
Meme transmission has become an important way of information dissemination. Three transfer paths were added to the classic infectious disease storehouse model in this study based on characteristics of meme transmission. Individual heterogeneity factors such as individual interest, risk perception and trust perception were used to construct a meme transmission model named Individual Heterogeneity SEIR (IHSEIR) model. Equilibrium of the model and the basic reproduction number were obtained using mean-field theory. Effects of individual heterogeneity factors on meme propagation were analyzed through Multi-Agent simulation. The findings showed that individual interest has a significant effect on the propagation range and speed of meme. A low-level overall trust of the system was correlated with higher risk perception among individuals, which is not conducive for the propagation of meme. Effect of regulation and intervention in the process of meme transmission was significantly lower compared with that at the initial state of transmission.
Citation: Jun Zhai, Bilin Xu. Research on meme transmission based on individual heterogeneity[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(5): 5176-5193. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021263
[1] | Ahmed M.A. El-Sayed, Eman M.A. Hamdallah, Hameda M. A. Alama . Multiple solutions of a Sturm-Liouville boundary value problem of nonlinear differential inclusion with nonlocal integral conditions. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(6): 11150-11164. doi: 10.3934/math.2022624 |
[2] | Mukhamed Aleroev, Hedi Aleroeva, Temirkhan Aleroev . Proof of the completeness of the system of eigenfunctions for one boundary-value problem for the fractional differential equation. AIMS Mathematics, 2019, 4(3): 714-720. doi: 10.3934/math.2019.3.714 |
[3] | Tuba Gulsen, Sertac Goktas, Thabet Abdeljawad, Yusuf Gurefe . Sturm-Liouville problem in multiplicative fractional calculus. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(8): 22794-22812. doi: 10.3934/math.20241109 |
[4] | Youyu Wang, Lu Zhang, Yang Zhang . Lyapunov-type inequalities for Hadamard fractional differential equation under Sturm-Liouville boundary conditions. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(3): 2981-2995. doi: 10.3934/math.2021181 |
[5] | Youyu Wang, Xianfei Li, Yue Huang . The Green's function for Caputo fractional boundary value problem with a convection term. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(4): 4887-4897. doi: 10.3934/math.2022272 |
[6] | Erdal Bas, Ramazan Ozarslan, Resat Yilmazer . Spectral structure and solution of fractional hydrogen atom difference equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(2): 1359-1371. doi: 10.3934/math.2020093 |
[7] | Haifa Bin Jebreen, Beatriz Hernández-Jiménez . Pseudospectral method for fourth-order fractional Sturm-Liouville problems. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 26077-26091. doi: 10.3934/math.20241274 |
[8] | Zhongqian Wang, Xuejun Zhang, Mingliang Song . Three nonnegative solutions for Sturm-Liouville BVP and application to the complete Sturm-Liouville equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(3): 6543-6558. doi: 10.3934/math.2023330 |
[9] | Zeliha Korpinar, Mustafa Inc, Dumitru Baleanu . On the fractional model of Fokker-Planck equations with two different operator. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(1): 236-248. doi: 10.3934/math.2020015 |
[10] | Ndolane Sene . Fractional input stability for electrical circuits described by the Riemann-Liouville and the Caputo fractional derivatives. AIMS Mathematics, 2019, 4(1): 147-165. doi: 10.3934/Math.2019.1.147 |
Meme transmission has become an important way of information dissemination. Three transfer paths were added to the classic infectious disease storehouse model in this study based on characteristics of meme transmission. Individual heterogeneity factors such as individual interest, risk perception and trust perception were used to construct a meme transmission model named Individual Heterogeneity SEIR (IHSEIR) model. Equilibrium of the model and the basic reproduction number were obtained using mean-field theory. Effects of individual heterogeneity factors on meme propagation were analyzed through Multi-Agent simulation. The findings showed that individual interest has a significant effect on the propagation range and speed of meme. A low-level overall trust of the system was correlated with higher risk perception among individuals, which is not conducive for the propagation of meme. Effect of regulation and intervention in the process of meme transmission was significantly lower compared with that at the initial state of transmission.
Fractional calculus is a notably attractive subject owing to having wide-ranging application areas of theoretical and applied sciences. Despite the fact that there are a large number of worthwhile mathematical works on the fractional differential calculus, there is no noteworthy parallel improvement of fractional difference calculus up to lately. This statement has shown that discrete fractional calculus has certain unforeseen hardship.
Fractional sums and differences were obtained firstly in Diaz-Osler [1], Miller-Ross [2] and Gray and Zhang [3] and they found discrete types of fractional integrals and derivatives. Later, several authors began to touch upon discrete fractional calculus; Goodrich-Peterson [4], Baleanu et al. [5], Ahrendt et al. [6]. Nevertheless, discrete fractional calculus is a rather novel area. The first studies have been done by Atıcı et al. [7,8,9,10,11], Abdeljawad et al. [12,13,14], Mozyrska et al. [15,16,17], Anastassiou [18,19], Hein et al. [20] and Cheng et al. [21] and so forth [22,23,24,25,26].
Self-adjoint operators have an important place in differential operators. Levitan and Sargsian [27] studied self-adjoint Sturm-Liouville differential operators and they obtained spectral properties based on self-adjointness. Also, they found representation of solutions and hence they obtained asymptotic formulas of eigenfunctions and eigenvalues. Similarly, Dehghan and Mingarelli [28,29] obtained for the first time representation of solution of fractional Sturm-Liouville problem and they obtained asymptotic formulas of eigenfunctions and eigenvalues of the problem. In this study, firstly we obtain self-adjointness of DFSL operator within nabla fractional Riemann-Liouville and delta fractional Grünwald-Letnikov operators. From this point of view, we obtain orthogonality of distinct eigenfunctions, reality of eigenvalues. In addition, we open a new gate by obtaining representation of solution of DFSL problem for researchers study in this area.
Self-adjointness of fractional Sturm-Liouville differential operators have been proven by Bas et al. [30,31], Klimek et al. [32,33]. Variational properties of fractional Sturm-Liouville problem has been studied in [34,35]. However, self-adjointness of conformable Sturm-Liouville and DFSL with Caputo-Fabrizio operator has been proven by [36,37]. Nowadays, several studies related to Atangana-Baleanu fractional derivative and its discrete version are done [38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45].
In this study, we consider DFSL operators within Riemann-Liouville and Grünwald-Letnikov sense, and we prove the self-adjointness, orthogonality of distinct eigenfunctions, reality of eigenvalues of DFSL operator. However, we get sum representation of solutions for DFSL equation by means Laplace transform for nabla fractional difference equations. Finally, we compare the results for the solution of DFSL problem, discrete Sturm-Liouville (DSL) problem with the second order, fractional Sturm-Liouville (FSL) problem and classical Sturm-Liouville (CSL) problem with the second order. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the theory of DFSL operator.
