Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 34 references

The discontinuous planar piecewise linear system with two nodes has at most two limit cycles

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that a discontinuous planar piecewise linear system with two node-type linear subsystems has at most two limit cycles, counted with multiplicity.

desk verdict Closes the node-node upper bound at two, matching the known lower bound; the result is credible but the proof's computer-assisted lemmas need certification and the main theorem should state its hypotheses. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07716 v1 pith:24RS6Y5E submitted 2025-06-09 math.DS math.CA

Lu Chen , Changjian Liu This is my paper
classification math.DSmath.CA MSC 34A3634C0737G15
keywords piecewiselinearsystemlimitcyclenodetypesuccessorfunctionPoincaréhalfmapmultiplicityupperbounddiscontinuousdynamical
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Planar discontinuous systems that switch between two linear laws at a straight line are a test bed for a piecewise version of Hilbert's 16th problem. This paper settles the node-node case: when both linear subsystems have a real eigenvalue pair of the same sign (a node), the system has at most two limit cycles, counted with multiplicity. Earlier constructions had already produced two limit cycles in this class, so the new result makes two the exact maximum. The proof works by encoding the periodic orbits as zeros of a successor function and showing both that no zero can have multiplicity beyond two and that the zeros cannot be arranged three at a time.

What carries the argument

The central object is the successor function $d(y_0;b)=P_R^{-1}(y_0;b)-P_L(y_0)$, built from the left Poincaré half map and the inverse right Poincaré half map; its roots in the admissible interval are exactly the crossing limit cycles, with root multiplicity matching cycle multiplicity. For the multiplicity bound, the proof rewrites $d'(y_0;b)=F(v_R,\gamma_R)-F(v_L,\gamma_L)$ and $d''(y_0;b)=[G(v_R,\gamma_R)-G(v_L,\gamma_L)]/M$, where $v=e^t$, $u=v^\gamma$, and $F,G$ are explicit rational functions. The sign analysis of $G(v_R,\gamma_R)-G(v_L,\gamma_L)$ under the constraint $F(v_R,\gamma_R)=F(v_L,\gamma_L)$ is reduced through an expression of the form $H(v,\gamma)=H_1\ln v+H_2$ to the sign of a polynomial $H_3(u,v,\gamma)$; large polynomial lemmas certified by computer algebra control the root structure of $H_3$ and force monotonicity of $H/H_1$, yielding the sign of $d''$ at any doubled root. The counting argument is carried by continuation of roots of $d$ in $b$: a branch of zeros must run from one boundary of the parameter region to another, and the boundary signs rule out three coexisting zeros.

