CDβxi)(t)=−ai CDβxi(t)−cixi(t)+n∑j=1aijfj(xj(t))+n∑j=1bijμj+n∑j=1cijgj(xj(t−τ))+n⋀j=1αijfj(xj(t−τ))+n⋁j=1βijgj(xj(t−τ))+n⋀j=1Tijμj+n⋁j=1Hijμj+Ii, | (2.1) |
where CDβxi(t)=1Γ(1−β)∫t0(t−τ)−βx′i(τ)dτ denotes the Caputo fractional derivative of order β (0<β≤1), n is the amount of units in the neural networks, xi(t) represents the state of ith neuron, ai>0, ci>0 are constants, τ>0 is the time delay, fj(xj(t)) represents the output of neurons at time t, gj(xj(t−τ)) represents the output of neurons at time t−τ, aij responds to the synaptic connection weight of the unit j to the unit i at time t, cij responds to the synaptic connection weight of the unit j to the unit i at time t−τj, and represent the fuzzy OR and fuzzy AND mapping, respectively; αij, βij, Tij and Hij denote the elements of fuzzy feedback MIN template, fuzzy feedback MAX template, fuzzy feed-forward MIN template and fuzzy feed-forward MAX template, respectively; μij denotes the external input; Ii represents the external bias of ith neuron.
The initial conditions for system (2.1) is
xi(s)=ϕi(s),CDβxi(s)=ψi(s),s∈[−τ,0]. | (2.2) |
Remark 2.1. If β=1, then system (2.1) is reduce to the following delayed fuzzy inertial neural networks :
x′′i(t)=−aix′i(t)−cixi(t)+n∑j=1aijfj(xj(t))+n∑j=1bijμj+n∑j=1cijgj(xj(t−τ))+n⋀j=1αijfj(xj(t−τ))+n⋁j=1βijgj(xj(t−τ))+n⋀j=1Tijμj+n⋁j=1Hijμj+Ii. |
In this section, we present some definitions and lemmas about Caputo fractional calculus, which will be used in the subsequent theoretical analysis.
Definition 2.1 [29]. The fractional integral of order α>0 for a function x(t) is defined as
D−αx(t)=1Γ(α)∫t0(t−τ)α−1x(τ)dτ. |
Definition 2.2 [30]. The Caputo derivative with fractional order α for a continuous function x(t) is denotes as
CDαx(t)=1Γ(m−α)∫t0(t−τ)m−α−1x(m)(τ)dτ, |
in which m−1<α<m, m∈Z+. Particularly, when 0<α<1
CDαx(t)=1Γ(1−α)∫t0(t−τ)−αx′(τ)dτ. |
According to Definition 2.2, we have
CDα(kx(t)+ly(t))=kCDαx(t)+lCDαy(t),∀k,l∈R. |
Definition 2.3 [31]. The equilibrium point x∗=(x∗1,x∗2,⋯,x∗n)T of CFOFNINND (2.1) is said to be globally Mittag-Leffler stable, if there exists positive constant γ, such that for any solution x(t)=(x1(t),x2(t),⋯,xn(t)) of (2.1) with initial value (2.2), we have
‖x(t)−x∗‖≤M(‖ϕ‖,‖ψ‖)Eα(−γtα),t≥0, |
where
‖x(t)−x∗‖=n∑i=1|xi(t)−x∗i|,‖ϕ‖=sup−τ≤s≤0n∑i=1|ϕi(s)|,‖ψ‖=sup−τ≤s≤0n∑i=1|ψi(s)|, |
M(‖ϕ‖,‖ψ‖)≥0 and Eα(⋅) is a Mittag-Leffler function.
Remark 2.2. The global Mittag-Leffler stability implies global asymptotic stability.