We discuss DFSL equations in three different ways with;
i) Self-adjoint (nabla left and right) Riemann-Liouville (R-L) fractional operator,
L1x(t)=∇μa(p(t)b∇μx(t))+q(t)x(t)=λr(t)x(t), 0<μ<1, |
ii) Self-adjoint (delta left and right) Grünwald-Letnikov (G-L) fractional operator,
L2x(t)=Δμ−(p(t)Δμ+x(t))+q(t)x(t)=λr(t)x(t), 0<μ<1, |
iii)(nabla left) DFSL operator is defined by R-L fractional operator,
L3x(t)=∇μa(∇μax(t))+q(t)x(t)=λx(t), 0<μ<1. |
Definition 2.1. [4] Delta and nabla difference operators are defined by respectively
Δx(t)=x(t+1)−x(t),∇x(t)=x(t)−x(t−1). | (1) |
Definition 2.2. [46] Falling function is defined by, α∈R
tα_=Γ(α+1)Γ(α+1−n), | (2) |
where Γ is Euler gamma function.
Definition 2.3. [46] Rising function is defined by, α∈R,
t¯α=Γ(t+α)Γ(t). | (3) |
Remark 1. Delta and nabla operators have the following properties
Δtα_=αtα−1_, | (4) |
∇t¯α=αt¯α−1. |
Definition 2.4. [2,7] Fractional sum operators are defined by,
(i) The left defined nabla fractional sum with order μ>0 is defined by
∇−μax(t)=1Γ(μ)t∑s=a+1(t−ρ(s))¯μ−1x(s), t∈Na+1, | (5) |
(ii) The right defined nabla fractional sum with order μ>0 is defined by
b∇−μx(t)=1Γ(μ)b−1∑s=t(s−ρ(t))¯μ−1x(s), t∈ b−1N, | (6) |
where ρ(t)=t−1 is called backward jump operators, Na={a,a+1,...}, bN={b,b−1,...}.
Definition 2.5. [47] Fractional difference operators are defined by,
(i) The nabla left fractional difference of order μ>0 is defined
∇μax(t)=∇n∇−(n−μ)ax(t)=∇nΓ(n−μ)t∑s=a+1(t−ρ(s))¯n−μ−1x(s), t∈Na+1, | (7) |
(ii) The nabla right fractional difference of order μ>0 is defined
b∇μx(t)=(−1)nΔn b∇−(n−μ)x(t)=(−1)nΔnΓ(n−μ)b−1∑s=t(s−ρ(t))¯n−μ−1x(s), t∈ b−1N. | (8) |
Fractional differences in (7−8) are called the Riemann-Liouville (R-L) definition of the μ-th order nabla fractional difference.
Definition 2.6. [1,21,48] Fractional difference operators are defined by,
(i) The left defined delta fractional difference of order μ, 0<μ≤1, is defined by
Δμ−x(t)=1hμt∑s=0(−1)sμ(μ−1)...(μ−s+1)s!x(t−s), t=1,...,N. | (9) |
(ii) The right defined delta fractional difference of order μ, 0<μ≤1, is defined by
Δμ+x(t)=1hμN−t∑s=0(−1)sμ(μ−1)...(μ−s+1)s!x(t+s), t=0,..,N−1. | (10) |
Fractional differences in (9−10) are called the Grünwald-Letnikov (G-L) definition of the μ-th order delta fractional difference.
Theorem 2.7. [47] We define the summation by parts formula for R-L fractional nabla difference operator, u is defined on bN and v is defined on Na, then
b−1∑s=a+1u(s)∇μav(s)=b−1∑s=a+1v(s)b∇μu(s). | (11) |
Theorem 2.8. [26,48] We define the summation by parts formula for G-L delta fractional difference operator, u, v is defined on {0,1,...,n}, then
n∑s=0u(s)Δμ−v(s)=n∑s=0v(s)Δμ+u(s). | (12) |
Definition 2.9. [20] f:Na→R, s∈ℜ, Laplace transform is defined as follows,
La{f}(s)=∞∑k=1(1−s)k−1f(a+k), |
where ℜ=C∖{1} and ℜ is called the set of regressive (complex) functions.
Definition 2.10. [20] Let f,g:Na→R, all t∈Na+1, convolution property of f and g is given by
(f∗g)(t)=t∑s=a+1f(t−ρ(s)+a)g(s), |
where ρ(s) is the backward jump function defined in [46] as
ρ(s)=s−1. |
Theorem 2.11. [20] f,g:Na→R, convolution theorem is expressed as follows,
La{f∗g}(s)=La{f}La{g}(s). |
Lemma 2.12. [20] f:Na→R, the following property is valid,
La+1{f}(s)=11−sLa{f}(s)−11−sf(a+1). |
Theorem 2.13. [20] f:Na→R, 0<μ<1, Laplace transform of nabla fractional difference
La+1{∇μaf}(s)=sμLa+1{f}(s)−1−sμ1−sf(a+1),t∈Na+1. |
Definition 2.14. [20] For |p|<1, α>0, β∈R and t∈Na, discrete Mittag-Leffler function is defined by
Ep,α,β(t,a)=∞∑k=0pk(t−a)¯αk+βΓ(αk+β+1), |
where t¯n={t(t+1)⋯(t+n−1),n∈ZΓ(t+n)Γ(t),n∈R is rising factorial function.
Theorem 2.15. [20] For |p|<1, α>0, β∈R, |1−s|<1, and |s|α>p, Laplace transform of discrete Mittag-Leffler function is as follows,
La{Ep,α,β(.,a)}(s)=sα−β−1sα−p. |
Definition 2.16. Laplace transform of f(t)∈R+, t≥0 is defined as follows,
L{f}(s)=∞∫0e−stf(t)dt. |
Theorem 2.17. For z, θ∈C,Re(δ)>0, Mittag-Leffler function with two parameters is defined as follows
Eδ,θ(z)=∞∑k=0zkΓ(δk+θ). |
Theorem 2.18. Laplace transform of Mittag-Leffler function is as follows
L{tθ−1Eδ,θ(λtδ)}(s)=sδ−θsδ−λ. |
Property 2.19. [28] f:Na→R, 0<μ<1, Laplace transform of fractional derivative in Caputo sense is as follows, 0<α<1,
L{CDα0+f}(s)=sαL{f}(s)−sα−1f(0). |
Property 2.20. [28] f:Na→R, 0<μ<1, Laplace transform of left fractional derivative in Riemann-Liouville sense is as follows, 0<α<1,
L{Dα0+f}(s)=sαL{f}(s)−I1−α0+f(t)|t=0, |
here Iα0+ is left fractional integral in Riemann-Liouville sense.