What would settle it

Find a parameter set with $\gamma_L>0>\gamma_R$, $\alpha_L>0>\alpha_R$, $|\gamma_{L,R}|>1$, and some $b$ for which the successor function $d(y_0;b)$ has three zeros on its admissible interval, or one zero of multiplicity three; that would refute Theorem 1.1. A cheaper algebraic test is a certified root count of the polynomial $H_3(u,v,\gamma)$ in the region $1<v<u$, $u>u_*\approx 75.5$: if for some $(u,v)$ it has two sign-changing roots in $\gamma>1$, or if $R_2(u,v)$ and $\partial R_2/\partial v$ share a zero in that region, the monotonicity argument behind the multiplicity bound fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper proves Theorem 1.1: system (1), a planar piecewise linear system split by the line $x=0$ into two linear subsystems each of node type ($N N$), has at most two limit cycles, counting the multiplicities of the limit cycles. After reducing to a four-parameter canonical form with $\alpha_L>0>\alpha_R$ and $|\gamma_{L,R}|>1$, the paper forms the successor function $d(y_0;b)=P_R^{-1}(y_0;b)-P_L(y_0)$ on the admissible interval; a zero of $d$ is a periodic orbit, and its multiplicity as a root is the multiplicity of the limit cycle. The core technical statement is Theorem 3.5: whenever a doubled zero occurs, its second derivative has a definite nonzero sign controlled by $\gamma_L+\gamma_R$, so a multiplicity-two limit cycle is semi-stable and its internal/external stability type is determined by the sign of the sum of the eigenvalue parameters; with $\gamma_L+\gamma_R=0$ no non-hyperbolic cycle exists. The counting theorems then show that three zeros cannot coexist by following each zero's monotonic branch in the $(y_0,b)$ plane until it must hit a boundary where the successor function has a fixed nonzero sign.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the computer-assisted root claims for the large polynomials in the lemmas are correct, including a uniqueness conclusion sampled at only two parameter points, and that the standard reduction to the simplified normal form, which requires the off-diagonal coefficients of the two subsystems to share a sign, applies to every system covered by the theorem.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The node-node entry of the classification table is now an equality: the maximum number of crossing limit cycles is exactly two.
  • A multiplicity-two limit cycle can appear only as a semi-stable cycle, with its internal and external stability determined by the sign of $\gamma_L+\gamma_R$; when $\gamma_L+\gamma_R=0$, all periodic orbits are hyperbolic and there is at most one.
  • Because the cited companion result rules out sliding periodic orbits in this system, the bound of two also holds for the total number of limit cycles, not just the crossing ones.
  • At parameter values satisfying $\Delta_1<0<\Delta_2$, the paper gives a complete $b$-bifurcation picture: no cycles, then one unstable cycle, then two nested hyperbolic cycles, and finally one semi-stable cycle that annihilates them.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the computer-assisted polynomial lemmas are independently certified, the same branch-continuation technique is a plausible template for the remaining open node-improper-node case and for lowering the general upper bound case by case.
  • The threshold $u_*\approx 75.5$ is internal to the proof's polynomial estimates, so a purely analytic proof of Theorem 3.5 might remove it and reveal why the sign dichotomy controlled by $\gamma_L+\gamma_R$ is a structural rather than computational fact.
  • A numerical search outside the canonical parameters, checking that the two-cycle bound and the $\gamma_L+\gamma_R$ sign rule persist, would provide a cheap test of the hidden normal-form condition behind the canonical reduction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that every planar discontinuous piecewise linear system with two linear node subsystems, separated by a straight line, has at most two limit cycles counting multiplicity. The proof reduces a general system to a canonical form (2), constructs Poincaré half-maps for the left and right subsystems, and studies the successor function d(y0;b). The main technical result is Theorem 3.5, which asserts that the multiplicity of any limit cycle is at most two; its proof, given in Section 4, reduces to showing that a certain pair of equations (16) in the variables (vL,γL,vR,γR) has no solution. This reduction relies on several computer-algebra lemmas (Lemmas 4.1–4.3) that establish sign properties and root-counting statements for large polynomials. The paper then uses Theorem 3.5 to prove Theorems 3.6–3.9, which together are intended to imply the final upper bound of two limit cycles.