Lemma 2.1 [31]. Let 0<α<1. If G(t)∈C1[t0,+∞), then
CDα|G(t)|≤sgn(G(t))CDαG(t),t≥t0. |
Lemma 2.2 [32]. Assume x(t) and y(t) be two states of system (2.1), then we have
|n⋀j=1αijfj(xj(t))−n⋀j=1αijfj(yj(t))|≤n∑j=1|αij||fj(xj(t))−fj(yj(t)))|, |
|n⋁j=1βijgj(xj(t))−n⋁j=1βijgj(yj(t))|≤n∑j=1|βij||gj(xj(t))−gj(yj(t)))|. |
Lemma 2.3 [33]. Let a,b,c,ρ:[0,∞)→R be continuous functions and b,c,ρ be nonnegative. Assume that
supt≥0[a(t)+b(t)]=Λ<0,supt≥0−c(t)a(t)+b(t)<+∞,ρ(t)≤h for all t≥0. |
If a nonnegative continuous function u:[−h,T]→R satisfies the following fractional inequality
CDαu(t)≤a(t)u(t)+b(t)u(t−ρ(t))+c(t),t≥0, |
u(θ)=φ(θ),−h≤θ≤0, |
then
u(t)≤Eα(λ∗tα)sup−h≤θ≤0|φ(θ)|+sup0≤T−c(t)a(t)+b(t),t≥0, |
where λ∗=infλ{λ−a(t)−b(t)Eα(λhα)≥0, ∀t≥0}.
In particular, if b(t) and c(t) are bounded functions, namely 0≤b(t)≤ˉb and 0≤c(t)≤ˉc for all t>0, then
u(t)≤Eα(ˉλtα)sup−h≤θ≤0|φ(θ)|−ˉcΛ,for all t≥0, |
where ˉλ=(1+Γ(1−α)ˉbhα)−1Λ.
From Lemma 2.3, we obtain
Corollary 2.4. If a nonnegative continuous function u:[−h,T]→R satisfies the following fractional inequality
CDαu(t)≤−μu(t)+γu(t−ρ(t)),t≥0, |
u(θ)=φ(θ),−h≤θ≤0, |
where μ>γ>0 and ρ(t)≤h, then
u(t)≤Eα(ˉλtα)sup−h≤θ≤0|φ(θ)|,for all t≥0, |
where ˉλ=−(1+Γ(1−α)γhα)−1(μ−γ)<0.
In this section, we will study the existence, uniqueness and globally Mittag-Leffler stability of the equilibrium point for delayed Caputo fractional-order fuzzy inertial neural networks (2.1).
For β>0, we know that CDβa=0 for a constant a. Thus, we have the following definition.
Definition 3.1. A constant vector x∗=(x∗1,x∗2,...,x∗n)T is an equilibrium point of system (2.1) if and only if x∗ is a solution of the following equations:
−cix∗i+n∑j=1aijfj(x∗j)+n∑j=1bijμj+n∑j=1cijgj(x∗j)+n⋀j=1αijfj(x∗j)+n⋁j=1βijgj(x∗j)+n⋀j=1Tijμj+n⋁j=1Hijμj+Ii=0,i=1,2,⋯n. | (3.1) |
Theorem 3.1. Assume that
(H1) The functions fj,gj (j=1,2,...,n) are Lipschitz continuous. That is, there exist positive constants Fj,Gj such that
|fj(x)−fj(y)|≤Fj|x−y|,|gj(x)−gj(y)|≤Gj|x−y|,∀x,y∈R. |
hold. If there exist constants mi (i=1,2,...,n) such that the following inequality holds
mici−n∑j=1[mjFi(|aji|+|αji|)+mjGi(|cji|+|βji|)]>0,i=1,2,...,n, | (3.2) |
then CFOFNINND (2.1) has a unique equilibrium point.
