Hartman-Grobman and Hyperbolicity

Near a fixed point, can we replace a complicated nonlinear system by its linear approximation? Can we trust the resulting picture? This question sits at the heart of qualitative dynamics. Almost no interesting differential equation can be solved in closed form. Yet we routinely draw phase portraits as if linearization were the whole truth. The Hartman–Grobman theorem answers this precisely. It guarantees that near a hyperbolic fixed point, the nonlinear flow is topologically the same as its linearization. So the local phase portrait — saddle, node, spiral — is not an artifact of approximation. It is a genuine feature of the nonlinear system. The theorem also draws a sharp boundary. At nonhyperbolic points (a center, or any equilibrium with an eigenvalue on the imaginary axis), linearization can be catastrophically wrong. Only nonlinear terms decide the true behavior. This matters because it tells us exactly when the tools built for linear systems transfer to the nonlinear world. These tools include eigenvalues, the Classification of Planar Fixed Points, and stable and unstable subspaces. It also tells us when these tools do not transfer. It converts a computational shortcut (linearize, find eigenvalues, read off the type) into a theorem with hypotheses. So using it becomes a justified inference rather than a guess. The line between hyperbolic and nonhyperbolic equilibria matters greatly. It separates "structurally robust" behavior from behavior that small perturbations can destroy. The big picture is a bridge between two worlds. One is the algebraic world of matrices and eigenvalues. The other is the topological/geometric world of flows and trajectories. Hartman–Grobman shows these worlds agree locally, up to a continuous (generally non-differentiable) change of coordinates. This agreement holds exactly when the linear part has no eigenvalues on the imaginary axis. This article states the theorem carefully. It proves the easier and most instructive direction of the story in full rigor, for a companion result: linear stability implies nonlinear stability at hyperbolic sinks/sources, via the contraction/expansion estimate. It gives the precise statement and proof outline of Hartman–Grobman itself. It also shows — with an explicit, unfixable example — why hyperbolicity cannot be dropped. The article delivers the exact definitions of hyperbolic equilibrium and topological conjugacy. It gives the full statement of the Hartman–Grobman theorem. It includes a complete proof of the key linear-algebra estimate underlying it (the spectral gap / exponential dichotomy). It presents a worked linearization computation for a genuinely asymmetric nonlinear system. It offers a second worked example showing a saddle-node bifurcation of nonhyperbolic points. Finally, it gives a fully explicit counterexample (the center that becomes a stable or unstable spiral). This counterexample demonstrates that the hyperbolicity hypothesis cannot be removed.

Key takeaways
  • A fixed point is hyperbolic if the Jacobian there has no eigenvalue with zero real part.
  • Hartman–Grobman: near a hyperbolic point, the nonlinear flow is topologically conjugate to its linearization.
  • Conjugacy is only a homeomorphism, not a diffeomorphism — trajectory shapes are only preserved up to continuous distortion.
  • At nonhyperbolic points (eigenvalue on the imaginary axis, e.g. a center), linearization can be qualitatively wrong.
  • Hyperbolicity is also what makes an equilibrium's type robust to small perturbations of the vector field.
  • Centers are the classic failure mode: nonlinear terms can turn a linear center into a stable or unstable spiral.
  • Key idea: linearization is a faithful local model of a nonlinear flow exactly when no eigenvalue lies on the imaginary axis.

Where this lives today

In control engineering, hyperbolicity of an equilibrium under a feedback law justifies designing controllers using the linearized plant model, with guaranteed local validity for the true nonlinear plant. In population biology and epidemiology, hyperbolic equilibria of models (e.g. disease-free or endemic equilibria in SIR-type systems) allow eigenvalue sign analysis of the Jacobian to certify local stability, while nonhyperbolic thresholds (basic reproduction number R0=1R_0=1) signal bifurcations requiring nonlinear analysis. In numerical analysis, hyperbolicity underlies shadowing lemmas that justify trusting long numerical simulations of chaotic hyperbolic systems. In bifurcation theory more broadly (foreshadowing Stability Concepts and Definitions), the boundary of hyperbolicity — eigenvalues crossing the imaginary axis as a parameter varies — is precisely where saddle-node, transcritical, pitchfork, and Hopf bifurcations occur, so identifying nonhyperbolic points is the first step of any bifurcation analysis. In physics, hyperbolic fixed points of Hamiltonian and dissipative systems (from the inverted pendulum to chemical reaction networks) organize the surrounding phase space via their stable and unstable manifolds, whose existence and local structure are themselves consequences of hyperbolicity (via the closely related Stable Manifold Theorem). In cryptography and pseudo-random number generation, hyperbolic toral automorphisms (e.g. Arnold's cat map) rely on the discrete-time analogue (Grobman's theorem) to guarantee robust mixing properties insensitive to small perturbations.