Significance. If the result is correct, it settles the NN case of the upper-bound problem for planar discontinuous piecewise linear systems, matching the known lower bound of two and improving on the general upper bound of eight obtained by Carmona et al. The use of Poincaré half-maps and a successor function is appropriate and the paper makes explicit contact with prior results in the field. The manuscript includes large explicit polynomial expressions and invokes certified algorithms such as Sturm sequences and RealRootIsolate for some subclaims, which is a strength. However, the central multiplicity theorem depends on computational lemmas whose proofs contain sample checks and a figure-based continuity argument; the treatment of the separating curve in Lemma 4.3 is not rigorous and is load-bearing. The theorem statement also omits an explicit hypothesis required by the canonical reduction and does not clearly restrict the conclusion to crossing limit cycles.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, Lemma 4.3] The proof of Lemma 4.3 is not rigorous in its treatment of the curve R2 = 0, and this gap is load-bearing for Theorem 3.5. The resultant Res(H3, ∂H3/∂γ, γ) is proportional to R2(u,v), so on the curve R2 = 0 the polynomial H3 and its γ-derivative can have a common root, i.e., a multiple root in γ. The proof argues that if H3 had two sign-changing zeros on the curve, then nearby in Q1 or Q2 it would have two sign-changing zeros, contradicting the uniqueness established at the sample points. This inference is invalid for the case of two simple roots that coalesce into a double root on the curve: such a double root need not persist as two real roots in Q1 or Q2, and in fact the double root can be a local minimum of H3 with H3 ≥ 0 in a neighborhood, which would violate the conclusion H3 ≤ 0 needed in Section 4.2. Since the monotonicity of H/H1, and consequently the sign of dG/dγ and the bound on d''(y*), all require H3 ≤ 0 on the entire domain including the curve, Lemma 4.3 must be repaired before Theorem 3.5 is established.
  2. [Theorem 1.1] The statement of Theorem 1.1 is broader than what is proved. Section 2 explicitly states that the canonical form (2) is equivalent to system (1) only under the necessary condition a−12 · a+12 > 0, but Theorem 1.1 does not include this condition. Moreover, the introduction restricts the study to crossing limit cycles, and the proof analyzes only the successor function for crossing cycles; the later remark citing [34] about the absence of sliding limit cycles applies to system (3), not directly to the general system (1). The theorem should be restated with the explicit hypotheses a−12 · a+12 > 0 and 'crossing limit cycles', or the authors should justify that the conclusion holds without them.
  3. [Section 3, Theorem 3.10 and proof of Theorem 1.1] The logical organization of the main proof is defective. After Theorem 3.9 the text states that Theorem 1.1 can be proved from the preceding theorems, but no explicit proof of Theorem 1.1 is given; instead Theorem 3.10 is stated and proved, and its proof invokes 'Theorem 1.1' to assert that the system has at most two limit cycles. This is a forward reference that creates a circular dependency if Theorem 3.10 is meant to be part of the proof of Theorem 1.1. The authors should either prove Theorem 1.1 directly from Theorems 3.2 and 3.6–3.9 before presenting Theorem 3.10, or clearly state that Theorem 3.10 is a separate result whose proof is conditional on Theorem 1.1.
  4. [Section 4.1, Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2] The proofs of Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2 rely on a continuity argument that is only illustrated by a figure and not rigorously justified. In Lemma 4.1, the assertion that a hypothetical root of R1 for some u < u* would force a parameter value u0 where R1 and ∂R1/∂v have a common root is plausible but requires a precise argument using the resultant and the structure of the domain; the same issue appears in Lemma 4.2, where uniqueness for all u > u* is inferred from the uniqueness at u = 76 by 'continuous dependence on u'. These gaps are less severe than the one in Lemma 4.3 because they concern polynomial root counts where certified algorithms could be applied, but they should be written as complete proofs rather than appeals to a figure.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical and terminology issues: 'contracts' should be 'contradicts' in the proof of Theorem 3.6; 'inner unstable' should be 'internally unstable' in Theorem 3.6; in the proof of Theorem 3.10, 'y(b)0(b)' appears to be a typo for 'y(2)0(b)'; and the notation 'dG(vL,γL)/dγL' should be defined consistently with the earlier dG/dγ.
  2. [Section 4.1, Lemma 4.3] The regions Q1 and Q2 are defined by the sign of R2, but the proof never explicitly establishes that these regions are connected. Since the uniqueness at two sample points is only transferred to all points by a local-constancy argument, connectedness of each region is needed and should be stated and proved.
  3. [Section 3, Theorem 3.8] The proof of Theorem 3.8 is omitted with the comment that it is similar to the case b > 0. The authors should at least outline the argument for b < 0, since the boundary behavior and the signs of the derivatives differ in that case.
  4. [Appendix] Several of the explicit polynomial expressions, such as H3(v, γ = 2) and R1(u = 74, v), are extremely long and would benefit from being machine-readable or being accompanied by the Maple code used for the computations, so that the reader can verify the Sturm and resultant claims.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No substantive circularity; one local self-reference in the proof of Theorem 3.10 does not support the main upper bound.

  1. other [Proof of Theorem 3.10, Section 3]
    "By Theorem 3.3, 3.4 and 1.1, system (3) has exactly two limit cycles y0 = y(1)0(b) and y0 = y(2)0(b) for a given 0 < b << 1, where y(1)0(b) < y(2)0(b), d'(y(1)0(b); b) < 0 and d'(y(2)0(b); b) > 0."