Proof. ∀u=(u1,u2,...,un)T, we constructing a mapping P(u)=(P1(u),P2(u),...,Pn(u))T as follows
Pi(u)=min∑j=1aijfj(ujcjmj)+min∑j=1bijμj+min∑j=1cijgj(ujcjmj)+min⋀j=1αijfj(ujcjmj)+min⋁j=1βijgj(ujcjmj)+min⋀j=1Tijμj+min⋁j=1Hijμj+miIi. | (3.3) |
Let u=(u1,u2,...,un)T and v=(v1,v2,...,vn)T. From (H1) and Lemma 2.2, we obtain that
|Pi(u)−Pi(v)|≤|min∑j=1aij[fj(ujcjmj)−fj(vjcjmj)]|+|min∑j=1cij[gj(ujcjmj)−gj(vjcjmj)]|+mi|n⋀j=1αijfj(ujcjmj)−n⋀j=1αijfj(vjcjmj)|+mi|n⋁j=1βijgj(ujcjmj)−n⋁j=1βijgj(vjcjmj)|≤min∑j=1|aij|Fjcjmj|uj−vj|+min∑j=1|cij|Gjcjmj|uj−vj|+min∑j=1|αij|Fjcjmj|uj−vj|+min∑j=1|βij|Gjcjmj|uj−vj|=min∑j=11cjmj[Fj(|aij|+|αij|)+Gj(|cij|+|βij|)]|uj−vj|. |
Moreover, we obtain by (3.2) that
n∑i=1|Pi(u)−Pi(v)|≤n∑i=1min∑j=11cjmj[Fj(|aij|+|αij|)+Gj(|cij|+|βij|)]|uj−vj|=n∑i=1n∑j=11cjmj[miFj(|aij|+|αij|)+miGj(|cij|+|βij|)]|uj−vj|=n∑i=1(n∑j=11cimi[mjFi(|aji|+|αji|)+mjGi(|cji|+|βji|)])|ui−vi|<n∑i=1|ui−vi|, |
which implies that ‖P(u)−P(v)‖<‖u−v‖. That is, P is a contraction mapping on Rn. So, we can conclude that there exists a unique fixed pint u∗ such that P(u∗)=u∗, i.e.,
u∗i=min∑j=1aijfj(u∗jcjmj)+min∑j=1bijμj+min∑j=1cijgj(u∗jcjmj)+min⋀j=1αijfj(u∗jcjmj)+min⋁j=1βijgj(u∗jcjmj)+min⋀j=1Tijμj+min⋁j=1Hijμj+miIi. |
Assume x∗i=u∗icimi, we can get
−cix∗i+n∑j=1aijfj(x∗j)+n∑j=1bijμj+n∑j=1cijgj(x∗j)+n⋀j=1αijfj(x∗j)+n⋁j=1βijgj(x∗j)+n⋀j=1Tijμj+n⋁j=1Hijμj+Ii=0, |
which indicates that x∗i is a unique solution of (3.1). So, x∗ is the unique equilibrium point of system (2.1). This proof is completed.
By using the transformation xi(t)=yi(t)+x∗i, the equilibrium point of (2.1) can be shifted to the origin, that is, system (2.1) can be transformed into
CDβ(CDβyi)(t)=−ai CDβyi(t)−ciyi(t)+n∑j=1aij[fj(yj(t)+x∗j)−fj(x∗j)]+n∑j=1cij[gj(yj(t−τj)+x∗j)−gj(x∗j)]+n⋀j=1αij[fj(yj(t−τj)+x∗j)−fj(x∗j)]+n⋁j=1βij[gj(yj(t−τj)+x∗j)−gj(x∗j)],i=1,2,⋯,n. | (3.4) |
In (3.4), we adopt a variable transformation : zi(t)=Dβyi(t)+kiyi(t). Then system (3.4) can be rewritten as follows:
{Dβzi(t)=−(ai−ki)zi(t)−(ci−(ai−ki)ki)yi(t)+n∑j=1aij[fj(yj(t)+x∗j)−fj(x∗j)]+n∑j=1cij[gj(yj(t−τj)+x∗j)−gj(x∗j)]+n⋀j=1αij[fj(yj(t−τj)+x∗j)−fj(x∗j)]+n⋁j=1βij[gj(yj(t−τj)+x∗j)−gj(x∗j)],t≥0,Dβyi(t)=zi(t)−kiyi(t). | (3.5) |
The initial conditions for system (3.5) is
yi(s)=ϕi(s)−x∗i,zi(s)=ψi(s)+ki(ϕi(s)−x∗i),−τ≤s≤0. | (3.6) |
Theorem 3.2. Let 0<β≤1. Assume that (H1) holds. If there exist proper positive parameters mi and pi, satisfying (3.2) and the following inequality :
min1≤i≤n{ki−Fimin∑j=1pj|aji|−pimi|ci−(ai−ki)ki|,(ai−ki)−mipi}>max1≤i≤n{Fimin∑j=1pj|αji|+Gimin∑j=1pj(|cji|+|βji|)}, | (3.7) |
then CFOFNINND (2.1) has a unique equilibrium point which is globally Mittag-Leffler stable.