Ask the tutor: How does the center-manifold reduction handle the case of a zero eigenvalue when Hartman–Grobman gives no information?

DefinitionHyperbolic equilibrium, linearization, and topological conjugacy

Let f:Rn→Rnf:\mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}^n be C1C^1 (continuously differentiable) and consider the autonomous system

x˙=f(x),x∈Rn.\dot{x} = f(x), \qquad x \in \mathbb{R}^n.

Suppose x∗x^* is an equilibrium: f(x∗)=0f(x^*) = 0. Let

A=Df(x∗)A = Df(x^*)

be the Jacobian matrix of ff at x∗x^*. The equilibrium x∗x^* is called hyperbolic if no eigenvalue of AA has zero real part, i.e.

Re⁡λ≠0for every eigenvalue λ of A.\operatorname{Re}\lambda \neq 0 \quad \text{for every eigenvalue } \lambda \text{ of } A.

If x∗x^* is not hyperbolic (some eigenvalue has Re⁡λ=0\operatorname{Re}\lambda = 0), it is called nonhyperbolic. The linearization of the system at x∗x^* is the linear system

y˙=Ay,y=x−x∗.\dot{y} = A y, \qquad y = x - x^*.

Let φt\varphi_t denote the flow of x˙=f(x)\dot x = f(x) and ψt(y)=eAty\psi_t(y) = e^{At}y the flow of the linearization. We say the two flows are topologically conjugate on neighborhoods UU of x∗x^* and VV of 00 if there is a homeomorphism (a continuous bijection with continuous inverse)

h:U→V,h(x∗)=0,h: U \to V, \qquad h(x^*) = 0,

such that for all x∈Ux \in U and all tt for which both sides are defined and remain in the respective neighborhoods,

h(φt(x))=ψt(h(x))=eAt h(x).h(\varphi_t(x)) = \psi_t(h(x)) = e^{At}\,h(x).

Conjugacy means hh carries trajectories of the nonlinear flow onto trajectories of the linear flow, preserving the time parametrization exactly.

Intuition

Picture the phase portrait of a linear system near the origin: for a saddle, trajectories rush in along one line and out along another, tracing hyperbola-like curves everywhere else. For a stable node they all curve into the origin tangent to the slow eigendirection; for a spiral they wind in or out log-spirally. The Hartman–Grobman theorem says that if you zoom in close enough to a hyperbolic equilibrium of a nonlinear system, what you see is a continuously warped version of exactly one of these linear pictures — never a fundamentally different shape. The warping (the homeomorphism hh) can bend straight lines into curves and destroy smoothness, but it cannot tear trajectories apart, create new ones, or change whether nearby orbits approach or flee the fixed point. The reason hyperbolicity is essential is that it produces a spectral gap: eigenvalues split into a group with Re⁡λ<0\operatorname{Re}\lambda < 0 and a group with Re⁡λ>0\operatorname{Re}\lambda > 0, giving genuine exponential contraction on a stable subspace and genuine exponential expansion on an unstable subspace. Nonlinear terms are only "higher order" corrections to these exponential rates, so for small displacements they cannot reverse the sign of the dominant behavior. But when an eigenvalue sits exactly on the imaginary axis, the linear part predicts neither growth nor decay along that direction — it is neutral, e.g. pure rotation. Then the nonlinear terms, however small, are the only thing left to decide whether trajectories spiral in, spiral out, or repeat forever, and different nonlinear systems with the same linearization can behave in all three ways.