We consider discrete fractional Sturm-Liouville equations in three different ways as follows:
First Case: Self-adjoint L1 DFSL operator is defined by (nabla right and left) R-L fractional operator,
L1x(t)=∇μa(p(t)b∇μx(t))+q(t)x(t)=λr(t)x(t), 0<μ<1, | (13) |
where p(t)>0, r(t)>0, q(t) is a real valued function on [a+1,b−1] and real valued, λ is the spectral parameter, t∈[a+1,b−1], x(t)∈l2[a+1,b−1]. In ℓ2(a+1,b−1), the Hilbert space of sequences of complex numbers u(a+1),...,u(b−1) with the inner product is given by,
⟨u(n),v(n)⟩=b−1∑n=a+1u(n)v(n), |
for every u∈DL1, let's define as follows
DL1={u(n), v(n)∈ℓ2(a+1,b−1):L1u(n), L1v(n)∈ℓ2(a+1,b−1)}. |
Second Case: Self-adjoint L2 DFSL operator is defined by(delta left and right) G-L fractional operator,
L2x(t)=Δμ−(p(t)Δμ+x(t))+q(t)x(t)=λr(t)x(t), 0<μ<1, | (14) |
where p,r,λ is as defined above, q(t) is a real valued function on [0,n], t∈[0,n], x(t)∈l2[0,n]. In ℓ2(0,n), the Hilbert space of sequences of complex numbers u(0),...,u(n) with the inner product is given by, n is a finite integer,
⟨u(i),r(i)⟩=n∑i=0u(i)r(i), |
for every u∈DL2, let's define as follows
DL2={u(i), v(i)∈ℓ2(0,n):L2u(n), L2r(n)∈ℓ2(0,n)}. |
Third Case:L3 DFSL operator is defined by (nabla left) R-L fractional operator,
L3x(t)=∇μa(∇μax(t))+q(t)x(t)=λx(t), 0<μ<1, | (15) |
p,r,λ is as defined above, q(t) is a real valued function on [a+1,b−1], t∈[a+1,b−1].
Firstly, we consider the first case and give the following theorems and proofs;
Theorem 3.1. DFSL operator L1 is self-adjoint.
Proof.
u(t)L1v(t)=u(t)∇μa(p(t)b∇μv(t))+u(t)q(t)v(t), | (16) |
v(t)L1u(t)=v(t)∇μa(p(t)b∇μu(t))+v(t)q(t)u(t). | (17) |
If (16−17) is subtracted from each other
u(t)L1v(t)−v(t)L1u(t)=u(t)∇μa(p(t)b∇μv(t))−v(t)∇μa(p(t)b∇μu(t)) |
and sum operator from a+1 to b−1 to both side of the last equality is applied, we get
b−1∑s=a+1(u(s)L1v(s)−v(s)L1u(s))=b−1∑s=a+1u(s)∇μa(p(s)b∇μv(s)) | (18) |
−b−1∑s=a+1v(s)∇μa(p(s)b∇μu(s)). |
If we apply the summation by parts formula in (11) to right hand side of (18), we have
b−1∑s=a+1(u(s)L1v(s)−v(s)L1u(s))=b−1∑s=a+1p(s)b∇μv(s)b∇μu(s)−b−1∑s=a+1p(s)b∇μu(s)b∇μv(s)=0, |
⟨L1u,v⟩=⟨u,L1v⟩. |
Hence, the proof completes.
Theorem 3.2. Two eigenfunctions, u(t,λα) and v(t,λβ), of the equation (13) are orthogonal as λα≠λβ.
Proof. Let λα and λβ are two different eigenvalues corresponds to eigenfunctions u(t) and v(t) respectively for the the equation (13),
∇μa(p(t)b∇μu(t))+q(t)u(t)−λαr(t)u(t)=0,∇μa(p(t)b∇μv(t))+q(t)v(t)−λβr(t)v(t)=0. |
If we multiply last two equations by v(t) and u(t) respectively, subtract from each other and apply definite sum operator, owing to the self-adjointness of the operator L1, we have
(λα−λβ)b−1∑s=a+1r(s)u(s)v(s)=0, |
since λα≠λβ,
b−1∑s=a+1r(s)u(s)v(s)=0,⟨u(t),v(t)⟩=0. |
Hence, the proof completes.
Theorem 3.3. All eigenvalues of the equation (13) are real.
Proof. Let λ=α+iβ, owing to the self-adjointness of the operator L1, we can write
⟨L1u(t),u(t)⟩=⟨u(t),L1u(t)⟩,⟨λru(t),u(t)⟩=⟨u(t),λr(t)u(t)⟩, |
(λ−¯λ)⟨u(t),u(t)⟩r=0. |
Since ⟨u(t),u(t)⟩r≠0,
λ=¯λ |
and hence β=0. The proof completes.
Secondly, we consider the second case and give the following theorems and proofs;
Theorem 3.4. DFSL operator L2 is self-adjoint.
Proof.
u(t)L2v(t)=u(t)Δμ−(p(t)Δμ+v(t))+u(t)q(t)v(t), | (19) |
v(t)L2u(t)=v(t)Δμ−(p(t)Δμ+u(t))+v(t)q(t)u(t). | (20) |
If (19−20) is subtracted from each other
u(t)L2v(t)−v(t)L2u(t)=u(t)Δμ−(p(t)Δμ+v(t))−v(t)Δμ−(p(t)Δμ+u(t)) |
and definite sum operator from 0 to t to both side of the last equality is applied, we have
t∑s=0(u(s)L1v(s)−v(s)L2u(s))=t∑s=0u(s)Δμ−(p(s)Δμ+v(s))−t∑s=0v(s)Δμ−(p(s)Δμ+u(s)). | (21) |
If we apply the summation by parts formula in (12) to r.h.s. of (21), we get
t∑s=0(u(s)L2v(s)−v(s)L2u(s))=t∑s=0p(s)Δμ+v(s)Δμ+u(s)−t∑s=0p(s)Δμ+u(s)Δμ+v(s)=0, |
⟨L2u,v⟩=⟨u,L2v⟩. |
Hence, the proof completes.
Theorem 3.5. Two eigenfunctions, u(t,λα) and v(t,λβ), of the equation (14) are orthogonal as λα≠λβ. orthogonal.
Proof. Let λα and λβ are two different eigenvalues corresponds to eigenfunctions u(t) and v(t) respectively for the the equation (14),
Δμ−(p(t)Δμ+u(t))+q(t)u(t)−λαr(t)u(t)=0,Δμ−(p(t)Δμ+v(t))+q(t)v(t)−λβr(t)v(t)=0. |
If we multiply last two equations to v(t) and u(t) respectively, subtract from each other and apply definite sum operator, owing to the self-adjointness of the operator L2, we get
(λα−λβ)t∑s=0r(s)u(s)v(s)=0, |
since λα≠λβ,
t∑s=0r(s)u(s)v(s)=0⟨u(t),v(t)⟩=0. |
So, the eigenfunctions are orthogonal. The proof completes.
Theorem 3.6. All eigenvalues of the equation (14) are real.
