Team:Paris/Network analysis and design/Core system/Mathematical analysis and simulations/Mathematical analysis

From 2008.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(Navigator)
(Navigator)
Line 75: Line 75:
-
<center>[[Team:Paris/Network_analysis_and_design/Core_system|Back to the overall presentation of our system and model]]</center>     
+
<center>[[Team:Paris/Network_analysis_and_design/Core_system|Back to the overall presentation of our system and model]]</center>
 +
<center>[[Team:Paris/Network_analysis_and_design/Core_system/Mathematical_analysis_and_simulations|Back to the Mathematical analysis and simulations section]]</center>     
<center>[[Team:Paris/Network_analysis_and_design/Core_system/Mathematical_analysis_and_simulations/Mathematical_analysis#Understanding_the_dynamics|Top of the page]]</center>
<center>[[Team:Paris/Network_analysis_and_design/Core_system/Mathematical_analysis_and_simulations/Mathematical_analysis#Understanding_the_dynamics|Top of the page]]</center>

Revision as of 13:02, 26 October 2008


Mathematical analysis


Understanding the dynamics

  • Theory introduction

The classical approach consists in finding the equilibrium state, by setting

Math0bis.jpg

Then, we evaluate the jacobian matrix, so as to put the system under its linearized form:

Matrix truebis.jpg


Where [EnvZ]* represents the equilibirum state of [EnvZ] and :

Def fbis.jpg

which gives :

Math1.jpg
Math2bis.jpg

Then, we want to find the eigenvalues of the jacobian matrix, because they make us understand the behavior of the system. Here is the theoretical explanation :

DE1.jpg
DE2.jpg
DE3.jpg
DE4.jpg
DE5.jpg

The λ and γ coefficients make the convergence. In our case they are negative terms, which explains the fact that we have a quick convergence for the system. Ideally, it could be convenient to find which parameter influence this coefficient, so as to play with it and be able to propose a better control of the convergence.
The μ coefficient is responsible for the oscillations. In fact, in another base, with only real matrix, this would beget cosinuses and sinuses terms. Furthermore, it is strongly linked to the period of the oscillations.

  • Comparison of the simulation and theoretical periods
We can hereby prove that the small oscillations observed before are not induced by a simulation artefact, by evaluating the theoretical value of the period. Indeed, we have:
Period.jpg
With the parameters presented in the array before, we have evaluated the equilibrium values by solving
Math0bis.jpg

We obtained three solutions :

-0.2382 - 0.6139i

-0.2382 + 0.6139i

0.4764

We are only interested in positive real solutions. We can note that 0.4764 corresponds well to the experimental equilibrium value. Then we evaluated the eigenvalues for the jacobian :

-1.0159 + 0.5042i

-1.0159 - 0.5042i

-0.1111

We can note that the λ and γ coefficient are negative, which corroborates the fact that we obtain a convergence.

Finally for
Period.jpg
since μ=0.5042 we find a theoretical period of Ttheoretical=12.4617. Experimentally, we find Texperimental~10. We can see that some numerical noise must be involved, which gives the reading of the period quite tough. However, we get the same order of magnitude, which proves that the oscillations are occuring, though quietly!
  • Understanding the attenuation

Furthermore, this theoretical study helps us understand that reducing the attenuation is tough. In fact, whatever the base in which you consider a matrix, the trace is conserved. Here, we obtain :

Trace matrix.jpg

Since λ and γ are assumed (thanks to simulations) to be negative, we cannot avoid to have their sum to be (with absolute value) superior to 2. The only chance we have would be that the weight goes in the λ parameter because this parameter plays a role in the third dimension, in which we are not interested. However, for every simulation we made, we found the opposite. Trying to evaluate with non-numerical calculus does not provide relevant material.

However, we now know that βFliA influences the attenuation. We ran a simulation with βFliA=0.02

Damped BliA.jpg

This confirms what we saw previously. In this second case, the system is therefore less attenuated, and some very tiny damped oscillations can be observed.

Last but not least, one should not forget that we chose a normalized interpretation of the system. Thus, even though the attenuation phenomenon remains unchanged, the tiny oscillations we see may indeed be observable.

Navigator

Back to the overall presentation of our system and model
Back to the Mathematical analysis and simulations section
Top of the page