Figure
Hyperbolic (saddle, node, spiral) vs. nonhyperbolic (center) eigenvalue placements in the complex plane
Re λ Im λ saddle: λ<0<λ node: λ1,λ2<0 spiral: λ=a±bi, a<0 center: λ=±bi imaginary axis →

Central results

TheoremHartman–Grobman Theorem

Let f:U0→Rnf: U_0 \to \mathbb{R}^n be C1C^1 on an open set U0⊂RnU_0 \subset \mathbb{R}^n, and let x∗∈U0x^*\in U_0 satisfy f(x∗)=0f(x^*)=0. Let A=Df(x∗)A = Df(x^*), and suppose x∗x^* is hyperbolic: no eigenvalue of AA has zero real part. Then there exist an open neighborhood U⊂U0U \subset U_0 of x∗x^*, an open neighborhood VV of 0∈Rn0 \in \mathbb{R}^n, and a homeomorphism h:U→Vh: U \to V with h(x∗)=0h(x^*)=0, such that hh conjugates the flow φt\varphi_t of x˙=f(x)\dot x = f(x) to the flow ψt(y)=eAty\psi_t(y) = e^{At} y of the linearization y˙=Ay\dot y = Ay: for every x∈Ux\in U and every tt such that φs(x)∈U\varphi_s(x) \in U for all ss between 00 and tt,

h(φt(x))=eAth(x).h(\varphi_t(x)) = e^{At} h(x).
LemmaSpectral splitting for a hyperbolic matrix

Let AA be a real n×nn\times n matrix with no eigenvalue on the imaginary axis. Then Rn=Es⊕Eu\mathbb{R}^n = E^s \oplus E^u, where EsE^s (the stable subspace) is the sum of real generalized eigenspaces for eigenvalues with Re⁡λ<0\operatorname{Re}\lambda<0, and EuE^u (the unstable subspace) is the sum for eigenvalues with Re⁡λ>0\operatorname{Re}\lambda>0; both are AA-invariant. Moreover there exist constants C≥1C\geq 1 and α>0\alpha>0 such that

∥eAtv∥≤Ce−αt∥v∥(t≥0, v∈Es),∥eAtv∥≤Ceαt∥v∥(t≤0, v∈Eu).\|e^{At}v\| \le C e^{-\alpha t}\|v\| \quad (t\ge 0,\ v\in E^s), \qquad \|e^{At}v\| \le C e^{\alpha t}\|v\| \quad (t\le 0,\ v\in E^u).
Proof

Technique: real Jordan/spectral decomposition, then direct estimation of the matrix exponential on each Jordan block. Since AA is a real matrix, its complex eigenvalues occur in conjugate pairs, and there is a real invertible matrix PP putting AA into real Jordan canonical form J=P−1APJ = P^{-1}AP, a block-diagonal matrix whose blocks correspond to real eigenvalues (ordinary Jordan blocks) or complex-conjugate pairs λ=a±bi\lambda = a\pm bi (real 2×22\times2 Jordan blocks with (a−bba)\begin{pmatrix}a&-b\\ b&a\end{pmatrix} on the diagonal and identity or zero blocks linking them). Group the blocks: let JsJ_s collect blocks with Re⁡λ<0\operatorname{Re}\lambda<0 and JuJ_u collect blocks with Re⁡λ>0\operatorname{Re}\lambda>0; since x∗x^* is hyperbolic there are no blocks with Re⁡λ=0\operatorname{Re}\lambda=0, so this exhausts all blocks. Define Es=P(span of coordinates of Js-blocks)E^s = P(\text{span of coordinates of } J_s\text{-blocks}) and EuE^u analogously. Because JJ is block diagonal, JsJ_s- and JuJ_u-coordinate subspaces are each invariant under JJ, hence (conjugating back by PP) Es,EuE^s,E^u are invariant under AA, and Rn=Es⊕Eu\mathbb{R}^n = E^s\oplus E^u since the Jordan blocks partition a basis of Rn\mathbb{R}^n. It remains to prove the exponential bounds. For a single Jordan block JkJ_k of size kk with real eigenvalue λ\lambda, we have Jk=λI+NJ_k = \lambda I + N where NN is nilpotent with Nk=0N^k=0 and NN commutes with λI\lambda I, so

eJkt=eλt∑j=0k−1tjj!Nj.e^{J_k t} = e^{\lambda t} \sum_{j=0}^{k-1} \frac{t^j}{j!} N^j .

