R OSKILDE UNIVERSITY

Dynamical systems Hand-in 1

Goran Prpic
October 13, 2020
1 Deriving the general solution of the Logistic equa-
tion

We start with the equation presented on page 4 of the book:

dx x
= ax(1 − ) (1.1)
dt N
Where our goal is to find x. To begin, we will separate the variables:
Z Z
dx
x = adt (1.2)
x(1 − N )

Before I continue I will prove that:

1 1 1
x = − (1.3)
x(1 − N) x x−N

We can demonstrate this by trying to bring the form on the right-side under a
single denominator:

1 1 x−N −x −N
− = = (1.4)
x x−N x(x − N ) x(x − N )
By bringing the −N to the denominator we get:

−N 1
= x (1.5)
x(x − N ) x(1 − N)

Which completes the proof. This helps because it means we can write the left
integral in 1.2 as:
Z Z Z
dx dx
− = adt (1.6)
x x−N
or:
Z Z Z
dx dx
+ = adt (1.7)
x N −x
The difference may seem unimportant but turns out to be essential if we want a
complete image of the equation. The following may seem confusing or worrisome
at first, but the important thing to note is that it gets resolved by the end. For future
reference, I will always write any appearing constants as K. I will therefore find the
anti-derivatives of both equations 1.6 and 1.7:

ln(x) − ln(x − N ) = at + K (1.8)

2
 ln(x) − ln(N − x) = at + K (1.9)

It may appear strange that the minus on the left is in both equations. But the
reader can verify that these are the correct anti-derivatives in both cases by simple
derivation. To write them as one, I will say:

ln(x) − ln(±(N − x)) = at + K (1.10)

x
ln = at + K (1.11)
±(N − x)
We then take the exponential of 1.11 and continue to search for x:

x
= Keat (1.12)
±(N − x)

x = ∓xKeat ± N Keat (1.13)

x(1 ± Keat ) = ±N Keat (1.14)

±N Keat
x= (1.15)
1 ± Keat
We bring the ± to the denominator, writing our final equation as:

N Keat
x(t, N ) = (1.16)
Keat ± 1
If we have a determined starting condition:

x(0, N ) = x0 (1.17)

We can determine the constant K through equation 1.12:

x0
Kea0 = K = (1.18)
±(N − x0 )
And then plug it into equation 1.16:

x0 at
±(N −x0 ) N e
x(t, N ) = x0 at
(1.19)
±(N −x0 ) e ± 1

The ± will go out as a result of division. We then bring the numerator’s (N − x0 )

to the denominator to get:

3
 x0 N eat
x(t, N ) = (1.20)
x0 eat + N − x0
This completes the derivation.
If, back at equations 1.8 and 1.9 we were to be determined to only use one, we
would have to limit ourselves to only a set range of x. Either that when x is less than
the carrying capacity N , or when x is larger than the carrying capacity. However, as
we have shown, either way will lead to the same result. So it is of no essence to
worry over equations 1.8 and 1.9. Of course, both x and t are in a range of equal or
greater than 0, as it only makes sense to speak of these in terms of zero and positive
numbers.

2 A specific case
For the specific case of:

1
x0 = (2.1)
2
We just plug it into our result (equation 1.20):

1 at
2Ne
x(t, N ) = 1 at 1 (2.2)
2e + N − 2

For N = 1 it is:

eat
x(t, 1) = (2.3)
eat + 1
As the halves cancel out.

3 Figures of different systems of this form

To visualize the system of equations, but also to confirm my notion of not having to
worry over the range of x. I will present the following figures:
The fact that the equation 1.20 can go for the whole range of x (depending on N
and x0 of course) confirms that there is no issue in our derivation. If anything, we can
interpret the differences in equations 1.8 and 1.9 as pointing out the differences of
the two kinds of growth functions that can occur; one increasing towards the carrying
capacity, and the other decreasing towards it.

4
Figure 3.1: A figure of the specific solution in section 2. We assume both N and a to
be 1

Figure 3.2: Conditions are: N = 10, a = 1, and x0 = 15; 10; and 5, going from left to
right

Figure 3.3: Conditions are: N = 1000, a = 5; 1.2; and 0.2, and x0 = 5; 50000; and
5000, going from left to right

4 Dynamics of the equation as time goes on forever

In every case, as t goes to ∞, x will tend to N . We can showcase this as a simple

limit of x(t, N ):

x0 N eat
lim x(t, N ) = lim (4.1)
t→∞ t→∞ x0 eat
+ N − x0
Of course, we are talking about population growth this whole time. So a is positive.
This means that the limit, by default leaves an indefinite form of infinity over infinity.

5
We circumvent this by bringing the exponential in the numerator to the denominator:

x0 N
lim x(t, N ) = lim at (4.2)
t→∞ t→∞ x0 e +N −x0
eat

x0 N
lim x(t, N ) = lim (4.3)
t→∞ t→∞ x0 + N −x 0
eat

From this, it should be clear that the part that is devided by the exponential will go
to 0 as t approaches infinity (for any finite population of course). Leaving us with:

x0 N
lim x(t, N ) = =N (4.4)
t→∞ x0
Which confirms our expectations and intuitions we would suspect by looking at
the initial, given equation. It also confirms that the system tends this way no matter
our choice of x0 , which further removes suspicion for equations 1.8 and 1.9.