    In the proof of Theorem 3.10, the conclusion that system (3) has exactly two limit cycles for small positive b is justified by citing Theorem 1.1, the main at-most-two theorem, whose independent proof has not yet been supplied. Thus, for Theorem 3.10, the global bound being illustrated is fed back in as an input. This is a genuine but local self-referential dependency: the passage is not used to prove Theorems 3.5-3.9 or Theorem 1.1, so it does not make the central upper-bound claim self-supporting.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The proof of Theorem 3.5 reduces the sign of d'' to the sign of G(vR,gammaR)-G(vL,gammaL) under F(vR,gammaR)=F(vL,gammaL), then to the monotonicity of a univariate function controlled by H3. The lemmas controlling H3 (Lemmas 4.1-4.3) use Maple sturm, fsolve, RealRootIsolate, and continuity arguments at sample points. These are computational verifications rather than fitted inputs or predictions: no parameter is fitted to a subset of the target phenomenon and then renamed a prediction. The Poincare half-map properties are quoted from standard sources ([10], [31]), and although the paper self-cites [8] and [30], those results (refracting uniqueness and improper-node upper bound) are not the source of the two-node upper bound. The only circular dependency found is the local forward reference in the proof of Theorem 3.10, which is not load-bearing for the main theorem. Concerns about the rigor of Lemma 4.3's sample-point inference and the unstated condition a-12*a+12>0 in the canonical reduction are correctness risks, not circularity. Overall circularity score: 1.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proof imports the canonical form, half-map properties, and two theorems from prior literature, and introduces computational polynomial claims that are not machine-verified.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption System (1) is topologically equivalent to canonical form (2) for counting crossing limit cycles, provided a−12·a+12 > 0.
    Section 2, before equation (2). This restricts the theorem to systems satisfying this sign condition; the theorem statement does not mention it.
  • domain assumption Poincaré half-map properties in Propositions 2.2 and 2.3 (monotonicity, asymptotes, concavity, Taylor coefficients) are taken from Huan and Yang [10].
    Used throughout Section 3; not re-proved in this paper.
  • domain assumption Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 3.2 from Huan and Yang [10] for the refracting case b=0 and for γLγR>0, b≠0.
    Section 3; these cover the cases not newly proven here.
  • ad hoc to paper Maple built-in commands 'sturm', 'fsolve', 'RealRootIsolate' and resultant computations used in Lemmas 4.1-4.3 are correct, and the conclusions drawn from them (unique roots, no common roots) are valid.
    Section 4.1; no code or certificate is shipped, and the proofs rely on finitely many sample evaluations plus a continuity argument.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The discontinuous planar piecewise linear system with two nodes has at most two limit cycles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/24RS6Y5E

@misc{pith2026250607716,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The discontinuous planar piecewise linear system with two nodes has at most two limit cycles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/24RS6Y5E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07716}
}
read the original abstract

This paper investigates the multiplicity and the number of limit cycles for planar piecewise linear system divided into two regions by a straight line and each linear subsystem has a node. Through constructing Poincare half maps and a successor function, and analyzing the properties of the successor function, we can derive that this system has at most two limit cycles, counting the multiplicities of limit cycles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07716 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A stable limit cycle Ly ∗ 0 throughing (0, y∗ 0 ) T of system (3) for fixed b 3 The multiplicity and number of limit cycles of system (3) Firstly, we present three crucial parameters ∆1 = γL αL − γR αR , ∆2 = αR γR − 1 − αL γL + 1 , ∆3 = αR γR + 1 − αL γL − 1 . (13) When b = 0, system (3) is a refracting system with two nodes. The number and the existence of limit cycles of such a system have been obtained in Theore… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The graph of Ω for b > 0 Then we will study the sign of d(y0; b) on some boundaries of Ω. According to Proposition 2.5 (i), on the boundary {y0 = b}, we have d(b; b) = d(b − b; 0) + b = d(0; 0) + b = b > 0. On the boundary {b = 0}, it is known that d(y0; 0) has at most one zero. On the boundary {y0 = αR γR−1+b}, we have lim y0→ αR γR−1 +b P −1 R (y0; b) = −∞. Since lim y0→ αL γL+1 PL(y0) = −∞ and αR γR−1 + b < αL γL… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The graph of Ω for b < 0 (2) When αL γL+1 < αR γR−1 , there exists a unique b = ¯b, we have yM 0 = αL γL+1 for b ≥ ¯b and yM 0 = αR γR−1 + b for b < ¯b (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Diagram of the function R1(u, v) for a given 1 < u < u∗ . (ii) When u > u∗ , fixing u = 76 > u∗ , we find that R1(76, v) (see Appendix) has a unique root v ∗ by utilizing the Maple built-in command ’sturm’. Similar to case (i), this indicates that R1(u, v) has a unique…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Qualitative Theory of Dynamical Systems, 2020, 19(1): 1-22