Hence for t≥0t\ge0,

∥eJkt∥≤eλt∑j=0k−1tjj!∥N∥j=:eλt q(t),\|e^{J_k t}\| \le e^{\lambda t}\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}\frac{t^j}{j!}\|N\|^j =: e^{\lambda t}\,q(t),

where q(t)q(t) is a polynomial in tt with positive coefficients. Choose α\alpha with 0<α<−λ0<\alpha<-\lambda (possible since λ<0\lambda<0). Since e−(λ+α)t ⋅(const)e^{-(\lambda+\alpha)t}\,\cdot(\text{const}) dominates any fixed polynomial as t→∞t\to\infty when −(λ+α)<0-(\lambda+\alpha)<0 — indeed λ+α<0\lambda+\alpha<0 means e(λ+α)t→0e^{(\lambda+\alpha)t}\to 0 faster than q(t)→∞q(t)\to\infty — the function t↦e(λ+α)tq(t)t\mapsto e^{(\lambda+\alpha)t}q(t) is continuous on [0,∞)[0,\infty) and tends to 00 as t→∞t\to\infty, hence it is bounded by some Ck≥1C_k\ge1 on [0,∞)[0,\infty). Therefore

∥eJkt∥≤Ck e−αt(t≥0).\|e^{J_kt}\| \le C_k\, e^{-\alpha t} \qquad (t\ge 0).

The same argument with λ=a±bi\lambda = a\pm bi complex applies verbatim to the real 2×22\times2-block version, since ∥e(a−bba)t∥=eat\|e^{\begin{pmatrix}a&-b\\b&a\end{pmatrix}t}\| = e^{at} exactly (rotation matrices are orthogonal, hence norm 11), and eate^{at} satisfies the same bound with α<−a\alpha < -a. Taking C=max⁡kCkC = \max_k C_k over the finitely many blocks composing JsJ_s (a finite maximum, since there are finitely many blocks) and α=min⁡kαk\alpha = \min_k \alpha_k over these blocks (again a finite minimum, hence positive), block-diagonality gives, for v∈Esv\in E^s written in Jordan coordinates v=⨁vkv = \bigoplus v_k,

∥eJstv∥2=∑k∥eJktvk∥2≤∑kC2e−2αt∥vk∥2=C2e−2αt∥v∥2,\|e^{J_s t}v\|^2 = \sum_k \|e^{J_kt}v_k\|^2 \le \sum_k C^2 e^{-2\alpha t}\|v_k\|^2 = C^2 e^{-2\alpha t}\|v\|^2,

so ∥eJstv∥≤Ce−αt∥v∥\|e^{J_st}v\|\le Ce^{-\alpha t}\|v\|. Converting back through PP changes constants but not the exponential rates (as PP is a fixed invertible matrix, ∥P−1∥−1∥w∥≤∥Pw∥≤∥P∥∥w∥\|P^{-1}\|^{-1}\|w\|\le \|Pw\|\le\|P\|\|w\|), giving the stated bound on EsE^s for AA itself, possibly after enlarging CC. The unstable estimate for t≤0t\le0 on EuE^u follows identically by applying the same argument to −A-A restricted to EuE^u run forward in time, i.e. replacing tt by −t-t and λ\lambda by −λ>0-\lambda>0 so that −λ<0-\lambda<0 plays the role of the stable case. ■\blacksquare