Proof. Let λ=α+iβ, owing to the self-adjointness of the operator L2
⟨L2u(t),u(t)⟩=⟨u(t),L2u(t)⟩,⟨λr(t)u(t),u(t)⟩=⟨u(t),λr(t)u(t)⟩, |
(λ−¯λ)⟨u,u⟩r=0. |
Since ⟨u,u⟩r≠0,
λ=¯λ, |
and hence β=0. The proof completes.
Now, we consider the third case and give the following theorem and proof;
Theorem 3.7.
L3x(t)=∇μa(∇μax(t))+q(t)x(t)=λx(t),0<μ<1, | (22) |
x(a+1)=c1,∇μax(a+1)=c2, | (23) |
where p(t)>0, r(t)>0, q(t) is defined and real valued, λ is the spectral parameter. The sum representation of solution of the problem (22)−(23) is found as follows,
x(t)=c1[(1+q(a+1))Eλ,2μ,μ−1(t,a)−λEλ,2μ,2μ−1(t,a)] | (24) |
+c2[Eλ,2μ,2μ−1(t,a)−Eλ,2μ,μ−1(t,a)]−t∑s=a+1Eλ,2μ,2μ−1(t−ρ(s)+a)q(s)x(s), |
where |λ|<1, |1−s|<1, and |s|α>λ from Theorem 2.15.
Proof. Let's use the Laplace transform of both side of the equation (22) by Theorem 2.13, and let q(t)x(t)=g(t),
La+1{∇μa(∇μax)}(s)+La+1{g}(s)=λLa+1{x}(s),=sμLa+1{∇μax}(s)−1−sμ1−sc2=λLa+1{x}(s)−La+1{g}(s),=sμ(sμLa+1{x}(s)−1−sμ1−sc1)−1−sμ1−sc2=λLa+1{x}(s)−La+1{g}(s), |
=La+1{x}(s)=1−sμ1−s1s2μ−λ(sμc1+c2)−1s2μ−λLa+1{g}(s), |
from Lemma 2.12, we get
La{x}(s)=c1(sμ−λs2μ−λ)−1−ss2μ−λ(11−sLa{g}(s)−11−sg(a+1))+c2(1−sμs2μ−λ). | (25) |
Applying inverse Laplace transform to the equation (25), then we get representation of solution of the problem (22)−(23),
x(t)=c1((1+q(a+1))Eλ,2μ,μ−1(t,a)−λEλ,2μ,2μ−1(t,a))+c2(Eλ,2μ,2μ−1(t,a)−Eλ,2μ,μ−1(t,a))−t∑s=a+1Eλ,2μ,2μ−1(t−ρ(s)+a)q(s)x(s). |
Now, let us consider comparatively discrete fractional Sturm-Liouville (DFSL) problem, discrete Sturm-Liouville (DSL) problem, fractional Sturm-Liouville (FSL) problem and classical Sturm-Liouville (CSL) problem respectively as follows by taking q(t)=0,
DFSL problem:
∇μ0(∇μ0x(t))=λx(t), | (26) |
x(1)=1, ∇μax(1)=0, | (27) |
and its analytic solution is as follows by the help of Laplace transform in Lemma 2.12
x(t)=Eλ,2μ,μ−1(t,0)−λEλ,2μ,2μ−1(t,0), | (28) |
DSL problem:
∇2x(t)=λx(t), | (29) |
x(1)=1, ∇x(1)=0, | (30) |
and its analytic solution is as follows
x(t)=12(1−λ)−t[(1−√λ)t(1+√λ)−(−1+√λ)(1+√λ)t], | (31) |
FSL problem:
CDμ0+(Dμ0+x(t))=λx(t), | (32) |
I1−μ0+x(t)|t=0=1, Dμ0+x(t)|t=0=0, | (33) |
and its analytic solution is as follows by the help of Laplace transform in Property 2.19 and 2.20
x(t)=tμ−1E2μ,μ(λt2μ), | (34) |
CSL problem:
x′′(t)=λx(t), | (35) |
x(0)=1, x′(0)=0, | (36) |
and its analytic solution is as follows
x(t)=cosht√λ, | (37) |
where the domain and range of function x(t) and Mittag-Leffler functions must be well defined. Note that we may show the solution of CSL problem can be obtained by taking μ→1 in the solution of FSL problem and similarly, the solution of DSL problem can be obtained by taking μ→1 in the solution of DFSL problem.
Firstly, we compare the solutions of DFSL and DSL problems and from here we show that the solutions of DFSL problem converge to the solutions of DSL problem as μ→1 in Figure 1 for discrete Mittag-Leffler function Ep,α,β(t,a)=1000∑k=0pk(t−a)¯αk+βΓ(αk+β+1); let λ=0.01,
Secondly, we compare the solutions of DFSL, DSL, FSL and CSL problems for discrete Mittag-Leffler function Ep,α,β(t,a)=1000∑k=0pk(t−a)¯αk+βΓ(αk+β+1). At first view, we observe the solution of DSL and CSL problems almost coincide in any order μ, and we observe the solutions of DFSL and FSL problem almost coincide in any order μ. However, we observe that all of the solutions of DFSL, DSL, FSL and CSL problems almost coincide to each other as μ→1 in Figure 2. Let λ=0.01,
Thirdly, we compare the solutions of DFSL problem (22−23) with different orders, different potential functions and different eigenvalues for discrete Mittag-Leffler function Ep,α,β(t,a)=1000∑k=0pk(t−a)¯αk+βΓ(αk+β+1) in the Figure 3;
Eigenvalues of DFSL problem (22−23), correspond to some specific eigenfunctions for numerical values of discrete Mittag-Leffler function Ep,α,β(t,a)=i∑k=0pk(t−a)¯αk+βΓ(αk+β+1), is given with different orders while q(t)=0 in Table 1;
i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i |
750 | −0.992 | −0.982 | −0.057 | −0.986 | −0.941 | −0.027 | −0.483 | −0.483 | 0 |
1000 | −0.989 | −0.977 | −0.057 | −0.990 | −0.954 | −0.027 | −0.559 | −0.435 | 0 |
2000 | −0.996 | −0.990 | −0.057 | −0.995 | −0.978 | −0.027 | −0.654 | −0.435 | 0 |
x(5),μ=0.5 | x(10),μ=0.9 | x(2000),μ=0.1 | |||||||
i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i |
750 | −0.951 | −0.004 | 0 | −0.868 | −0.793 | −0.0003 | −0.190 | −3.290×10−6 | 0 |
1000 | −0.963 | −0.004 | 0 | −0.898 | −0.828 | −0.0003 | −0.394 | −3.290×10−6 | 0 |
2000 | −0.981 | −0.004 | 0 | −0.947 | −0.828 | −0.0003 | −0.548 | −3.290×10−6 | 0 |
x(20),μ=0.5 | x(100),μ=0.9 | x(1000),μ=0.7 | |||||||
i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i |
750 | −0.414 | −9.59×10−7 | 0 | −0.853 | −0.0003 | 0 | −0.330 | −4.140×10−6 | 0 |
1000 | −0.478 | −9.59×10−7 | 0 | −0.887 | −0.0003 | 0 | −0.375 | −4.140×10−6 | 0 |