Proof. By Theorem 3.1 we know that (2.1) has a unique equilibrium point (x∗1,x∗2,...,x∗n). Construct the Lyapunov function candidate defined by
V(t)=n∑i=1mi|yi(t)|+n∑i=1pi|zi(t)|, |
where mi, pi are unknown positive constants, which need to be determined. Based on Lemma 2.1 and (3.5), calculating the fractional-order derivative of V(t) :
CDαV(t)=n∑i=1misgn(yi(t))CDαyi(t)+n∑i=1pisgn(zi(t))CDαzi(t)=n∑i=1pisgn(zi(t)){−(ai−ki)zi(t)−(ci−(ai−ki)ki)yi(t)+n∑j=1aij(fj(yj(t)+x∗j)−fj(x∗j))+n∑j=1cij[gj(yj(t−τj)+x∗j)−gj(x∗j)]+n⋀j=1αij[fj(yj(t−τj)+x∗j)−fj(x∗j)]+n⋁j=1βij[gj(yj(t−τj)+x∗j)−gj(x∗j)]}+n∑i=1misgn(yi(t))(zi(t)−kiyi(t)]≤n∑i=1pi{−(ai−ki)|zi(t)|+|ci−(ai−ki)ki||yi(t)|+n∑j=1|aij|Fj|yj(t)|+n∑j=1|cij|Gj|yj(t−τj)|+n∑j=1|αij|Fj|yj(t−τj)|+n∑j=1|βij|Gj|yj(t−τj)|}+n∑i=1mi(|zi(t)|−ki|yi(t)|)=−n∑i=1mi[ki−Fimin∑j=1pj|aji|−pimi|ci−(ai−ki)ki|]|yi(t)|−n∑i=1pi[(ai−ki)−mipi]|zi(t)|+n∑i=1mi[Fimin∑j=1pj|αij|+Gimin∑j=1pj(|cji|+|βij|)]|yi(t−τi)|≤−μV(t)+γV(t−τ), | (3.8) |
where
μ=min1≤i≤n{ki−Fimin∑j=1pj|aji|−pimi|ci−(ai−ki)ki|,(ai−ki)−mipi}, |
and
γ=max1≤i≤n{Fimin∑j=1pj|αji|+Gimin∑j=1pj(|cji|+|βji|)}. |
Based on Corollary 2.4, one can infer that
V(t)≤Eα(ˉλtα)sup−τ≤θ≤0|V(θ)|, |
where ˉλ=−(1+Γ(1−α)γτα)−1(μ−γ), and
V(θ)=n∑i=1mi|ϕi(s)−x∗i|+n∑i=1pi|ψi(s)+ki(ϕi(s)−x∗i)|. |
Obviously, we have
sup−τ≤θ≤0|V(θ)|≤max1≤i≤n{mi+kipi, pi}(‖ϕ‖+‖ψ‖)+max1≤i≤n(mi+kipi)‖x∗‖=L1(‖ϕ‖+‖ψ‖)+L2, |
where L1=max1≤i≤n{mi+kipi, pi}>0 and L2=max1≤i≤n(mi+kipi)‖x∗‖>0. Thus, one obtain
‖y(t)‖+‖z(t)‖≤1min1≤i≤n{mi,pi}(n∑i=1mi|yi(t)|+n∑i=1pi|zi(t)|)≤Ω(L1(‖ϕ‖+‖ψ‖)+L2)Eα(ˉλtα), |
where Ω=1min1≤i≤n{mi,pi}>0, which implies that the unique equilibrium point (x∗1,x∗2,...,x∗n) of CFOFNINND (2.1) is globally Mittag-Leffler stable. The theorem 3.2 is proved.