∎
Proof

Proof sketch of Hartman–Grobman (technique: Lyapunov–Perron / graph transform fixed-point argument). Write f(x∗+y)=Ay+g(y)f(x^*+y) = Ay + g(y) where A=Df(x∗)A=Df(x^*) and g(y)=o(∥y∥)g(y) = o(\|y\|) as y→0y\to0 (by definition of the derivative, since f∈C1f\in C^1), so g(0)=0g(0)=0, Dg(0)=0Dg(0)=0, and gg is C1C^1 with ∥Dg(y)∥→0\|Dg(y)\|\to0 as y→0y\to0. Using the Lemma above on the spectral splitting Rn=Es⊕Eu\mathbb{R}^n = E^s\oplus E^u with rate α>0\alpha>0 and constant CC, one first truncates gg outside a small ball ∥y∥≤ε\|y\|\le \varepsilon (multiplying by a smooth cutoff) to get a globally defined, globally Lipschitz perturbation g~\tilde g agreeing with gg near 00, with Lipschitz constant Lip(g~)\mathrm{Lip}(\tilde g) as small as desired by taking ε\varepsilon small (since Dg(0)=0Dg(0)=0 and DgDg is continuous). One then seeks the conjugacy hh (or rather its inverse h−1=:Hh^{-1}=:H, the more natural direction) as a perturbation of the identity, H(y)=y+η(y)H(y) = y + \eta(y), solving the functional equation coming from matching flows,

φt(x∗+y)=x∗+H(eAtH−1(y)),\varphi_t(x^*+y) = x^*+ H(e^{At}H^{-1}(y)),

via an equivalent fixed-point formulation: one shows that the map

(Tη)(y,t)=∫0teA(t−s)Pu g~(y+η(y+…)) ds−∫t∞eA(t−s)Ps g~(…) ds(\mathcal T\eta)(y,t) = \int_0^t e^{A(t-s)}P_u \,\tilde g(y+\eta(y+\ldots))\,ds - \int_t^\infty e^{A(t-s)}P_s\,\tilde g(\ldots)\,ds

(the precise variation-of-parameters/Lyapunov–Perron operator built from projections Ps,PuP_s,P_u onto Es,EuE^s,E^u) is a contraction on a suitable Banach space of bounded continuous functions, once Lip(g~)\mathrm{Lip}(\tilde g) is small enough relative to the spectral gap α\alpha from the Lemma. The Banach fixed-point theorem then produces a unique bounded solution η\eta, and one verifies (a) H=id+ηH=\mathrm{id}+\eta is a bijection of a neighborhood of 00 onto its image with continuous inverse (again via a contraction/implicit-function argument using smallness of Lip(η)\mathrm{Lip}(\eta)), and (b) HH conjugates eAte^{At} to the flow of y˙=Ay+g~(y)\dot y = Ay+\tilde g(y), which equals the true nonlinear flow φt\varphi_t on the smaller neighborhood where g~=g\tilde g=g. This full construction (see Hartman 1960, or Perko's Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems) is lengthy in complete detail; the argument above supplies the indispensable ingredient — the spectral gap estimate proved rigorously in the Lemma — that makes the contraction mapping argument converge, and it is exactly the hyperbolicity hypothesis that guarantees α>0\alpha>0, without which no such gap, and no such contraction, exists. ■\blacksquare

∎
CorollaryLinearized stability at hyperbolic sinks and sources

Suppose x∗x^* is a hyperbolic equilibrium of x˙=f(x)\dot x=f(x) with f∈C1f\in C^1, and suppose additionally that every eigenvalue of A=Df(x∗)A=Df(x^*) has strictly negative real part (a hyperbolic sink). Then x∗x^* is asymptotically stable: there is δ>0\delta>0 such that ∥x0−x∗∥<δ\|x_0-x^*\|<\delta implies φt(x0)→x∗\varphi_t(x_0)\to x^* as t→∞t\to\infty, and moreover ∥φt(x0)−x∗∥≤C′e−α′t∥x0−x∗∥\|\varphi_t(x_0)-x^*\|\le C'e^{-\alpha' t}\|x_0-x^*\| for constants C′≥1, α′>0C'\ge1,\ \alpha'>0 (exponential stability). Symmetrically, if every eigenvalue has strictly positive real part (a hyperbolic source), x∗x^* is unstable, and every nearby trajectory except x∗x^* itself leaves any fixed small neighborhood in forward time.