2000 | −0.544 | −9.59×10−7 | 0 | −0.940 | −0.0003 | 0 | −0.361 | −4.140×10−6 | 0 |
x(1000),μ=0.3 | x(100),μ=0.8 | x(1000),μ=0.9 | |||||||
i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i |
750 | −0.303 | −3.894×10−6 | 0 | −0.192 | −0.066 | 0 | −0.985 | −0.955 | −0.026 |
1000 | −0.335 | −3.894×10−6 | 0 | −0.197 | −0.066 | 0 | −0.989 | −0.941 | −0.026 |
2000 | −0.399 | −3.894×10−6 | 0 | −0.289 | −0.066 | 0 | −0.994 | −0.918 | −0.026 |
x(1000),μ=0.8 | x(2000),μ=0.6 | x(10),μ=0.83 |
Finally, we give the solutions of DFSL problem (22−23) with different orders, different potential functions and different eigenvalues for discrete Mittag-Leffler function Ep,α,β(t,a)=100∑k=0pk(t−a)¯αk+βΓ(αk+β+1) in Tables 2–4;
x(t) | μ=0.1 | μ=0.2 | μ=0.5 | μ=0.7 | μ=0.9 |
x(1) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
x(2) | 0.125 | 0.25 | 0.625 | 0.875 | 1.125 |
x(3) | 0.075 | 0.174 | 0.624 | 1.050 | 1.575 |
x(5) | 0.045 | 0.128 | 0.830 | 1.968 | 4.000 |
x(7) | 0.0336 | 0.111 | 1.228 | 4.079 | 11.203 |
x(9) | 0.0274 | 0.103 | 1.878 | 8.657 | 31.941 |
x(12) | 0.022 | 0.098 | 3.622 | 27.05 | 154.56 |
x(15) | 0.0187 | 0.0962 | 7.045 | 84.75 | 748.56 |
x(16) | 0.0178 | 0.0961 | 8.800 | 124.04 | 1266.5 |
x(18) | 0.0164 | 0.0964 | 13.737 | 265.70 | 3625.6 |
x(20) | 0.0152 | 0.0972 | 21.455 | 569.16 | 10378.8 |
x(t) | q(t)=1 | q(t)=t | q(t)=√t |
x(1) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
x(2) | 0.2261 | 0.1505 | 0.1871 |
x(3) | 0.1138 | 0.0481 | 0.0767 |
x(5) | 0.0518 | 0.0110 | 0.0252 |
x(7) | 0.0318 | 0.0043 | 0.0123 |
x(9) | 0.0223 | 0.0021 | 0.0072 |
x(12) | 0.0150 | 0.0010 | 0.0039 |
x(15) | 0.0110 | 0.0005 | 0.0025 |
x(16) | 0.0101 | 0.0004 | 0.0022 |
x(18) | 0.0086 | 0.0003 | 0.0017 |
x(20) | 0.0075 | 0.0002 | 0.0014 |
x(t) | q(t)=1 | q(t)=t | q(t)=√t |
x(1) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
x(2) | 0.2261 | 0.1505 | 0.1871 |
x(3) | 0.1138 | 0.0481 | 0.0767 |
x(5) | 0.0518 | 0.0110 | 0.0252 |
x(7) | 0.0318 | 0.0043 | 0.0123 |
x(9) | 0.0223 | 0.0021 | 0.0072 |
x(12) | 0.0150 | 0.0010 | 0.0039 |
x(15) | 0.0110 | 0.0005 | 0.0025 |
x(16) | 0.0101 | 0.0004 | 0.0022 |
x(18) | 0.0086 | 0.0003 | 0.0017 |
x(20) | 0.0075 | 0.0002 | 0.0014 |
Now, let's consider the problems together DFSL (26)−(27), DSL (29)−(30), FSL (32)−(33) and CSL (35)−(36). Eigenvalues of these problems are the roots of the following equation
x(35)=0. |
Thus, if we apply the solutions (28), (31), (34) and (37) of these four problems to the equation above respectively, we can find the eigenvalues of these problems for the orders μ=0.9 and μ=0.99 respectively in Table 5, and Table 6,
λ1 | λ2 | λ3 | λ4 | λ5 | λ6 | λ7 | λ8 | λ9 | λ10 | |
DFSL | −0.904 | −0.859 | −0.811 | −0.262 | −0.157 | −0.079 | −0.029 | −0.003 | 0.982 | |
FSL | −0.497 | −0.383 | −0.283 | −0.196 | −0.124 | −0.066 | −0.026 | −0.003 | 0 | ... |
DSL | −1.450 | −0.689 | −0.469 | −0.310 | −0.194 | −0.112 | −0.055 | −0.019 | −0.002 | |
CSL | −0.163 | −0.128 | −0.098 | −0.072 | −0.050 | −0.032 | −0.008 | −0.002 | 0 |
λ1 | λ2 | λ3 | λ4 | λ5 | λ6 | λ7 | λ8 | λ9 | λ10 | |
DFSL | −0.866 | −0.813 | −0.200 | −0.115 | −0.057 | −0.020 | −0.002 | 0 | 0.982 | |
FSL | −0.456 | −0.343 | −0.246 | −0.165 | −0.100 | −0.051 | −0.018 | −0.002 | 0 | ... |
DSL | −1.450 | −0.689 | −0.469 | −0.310 | −0.194 | −0.112 | −0.055 | −0.019 | −0.002 | ... |
CSL | −0.163 | −0.128 | −0.098 | −0.072 | −0.050 | −0.032 | −0.008 | −0.002 | 0 |
In here, we observe that these four problems have real eigenvalues under different orders μ=0.9 and μ=0.99, hence we can find eigenfunctions putting these eigenvalues into the four solutions. Furthermore, as the order changes, we can see that eigenvalues change for DFSL problems.
We consider firstly discrete fractional Sturm-Liouville (DFSL) operators with nabla Riemann-Liouville and delta Grünwald-Letnikov fractional operators and we prove self-adjointness of the DFSL operator and fundamental spectral properties. However, we analyze DFSL problem, discrete Sturm-Liouville (DSL) problem, fractional Sturm-Liouville (FSL) problem and classical Sturm-Liouville (CSL) problem by taking q(t)=0 in applications. Firstly, we compare the solutions of DFSL and DSL problems and we observe that the solutions of DFSL problem converge to the solutions of DSL problem when μ→1 in Fig. 1. Secondly, we compare the solutions of DFSL, DSL, FSL and CSL problems in Fig. 2. At first view, we observe the solutions of DSL and CSL problems almost coincide with any order μ, and we observe the solutions of DFSL and FSL problem almost coincide with any order μ. However, we observe that all of solutions of DFSL, DSL, FSL and CSL problems almost coincide with each other as μ→1. Thirdly, we compare the solutions of DFSL problem (22−23) with different orders, different potential functions and different eigenvalues in Fig. 3.