    Li T, Chen X W, Periodic orbits of linear Filippov systems with a line of discontinuity. Qualitative Theory of Dynamical Systems, 2020, 19(1): 1-22

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    Immirzi, 1966

    Andronov A A, Vitt A A, Khaikin S E, Theory of oscillators, Addison-Wesley, translated from the Russian by F. Immirzi, 1966

    work page 1966

  3. [2]

    Kuznetsov Y A, Rinaldi S, Gragnani A, One-parameter bifurcations in planar Filippov systems, International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 2003, 13(08): 2157-2188

    work page 2003

  4. [3]

    Bernardo M, Budd C, Champneys A R, et al, Piecewise-smooth dynamical systems: theory and applications, Springer Science and Business Media, 2008

    work page 2008

  5. [4]

    Part I: Simplest case in R2, International Journal of Circuit Theory and Applications, 1991, 19(3): 251-307

    Lum R, Chua L O, Global properties of continuous piecewise linear vector fields. Part I: Simplest case in R2, International Journal of Circuit Theory and Applications, 1991, 19(3): 251-307

    work page 1991

  6. [5]

    Freire E, Ponce E, Rodrigo F, et al, Bifurcation sets of continuous piecewise linear systems with two zones, International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 1998, 8(11): 2073-2097

    work page 1998

  7. [6]

    Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013: 221-232

    Freire E, Ponce E, Torres F, Planar Filippov systems with maximal crossing set and piecewise linear focus dynamics, Progress and Challenges in Dynamical Systems: Proceedings of the International Conference Dynamical Systems: 100 Years after Poincar´ e, September 2012, Gij´ on, Spain. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013: 221-232

    work page 2012

  8. [7]

    Medrado J C, Torregrosa J, Uniqueness of limit cycles for sewing planar piecewise linear systems, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 2015, 431(1): 529-544

    work page 2015

Show all 34 references
  1. [8]

    Li S M, Liu C J, Llibre J, The planar discontinuous piecewise linear refracting systems have at most one limit cycle, Nonlinear Analysis: Hybrid Systems, 2021, 41: 101045

    2021

  2. [9]

    Huan S M, Yang X S, Existence of limit cycles in general planar piecewise linear systems of saddle-saddle dynamics, Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods and Applications, 2013, 92: 82-95

    2013

  3. [10]

    Huan S M, Yang X S, On the number of limit cycles in general planar piecewise linear systems of node-node types, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 2014, 411(1): 340-353

    2014

  4. [11]

    Wang J F, Chen X Y, Huang L H, The number and stability of limit cycles for planar piecewise linear systems of node-saddle type, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 2019, 469(1): 405-427

    2019

  5. [12]

    Wang J F, Huang C X, Huang L H, Discontinuity-induced limit cycles in a general planar piecewise linear system of saddle-focus type, Nonlinear Analysis: Hybrid Systems, 2019, 33: 162-178

    2019

  6. [13]

    Ap- plication to the analysis of memristor oscillators, Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications, 2018, 43: 495-514

    Ponce E, Ros J, Vela E, The boundary focus-saddle bifurcation in planar piecewise linear systems. Ap- plication to the analysis of memristor oscillators, Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications, 2018, 43: 495-514

    2018

  7. [14]

    Li T, Chen H B, Chen X W, Crossing periodic orbits of nonsmooth Li´ enard systems and applications, Nonlinearity, 2020, 33(11): 5817-5838

    2020

  8. [15]

    Carmona V, Fern´ andez-S´ anchez F, Novaes D D, Uniqueness and stability of limit cycles in planar piecewise linear differential systems without sliding region, Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 2023, 123: 107257