Proof

Technique: direct comparison estimate (a special, fully elementary case of the Lyapunov–Perron scheme), avoiding the general Hartman–Grobman machinery. Here Es=RnE^s=\mathbb{R}^n, Eu={0}E^u=\{0\}, so by the Lemma there are C≥1,α>0C\ge1,\alpha>0 with ∥eAt∥≤Ce−αt\|e^{At}\|\le Ce^{-\alpha t} for all t≥0t\ge0 (operator norm bound, obtained from the vector bound in the Lemma applied to each standard basis vector and combined via ∥eAtv∥≤Ce−αt∥v∥\|e^{At}v\|\le Ce^{-\alpha t}\|v\| for all vv, since Es=RnE^s=\mathbb{R}^n). Write y(t)=φt(x0)−x∗y(t)=\varphi_t(x_0)-x^*; then yy solves

y˙=Ay+g(y),g(y)=f(x∗+y)−Ay=o(∥y∥) as y→0.\dot y = Ay + g(y), \qquad g(y)=f(x^*+y)-Ay = o(\|y\|)\text{ as }y\to0.

Fix β∈(0,α)\beta\in(0,\alpha). Since g(y)/∥y∥→0g(y)/\|y\|\to0 as y→0y\to0 and gg is continuous with g(0)=0g(0)=0, choose ρ>0\rho>0 so small that ∥g(y)∥≤α−βC∥y∥\|g(y)\|\le \frac{\alpha-\beta}{C}\|y\| whenever ∥y∥≤ρ\|y\|\le\rho; this is possible because C,α,βC,\alpha,\beta are fixed positive constants determined before ρ\rho is chosen, and the little-o condition lets us make the ratio ∥g(y)∥/∥y∥\|g(y)\|/\|y\| as small as we like by shrinking ∥y∥\|y\|. By variation of parameters (Duhamel's formula, valid for the C1C^1, hence locally Lipschitz, vector field ff, guaranteeing unique solutions),

y(t)=eAty(0)+∫0teA(t−τ)g(y(τ)) dτ.y(t) = e^{At}y(0) + \int_0^t e^{A(t-\tau)} g(y(\tau))\,d\tau.

Let [0,T)[0,T) be the maximal interval on which ∥y(t)∥<ρ\|y(t)\|<\rho (nonempty and open by continuity of yy, since ∥y(0)∥<ρ\|y(0)\|<\rho if ∥x0−x∗∥<ρ\|x_0-x^*\|<\rho). On [0,T)[0,T),

∥y(t)∥≤Ce−αt∥y(0)∥+∫0tCe−α(t−τ)⋅α−βC∥y(τ)∥ dτ=Ce−αt∥y(0)∥+(α−β)∫0te−α(t−τ)∥y(τ)∥ dτ.\|y(t)\| \le Ce^{-\alpha t}\|y(0)\| + \int_0^t Ce^{-\alpha(t-\tau)}\cdot \frac{\alpha-\beta}{C}\|y(\tau)\|\,d\tau = Ce^{-\alpha t}\|y(0)\| + (\alpha-\beta)\int_0^t e^{-\alpha(t-\tau)}\|y(\tau)\|\,d\tau.

Multiply both sides by eαte^{\alpha t} and set u(t)=eαt∥y(t)∥u(t) = e^{\alpha t}\|y(t)\|:

u(t)≤C∥y(0)∥+(α−β)∫0tu(τ) dτ.u(t) \le C\|y(0)\| + (\alpha-\beta)\int_0^t u(\tau)\,d\tau.

By Grönwall's inequality (a standard, independently-established comparison lemma for integral inequalities of this form — not dependent on the theorem being proved), this gives

u(t)≤C∥y(0)∥ e(α−β)t,i.e.∥y(t)∥≤C∥y(0)∥ e−βt,t∈[0,T).u(t) \le C\|y(0)\| \, e^{(\alpha-\beta)t}, \quad\text{i.e.}\quad \|y(t)\| \le C\|y(0)\|\,e^{-\beta t}, \qquad t\in[0,T).