Eigenvalues of DFSL problem (22−23) corresponded to some specific eigenfunctions is given with different orders in Table 1. We give the eigenfunctions of DFSL problem (22−23) with different orders, different potential functions and different eigenvalues in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4.
In Section 4.1, we consider DFSL, DSL, FSL and CSL problems together and thus, we can compare the eigenvalues of these four problems in Table 5 and Table 6 for different values of μ. We observe that these four problems have real eigenvalues under different values of μ, from here we can find eigenfunctions corresponding eigenvalues. Moreover, when the order change, eigenvalues change for DFSL problems.
Consequently, important results in spectral theory are given for discrete Sturm-Liouville problems. These results will lead to open gates for the researchers studied in this area. Especially, representation of solution will be practicable for future studies. It worths noting that visual results both will enable to be understood clearly by readers and verify the results to the integer order discrete case while the order approaches to one.
This paper includes a part of Ph.D. thesis data of Ramazan OZARSLAN.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
[1] | R. Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, Science Press, 1981. |
[2] | S. Blackmore, The Meme Machine, Oxford University Press, 1999. |
[3] | K. Distin, The Selfish Meme, Cambridge University Press, 2005. |
[4] | D. Gruhl, R. Guha, D. Liben-Nowell, A. Tomkins, Information diffusion through blogspace, in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web, 2004,491-501. |
[5] | B. H. Spitzberg, Toward a model of meme diffusion(M3D), Commun. Theor., 24 (2014): 311-339. |
[6] | C. Bauckhage, K. Kersting, F. Hadiji, Mathematical models of fads explain the temporal dynamics of internet memes, in Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, (Vol. 7, No. 1), Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 2013. |
[7] | C. Bauckhage, Insights into Internet Memes, in Proceedings of the International AAAI conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, 2011 |
[8] | C. Bauckhage, K. Kersting, Strong Regularities in Growth and Decline of Popularity of Social Media Services, arXiv preprint arXiv, (2014), 1406.6529. |
[9] |
L. Wang, B. C. Wood, An epidemiological approach to model the viral propagation of memes, Appl. Math. Model., 35 (2011), 5442-5447. doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2011.04.035
![]() |
[10] | I. Miller, G. Cupchik, Meme creation and sharing processes: individuals shaping the masses, arXiv preprint arXiv, (2014), 14067579. |
[11] |
X. Wei, N. C. Valler, B. A. Prakash, I. Neamtiu, M. Faloutsos, C. Faloutsos, Competing memes propagation on networks: A network science perspective, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., 31 (2013), 1049-1060. doi: 10.1109/JSAC.2013.130607
![]() |
[12] | D. Freitag, E. Chow, P. Kalmar, T. Muezzinoglu, J. Niekrasz, A Corpus of Online Discussions for Research into Linguistic Memes, In Web as Corpus Workshop (WAC7), (2012), 14. |
[13] | S. Towers, O. Patterson-Lomba, C. Castillo-Chavez, Emerging disease dynamics: The case of Ebola, SIAM News, 47 (2014), 2-3. |
[14] | J. Kwiatkowska, J. Gutowska, Memetics on the facebook, Polish J. Manag. Stud., 5 (2012), 305-314. |
[15] | A. Smailhodvic, K. Andrew, L. Hahn, P. C. Womble, C. Webb, Sample NLPDE and NLODE social-media modeling of information transmission for infectious diseases: Case Study Ebola, arXiv preprint arXiv, (2014), 1501.00198. |
[16] | W. Sun, W. Yuan, H. Cui, P. Song, Simulation of Internet meme transmission process based on infectious disease model (in Chinese), Research in Communication Power, 26 (2019), 262-263. |
[17] | D. Zhang, The Construction and Simulation of Internet Meme Model: A Case Study of 'Friendship Boat' (in Chinese), New Century Library, 3 (2017), 57-62. |
[18] | R. Sachak-Patwa, N. T. Fadai, R. A. Van Gorder, Understanding viral video dynamics through an epidemic modelling approach, Physica A, 502 (2018), 416-435. |
[19] | R. Sachak-Patwa, N. T. Fadai, R. A. Van Gorder, Modeling multi-group dynamics of related viral videos with delay differential equations, Physica A, 512 (2019), 197-217. |
[20] | W. O. Kermack, A. G. McKendrick, A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics, Proc. R. Soc. A, Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., 115 (1927), 700-721. |
[21] |
A. Korobeinikov, P. K. Maini, Nonlinear incidence and stability of infectious disease models, Math. Med. Biol., 22 (2005), 113-128. doi: 10.1093/imammb/dqi001
![]() |
[22] | H. Huang, M. Wang, The reaction-diffusion system for an SIR epidemic model with a free boundary, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., 20 (2015), 2039-2050 |
[23] |