    2023

  9. [16]

    Dynamics of Continuous, Discrete and Impulsive Systems-series B: Applications and Algorithms, 2012, 19(3): 325-335

    Llibre J, Ponce E, Three nested limit cycles in discontinuous piecewise linear differential systems with two zones. Dynamics of Continuous, Discrete and Impulsive Systems-series B: Applications and Algorithms, 2012, 19(3): 325-335

    2012

  10. [17]

    Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2013, 33(9): 3915-3936

    Buzzi C, Pessoa C, Torregrosa J, Piecewise linear perturbations of a linear center. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2013, 33(9): 3915-3936

    2013

  11. [18]

    Freire E, Ponce E, Torres F, A general mechanism to generate three limit cycles in planar Filippov systems with two zones, Nonlinear Dynamics, 2014, 78(1): 251-263

    2014

  12. [19]

    Pessoa C, Ribeiro R, Limit cycles of planar piecewise linear Hamiltonian differential systems with two or three zones, Electronic Journal of Qualitative Theory of Differential Equations, 2022, 27: 1-19

    2022

  13. [20]

    Llibre J, Zhang X, Limit cycles for discontinuous planar piecewise linear differential systems separated by one straight line and having a center, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 2018, 467(1): 537-549

    2018

  14. [21]

    Li S M, Llibre J, On the limit cycles of planar discontinuous piecewise linear differential systems with a unique equilibrium, Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems-Series B, 2017, 22(11): 1-17

    2017

  15. [22]

    Giannakopoulos F, Pliete K, Planar systems of piecewise linear differential equations with a line of discon- tinuity, Nonlinearity, 2001, 14(6): 1611-1632

    2001

  16. [23]

    Giannakopoulos F, Pliete K, Closed trajectories in planar relay feedback systems, Dynamical Systems, 2002, 17(4): 343-358. 29

    2002

  17. [24]

    Llibre J, Novaes D D, Teixeira M A, Limit cycles bifurcating from the periodic orbits of a discontinuous piecewise linear differentiable center with two zones, International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 2015, 25(11): 1550144:1-1550144:11

    2015

  18. [25]

    Llibre J, Novaes D D, Teixeira M A, Maximum number of limit cycles for certain piecewise linear dynamical systems, Nonlinear Dynamics, 2015, 82(3): 1159-1175

    2015

  19. [26]

    Llibre J, Teixeira M A, Piecewise linear differential systems without equilibria produce limit cycles, Nonlinear Dynamics, 2017, 88: 157-164

    2017

  20. [27]

    Carmona V, Fern´ andez-S´ anchez F, Novaes D D, Uniform upper bound for the number of limit cycles of planar piecewise linear differential systems with two zones separated by a straight line, Applied Mathematics Letters, 2023, 137: 108501

    2023

  21. [28]

    Carmona V, Fern´ andez-S´ anchez F, Integral characterization for Poincar´ e half-maps in planar linear systems, Journal of Differential Equations, 2021, 305: 319-346

    2021

  22. [29]

    Carmona V, Fern´ andez-S´ anchez F, Novaes D D, A new simple proof for Lum-Chua’s conjecture, Nonlinear Analysis: Hybrid Systems, 2021, 40: 100992

    2021

  23. [30]

    The discontinuous planar piecewise linear systems with two improper nodes have at most one limit cycle, Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications, 2024, 80: 104180

    Chen L, Liu C J. The discontinuous planar piecewise linear systems with two improper nodes have at most one limit cycle, Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications, 2024, 80: 104180

    2024

  24. [31]

    Freire E, Ponce E, Torres F, Canonical discontinuous planar piecewise linear systems, SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, 2012, 11(1): 181-211

    2012

  25. [32]

    Kuznetsov Y A, Rinaldi S, Gragnani A, One-Parameter Bifurcations in Planar Filippov Systems, Interna- tional Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 2003, 13(08): 2157-2188

    2003

  26. [33]

    International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 2018, 28(13): 1850166

    Dai Y F, Zhao Y L, Hopf cyclicity and global dynamics for a predator-prey system of Leslie type with simplified Holling type IV functional response. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 2018, 28(13): 1850166

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.