Example 4.1. Consider a two-dimensional Caputo fractional fuzzy inertial neural network with delay:
CDβ(CDβxi)(t)=−ai CDβxi(t)−cixi(t)+2∑j=1aijtanh(xj(t))+2∑j=1bijμj+2∑j=1cijsin(xj(t−τj))+2⋀j=1αijtanh(xj(t−τj))+2⋁j=1βijtanh(xj(t−τj))+2⋀j=1Tijμj+2⋁j=1Hijμj+Ii,t≥0,i=1,2. | (4.1) |
Two initial values of system (4.1) are given by
x1(s)=0.8,x2(s)=−0.1,CDβx1(s)=−1.8,CDβx2(s)=1.2,−1≤s≤0, | (4.2) |
and
x1(s)=1.0,x2(s)=0.5,CDβx1(s)=−2.0,CDβx2(s)=−1.3,−1≤s≤0. | (4.3) |
The parameters of system (4.1) are set as β=0.85, τ1=τ2=1, a1=7, a2=6, c1=11.3, c2=8.7, a11=0.3, a12=−0.2, c11=−0.4, c12=0.1, α11=0.2, α12=−0.6, β11=0.1, β12=0.3, a21=−0.2, a22=0.3, c21=0.1, c22=−0.2, α21=−0.35, α22=0.2, β21=−0.2, β22=0.3, I1=3.4490, I2=3.3377, μi=0.3 (i=1,2), and
(bij)2×2=(Tij)2×2=(Hij)2×2=[0.2000.3]. |
The Lipchitz constants Fj=1 for fj(⋅)=tanh(⋅) and Gj=1 for gj(⋅)=sin(⋅) (j=1,2). Let parameters mi=pi=1 (i=1,2). Then,
m1c1−2∑j=1[mjF1(|aj1|+|αj1|)+mjG1(|cj1|+|βj1|)]=9.45>0, |
and
m2c2−2∑j=1[mjF2(|aj2|+|αj2|)+mjG2(|cj2|+|βj2|)]=6.5>0, |
which implies that (3.2) holds. Thus, by Theorem 3.1, the equilibrium point (x∗1,x∗2) of system (4.1) is the unique solution of the following system:
−cix∗i+2∑j=1aijtanh(x∗j)+2∑j=1bijμj+2∑j=1cijsin(x∗j)+2⋀j=1αijtanh(x∗j)+2⋁j=1βijsin(x∗j)+2⋀j=1Tijμj+2⋁j=1Hijμj+Ii=0,i=1,2. |
By matlab, we easy to get that x∗1=0.3 and x∗2=0.4. Obviously, the conditions (H1) hold. Moreover, letting parameters k1=4 and k2=3, one has
k1−F1m12∑j=1pj|aj1|−p1m1|c1−(a1−k1)k1|=2.8, |
k2−F2m22∑j=1pj|aj2|−p2m2|c2−(a2−k2)k2|=2.2, |
(a1−k1)−m1p1=2,(a2−k2)−m2p2=2, |
F1m12∑j=1pj|αj1|+G1m12∑j=1pj(|cj1|+|βj1|)=1.35, |
and
F2m22∑j=1pj|αj2|+G2m22∑j=1pj(|cj2|+|βj2|)=1.7. |
Thus μ=2>γ=1.7, that is the inequality (3.7) holds. Thus, by Theorem 3.2, the unique equilibrium point (0.3,0.4) of the system (4.1) is globally Mittag-Leffler stable (see Figures 1 and 2).
The theoretical research on the fractional-order neural-type inertial neural networks is still relatively few. In this paper, we first propose and investigate a class of delayed fractional-order fuzzy inertial neural networks. With the help of contraction mapping principle, the sufficient condition is obtained to ensure the existence and uniqueness of equilibrium point of system (2.1). Based on the global fractional Halanay inequalities, and by constructing suitable Lyapunov functional, some sufficient conditions are obtained to ensure the global Mittag-Leffler stability of system (2.1). These conditions are relatively easy to verify. Finally, a numerical example is presented to show the effectiveness of our theoretical results.
The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
We are really thankful to the reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and their many insightful comments and suggestions that have improved the quality of our manuscript. This work is supported by Natural Science Foundation of China (11571136).