G. Huang, Y. Takeuchi, W. Ma, D. Wei, Global stability for delay SIR and SEIR epidemic models with nonlinear incidencerate, Bull. Math. Biol., 72 (2010), 1192-1207 doi: 10.1007/s11538-009-9487-6
![]() |
[24] |
W. Ma, M. Song, Y. Takeuchi, Global stability of an SIR epidemic model with time delay, Appl. Math. Lett., 17 (2004), 1141-1145. doi: 10.1016/j.aml.2003.11.005
![]() |
[25] |
S. Han, C. Lei, Global Stability of Equilibria of a Diffusive SEIR Epidemic Model with Nonlinear Incidence, Appl. Math. Lett., 98 (2019), 114-120. doi: 10.1016/j.aml.2019.05.045
![]() |
[26] | E. Ávila-Vales, E. Rivero-Esquivel, G. E. García-Almeida, Global Dynamics of a Periodic SEIRS Model with General Incidence Rate, Int. J. Differ. Equ., 2017 (2017), 1-14. |
1. | Jing Li, Jiangang Qi, On a nonlocal Sturm–Liouville problem with composite fractional derivatives, 2021, 44, 0170-4214, 1931, 10.1002/mma.6893 | |
2. | Ramazan Ozarslan, Erdal Bas, Reassessments of gross domestic product model for fractional derivatives with non-singular and singular kernels, 2021, 25, 1432-7643, 1535, 10.1007/s00500-020-05237-4 | |
3. | Ahu Ercan, Ramazan Ozarslan, Erdal Bas, Existence and uniqueness analysis of solutions for Hilfer fractional spectral problems with applications, 2021, 40, 2238-3603, 10.1007/s40314-020-01382-6 | |
4. | Erdal Bas, Funda Metin Turk, Ramazan Ozarslan, Ahu Ercan, Spectral data of conformable Sturm–Liouville direct problems, 2021, 11, 1664-2368, 10.1007/s13324-020-00428-6 | |
5. | Alberto Almech, Eugenio Roanes-Lozano, A 3D proposal for the visualization of speed in railway networks, 2020, 5, 2473-6988, 7480, 10.3934/math.2020479 | |
6. | Churong Chen, Martin Bohner, Baoguo Jia, Ulam‐Hyers stability of Caputo fractional difference equations, 2019, 42, 0170-4214, 7461, 10.1002/mma.5869 | |
7. | Muath Awadalla, Nazim I. Mahmudov, Jihan Alahmadi, A novel delayed discrete fractional Mittag-Leffler function: representation and stability of delayed fractional difference system, 2024, 70, 1598-5865, 1571, 10.1007/s12190-024-02012-8 | |
8. | B. Shiri, Y. Guang, D. Baleanu, Inverse problems for discrete Hermite nabla difference equation, 2025, 33, 2769-0911, 10.1080/27690911.2024.2431000 | |
9. | Ahu Ercan, Erdal Bas, Ramazan Ozarslan, Solving Hilfer fractional dirac systems: a spectral approach, 2025, 95, 0939-1533, 10.1007/s00419-025-02767-x |
i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i |
750 | −0.992 | −0.982 | −0.057 | −0.986 | −0.941 | −0.027 | −0.483 | −0.483 | 0 |
1000 | −0.989 | −0.977 | −0.057 | −0.990 | −0.954 | −0.027 | −0.559 | −0.435 | 0 |
2000 | −0.996 | −0.990 | −0.057 | −0.995 | −0.978 | −0.027 | −0.654 | −0.435 | 0 |
x(5),μ=0.5 | x(10),μ=0.9 | x(2000),μ=0.1 | |||||||
i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i |
750 | −0.951 | −0.004 | 0 | −0.868 | −0.793 | −0.0003 | −0.190 | −3.290×10−6 | 0 |
1000 | −0.963 | −0.004 | 0 | −0.898 | −0.828 | −0.0003 | −0.394 | −3.290×10−6 | 0 |
2000 | −0.981 | −0.004 | 0 | −0.947 | −0.828 | −0.0003 | −0.548 | −3.290×10−6 | 0 |
x(20),μ=0.5 | x(100),μ=0.9 | x(1000),μ=0.7 | |||||||
i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i |
750 | −0.414 | −9.59×10−7 | 0 | −0.853 | −0.0003 | 0 | −0.330 | −4.140×10−6 | 0 |
1000 | −0.478 | −9.59×10−7 | 0 | −0.887 | −0.0003 | 0 | −0.375 | −4.140×10−6 | 0 |
2000 | −0.544 | −9.59×10−7 | 0 | −0.940 | −0.0003 | 0 | −0.361 | −4.140×10−6 | 0 |
x(1000),μ=0.3 | x(100),μ=0.8 | x(1000),μ=0.9 | |||||||
i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i |
750 | −0.303 | −3.894×10−6 | 0 | −0.192 | −0.066 | 0 | −0.985 | −0.955 | −0.026 |
1000 | −0.335 | −3.894×10−6 | 0 | −0.197 | −0.066 | 0 | −0.989 | −0.941 | −0.026 |
2000 | −0.399 | −3.894×10−6 | 0 | −0.289 | −0.066 | 0 | −0.994 | −0.918 | −0.026 |
x(1000),μ=0.8 | x(2000),μ=0.6 | x(10),μ=0.83 |
x(t) | μ=0.1 | μ=0.2 | μ=0.5 | μ=0.7 | μ=0.9 |
x(1) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
x(2) | 0.125 | 0.25 | 0.625 | 0.875 | 1.125 |
x(3) | 0.075 | 0.174 | 0.624 | 1.050 | 1.575 |
x(5) | 0.045 | 0.128 | 0.830 | 1.968 | 4.000 |
x(7) | 0.0336 | 0.111 | 1.228 | 4.079 | 11.203 |
x(9) | 0.0274 | 0.103 | 1.878 | 8.657 | 31.941 |
x(12) | 0.022 | 0.098 | 3.622 | 27.05 | 154.56 |
x(15) | 0.0187 | 0.0962 | 7.045 | 84.75 | 748.56 |
x(16) | 0.0178 | 0.0961 | 8.800 | 124.04 | 1266.5 |
x(18) | 0.0164 | 0.0964 | 13.737 | 265.70 | 3625.6 |
x(20) | 0.0152 | 0.0972 | 21.455 | 569.16 | 10378.8 |
x(t) | q(t)=1 | q(t)=t | q(t)=√t |
x(1) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
x(2) | 0.2261 | 0.1505 | 0.1871 |
x(3) | 0.1138 | 0.0481 | 0.0767 |
x(5) | 0.0518 | 0.0110 | 0.0252 |
x(7) | 0.0318 | 0.0043 | 0.0123 |
x(9) | 0.0223 | 0.0021 | 0.0072 |
x(12) | 0.0150 | 0.0010 | 0.0039 |
x(15) | 0.0110 | 0.0005 | 0.0025 |
x(16) | 0.0101 | 0.0004 | 0.0022 |
x(18) | 0.0086 | 0.0003 | 0.0017 |
x(20) | 0.0075 | 0.0002 | 0.0014 |
x(t) | q(t)=1 | q(t)=t | q(t)=√t |
x(1) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