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
[1] | W. C. Huffman, V. Pless, Fundamentals of error-correcting codes, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807077 |
[2] | E. F. Assmus Jr., J. D. Key, Affine and projective planes, Discrete Math., 83 (1990), 161–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/0012-365X(90)90003-Z |
[3] |
L. Lu, R. Li, L. Guo, Q. Fu, Maximal entanglement entanglement-assisted quantum codes constructed from linear codes, Quantum Inf. Process., 14 (2015), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-014-0830-y doi: 10.1007/s11128-014-0830-y
![]() |
[4] | J. L. Massey, Linear codes with complementary duals, Discrete Math., 106-107 (1992), 337–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/0012-365X(92)90563-U |
[5] | C. Carlet, S. Guilley, Complementary dual codes for countermeasures to side-channel attacks, In: R. Pinto, P. Rocha Malonek, P. Vettori, Coding theory and applications, CIM Series in Mathematical Sciences, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 3 (2015), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17296-5_9 |
[6] |
C. Carlet, S. Mesnager, C. Tang, Y. Qi, R. Pellikaan, Linear codes over Fq are equivalent to LCD codes for q>3, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 64 (2018), 3010–3017. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2018.2789347 doi: 10.1109/TIT.2018.2789347
![]() |
[7] |
L. Galvez, J. L. Kim, N. Lee, Y. G. Roe, B. S. Won, Some bounds on binary LCD codes, Cryptogr. Commun., 10 (2018), 719–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12095-017-0258-1 doi: 10.1007/s12095-017-0258-1
![]() |
[8] |
Q. Fu, R. Li, F. Fu, Y. Rao, On the construction of binary optimal LCD codes with short length, Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci., 30 (2019), 1237–1245. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0129054119500242 doi: 10.1142/S0129054119500242
![]() |
[9] |
M. Harada, K. Saito, Binary linear complementary dual codes, Cryptogr. Commun., 11 (2019), 677–696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12095-018-0319-0 doi: 10.1007/s12095-018-0319-0
![]() |
[10] |
M. Araya, M. Harada, K. Saito, Characterization and classification of optimal LCD codes, Des., Codes Cryptogr., 89 (2021), 617–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10623-020-00834-8 doi: 10.1007/s10623-020-00834-8
![]() |
[11] |
M. Araya, M. Harada, On the minimum weights of binary linear complementary dual codes, Cryptogr. Commun., 12 (2020), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12095-019-00402-5 doi: 10.1007/s12095-019-00402-5
![]() |
[12] |
M. Araya, M. Harada, K. Saito, On the minimum weights of binary LCD codes and ternary LCD codes, Finite Fields Appl., 76 (2021), 101925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ffa.2021.101925 doi: 10.1016/j.ffa.2021.101925
![]() |
[13] | S. Bouyuklieva, Optimal binary LCD codes, Des. Codes Cryptogr., 89 (2021), 2445–2461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10623-021-00929-w |
[14] | S. Li, M. Shi, Several constructions of optimal LCD codes over small finite fields, Cryptogr. Commun., 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12095-024-00699-x |
[15] | R. Li, Y. Liu, Q. Fu, On some problems of LCD codes, 2022 Symposium on Coding Theory and Cryptography and Their Related Topics, Shandong: Zi Bo, 2022. |
[16] |
F. Li, Q. Yue, Y. Wu, Designed distances and parameters of new LCD BCH codes over finite fields, Cryptogr. Commun., 12 (2020), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12095-019-00385-3 doi: 10.1007/s12095-019-00385-3
![]() |
[17] | W. C. Huffman, J. L. Kim, P. Solé, Concise encyclopedia of coding theory, Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2021,593–594. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315147901 |
[18] | M. Grassl, Code tables: bounds on the parameters of various types of codes. Available from: http://www.codetables.de/. |
[19] |
R. Li, Z. Xu, X. Zhao, On the classification of binary optimal self-orthogonal codes, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 54 (2008), 3778–3782. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2008.926367 doi: 10.1109/TIT.2008.926367
![]() |
[20] | F. Zuo, R. Li, Y. Liu, Weight distributation of binary optimal codes and its application, 2012 International Conference on Computer Science and Information Processing (CSIP), Shaanxi: Xi'an, 2012,226–229. |
[21] |
J. E. MacDonald, Design methods for maximum minimum-distance error-correcting codes, IBM J. Res. Dev., 4 (1960), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1147/rd.41.0043 doi: 10.1147/rd.41.0043
![]() |
[22] | The MathWorks, MATLAB R2006a, Natick, MA, 2006. Available from: https://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/2006/03/06/mathworks-product-release-r2006a/. |
[23] |
W. Bosma, J. Cannon, C. Playoust, The magma algebra system I: the user language, J. Symbolic Comput., 24 (1997), 235–265. https://doi.org/10.1006/jsco.1996.0125 doi: 10.1006/jsco.1996.0125
![]() |
[24] |
I. Bouyukliev, On the binary projective codes with dimension 6, Discrete Appl. Math., 154 (2006), 1693–1708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2006.03.004 doi: 10.1016/j.dam.2006.03.004
![]() |