x(2) | 0.2261 | 0.1505 | 0.1871 |
x(3) | 0.1138 | 0.0481 | 0.0767 |
x(5) | 0.0518 | 0.0110 | 0.0252 |
x(7) | 0.0318 | 0.0043 | 0.0123 |
x(9) | 0.0223 | 0.0021 | 0.0072 |
x(12) | 0.0150 | 0.0010 | 0.0039 |
x(15) | 0.0110 | 0.0005 | 0.0025 |
x(16) | 0.0101 | 0.0004 | 0.0022 |
x(18) | 0.0086 | 0.0003 | 0.0017 |
x(20) | 0.0075 | 0.0002 | 0.0014 |
λ1 | λ2 | λ3 | λ4 | λ5 | λ6 | λ7 | λ8 | λ9 | λ10 | |
DFSL | −0.904 | −0.859 | −0.811 | −0.262 | −0.157 | −0.079 | −0.029 | −0.003 | 0.982 | |
FSL | −0.497 | −0.383 | −0.283 | −0.196 | −0.124 | −0.066 | −0.026 | −0.003 | 0 | ... |
DSL | −1.450 | −0.689 | −0.469 | −0.310 | −0.194 | −0.112 | −0.055 | −0.019 | −0.002 | |
CSL | −0.163 | −0.128 | −0.098 | −0.072 | −0.050 | −0.032 | −0.008 | −0.002 | 0 |
λ1 | λ2 | λ3 | λ4 | λ5 | λ6 | λ7 | λ8 | λ9 | λ10 | |
DFSL | −0.866 | −0.813 | −0.200 | −0.115 | −0.057 | −0.020 | −0.002 | 0 | 0.982 | |
FSL | −0.456 | −0.343 | −0.246 | −0.165 | −0.100 | −0.051 | −0.018 | −0.002 | 0 | ... |
DSL | −1.450 | −0.689 | −0.469 | −0.310 | −0.194 | −0.112 | −0.055 | −0.019 | −0.002 | ... |
CSL | −0.163 | −0.128 | −0.098 | −0.072 | −0.050 | −0.032 | −0.008 | −0.002 | 0 |
i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i |
750 | −0.992 | −0.982 | −0.057 | −0.986 | −0.941 | −0.027 | −0.483 | −0.483 | 0 |
1000 | −0.989 | −0.977 | −0.057 | −0.990 | −0.954 | −0.027 | −0.559 | −0.435 | 0 |
2000 | −0.996 | −0.990 | −0.057 | −0.995 | −0.978 | −0.027 | −0.654 | −0.435 | 0 |
x(5),μ=0.5 | x(10),μ=0.9 | x(2000),μ=0.1 | |||||||
i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i |
750 | −0.951 | −0.004 | 0 | −0.868 | −0.793 | −0.0003 | −0.190 | −3.290×10−6 | 0 |
1000 | −0.963 | −0.004 | 0 | −0.898 | −0.828 | −0.0003 | −0.394 | −3.290×10−6 | 0 |
2000 | −0.981 | −0.004 | 0 | −0.947 | −0.828 | −0.0003 | −0.548 | −3.290×10−6 | 0 |
x(20),μ=0.5 | x(100),μ=0.9 | x(1000),μ=0.7 | |||||||
i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i |
750 | −0.414 | −9.59×10−7 | 0 | −0.853 | −0.0003 | 0 | −0.330 | −4.140×10−6 | 0 |
1000 | −0.478 | −9.59×10−7 | 0 | −0.887 | −0.0003 | 0 | −0.375 | −4.140×10−6 | 0 |
2000 | −0.544 | −9.59×10−7 | 0 | −0.940 | −0.0003 | 0 | −0.361 | −4.140×10−6 | 0 |
x(1000),μ=0.3 | x(100),μ=0.8 | x(1000),μ=0.9 | |||||||
i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i | λ1,i | λ2,i | λ3,i |
750 | −0.303 | −3.894×10−6 | 0 | −0.192 | −0.066 | 0 | −0.985 | −0.955 | −0.026 |
1000 | −0.335 | −3.894×10−6 | 0 | −0.197 | −0.066 | 0 | −0.989 | −0.941 | −0.026 |
2000 | −0.399 | −3.894×10−6 | 0 | −0.289 | −0.066 | 0 | −0.994 | −0.918 | −0.026 |
x(1000),μ=0.8 | x(2000),μ=0.6 | x(10),μ=0.83 |
x(t) | μ=0.1 | μ=0.2 | μ=0.5 | μ=0.7 | μ=0.9 |
x(1) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
x(2) | 0.125 | 0.25 | 0.625 | 0.875 | 1.125 |
x(3) | 0.075 | 0.174 | 0.624 | 1.050 | 1.575 |
x(5) | 0.045 | 0.128 | 0.830 | 1.968 | 4.000 |
x(7) | 0.0336 | 0.111 | 1.228 | 4.079 | 11.203 |
x(9) | 0.0274 | 0.103 | 1.878 | 8.657 | 31.941 |
x(12) | 0.022 | 0.098 | 3.622 | 27.05 | 154.56 |
x(15) | 0.0187 | 0.0962 | 7.045 | 84.75 | 748.56 |
x(16) | 0.0178 | 0.0961 | 8.800 | 124.04 | 1266.5 |
x(18) | 0.0164 | 0.0964 | 13.737 | 265.70 | 3625.6 |
x(20) | 0.0152 | 0.0972 | 21.455 | 569.16 | 10378.8 |
x(t) | q(t)=1 | q(t)=t | q(t)=√t |
x(1) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
x(2) | 0.2261 | 0.1505 | 0.1871 |
x(3) | 0.1138 | 0.0481 | 0.0767 |
x(5) | 0.0518 | 0.0110 | 0.0252 |
x(7) | 0.0318 | 0.0043 | 0.0123 |
x(9) | 0.0223 | 0.0021 | 0.0072 |
x(12) | 0.0150 | 0.0010 | 0.0039 |
x(15) | 0.0110 | 0.0005 | 0.0025 |
x(16) | 0.0101 | 0.0004 | 0.0022 |
x(18) | 0.0086 | 0.0003 | 0.0017 |
x(20) | 0.0075 | 0.0002 | 0.0014 |
x(t) | q(t)=1 | q(t)=t | q(t)=√t |
x(1) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
x(2) | 0.2261 | 0.1505 | 0.1871 |
x(3) | 0.1138 | 0.0481 | 0.0767 |
x(5) | 0.0518 | 0.0110 | 0.0252 |
x(7) | 0.0318 | 0.0043 | 0.0123 |
x(9) | 0.0223 | 0.0021 | 0.0072 |
x(12) | 0.0150 | 0.0010 | 0.0039 |
x(15) | 0.0110 | 0.0005 | 0.0025 |
x(16) | 0.0101 | 0.0004 | 0.0022 |
x(18) | 0.0086 | 0.0003 | 0.0017 |
x(20) | 0.0075 | 0.0002 | 0.0014 |
λ1 | λ2 | λ3 | λ4 | λ5 | λ6 | λ7 | λ8 | λ9 | λ10 | |
DFSL | −0.904 | −0.859 | −0.811 | −0.262 | −0.157 | −0.079 | −0.029 | −0.003 | 0.982 | |
FSL | −0.497 | −0.383 | −0.283 | −0.196 | −0.124 | −0.066 | −0.026 | −0.003 | 0 | ... |
DSL | −1.450 | −0.689 | −0.469 | −0.310 | −0.194 | −0.112 | −0.055 | −0.019 | −0.002 | |
CSL | −0.163 | −0.128 | −0.098 | −0.072 | −0.050 | −0.032 | −0.008 | −0.002 | 0 |
λ1 | λ2 | λ3 | λ4 | λ5 | λ6 | λ7 | λ8 | λ9 | λ10 | |
DFSL | −0.866 | −0.813 | −0.200 | −0.115 | −0.057 | −0.020 | −0.002 | 0 | 0.982 | |
FSL | −0.456 | −0.343 | −0.246 | −0.165 | −0.100 | −0.051 | −0.018 | −0.002 | 0 | ... |
DSL | −1.450 | −0.689 | −0.469 | −0.310 | −0.194 | −0.112 | −0.055 | −0.019 | −0.002 | ... |
CSL | −0.163 | −0.128 | −0.098 | −0.072 | −0.050 | −0.032 | −0.008 | −0.002 | 0 |