Choosing ∥x0−x∗∥=∥y(0)∥<ρ/C=:δ\|x_0-x^*\|=\|y(0)\|<\rho/C =: \delta ensures ∥y(t)∥<ρ\|y(t)\| < \rho for all t∈[0,T)t\in[0,T) by this bound itself (it never reaches ρ\rho, so the interval where ∥y(t)∥<ρ\|y(t)\|<\rho cannot terminate at finite TT by boundary contact); a standard continuation argument then shows T=∞T=\infty (if T<∞T<\infty were maximal with ∥y(t)∥<ρ\|y(t)\|<\rho failing to hold in the limit, continuity of yy would force ∥y(T)∥=ρ\|y(T)\| = \rho, contradicting the strict bound ∥y(T)∥≤C∥y(0)∥e−βT<ρ\|y(T)\|\le C\|y(0)\|e^{-\beta T}<\rho). Hence ∥y(t)∥≤C∥y(0)∥e−βt→0\|y(t)\|\le C\|y(0)\|e^{-\beta t}\to 0 for all t≥0t\ge0, proving exponential (hence asymptotic) stability with C′=C, α′=βC'=C,\ \alpha'=\beta. The source case follows by applying the sink case to the time-reversed system x˙=−f(x)\dot x = -f(x), whose linearization at x∗x^* is −A-A, all of whose eigenvalues now have negative real part; asymptotic stability of x∗x^* for −f-f backward in time is exactly instability of x∗x^* for ff forward in time, since trajectories of ff through nearby points, run backward, converge to x∗x^*, meaning they must have diverged from x∗x^* going forward. ■\blacksquare

∎

Worked examples

Example 1 (asymmetric planar system — hyperbolic saddle). Consider

x˙=x+2y−x3,y˙=−3x+y+xy.\dot x = x + 2y - x^3, \qquad \dot y = -3x + y + xy.

The unique relevant equilibrium at the origin has f(0,0)=(0,0)f(0,0)=(0,0). Compute the Jacobian:

Df(x,y)=(1−3x22−3+y1+x),A=Df(0,0)=(12−31).Df(x,y) = \begin{pmatrix} 1-3x^2 & 2 \\ -3+y & 1+x\end{pmatrix}, \qquad A=Df(0,0)=\begin{pmatrix}1&2\\-3&1\end{pmatrix}.

Eigenvalues solve det⁡(A−λI)=(1−λ)2+6=0\det(A-\lambda I)=(1-\lambda)^2+6=0, so (1−λ)2=−6(1-\lambda)^2 = -6, giving

λ=1±i6.\lambda = 1 \pm i\sqrt6.

Both eigenvalues have Re⁡λ=1≠0\operatorname{Re}\lambda = 1 \neq 0, so the origin is hyperbolic (an unstable spiral for the linearization, since the real part is positive and the eigenvalues are complex). By the Hartman–Grobman theorem, the nonlinear flow near the origin is topologically conjugate to the linear spiral y˙=Ay\dot y = Ay: nearby trajectories genuinely spiral outward away from the origin (an unstable focus), and this conclusion, unlike the exact spiral shape, is not an artifact of dropping the cubic and product terms — it is topologically forced by hyperbolicity. Note the asymmetry of the coefficients (22 and −3-3, not ±\pm the same number) is essential to the example: it produces genuinely complex, non-real eigenvalues from an off-diagonal pair that is not skew-symmetric, illustrating that the theorem applies regardless of how lopsided the linear part is, as long as no eigenvalue sits on the imaginary axis.

Example 2 (a one-parameter family passing through a nonhyperbolic point — saddle-node). Consider the scalar-times-rotation system in the plane, parametrized by μ∈R\mu\in\mathbb{R}:

x˙=μ−x2,y˙=−y.\dot x = \mu - x^2, \qquad \dot y = -y.

For μ>0\mu>0 there are two equilibria at (x,y)=(±μ, 0)(x,y) = (\pm\sqrt\mu,\,0). The Jacobian is

Df(x,y)=(−2x00−1).Df(x,y) = \begin{pmatrix}-2x & 0\\ 0 & -1\end{pmatrix}.

At (μ,0)(\sqrt\mu,0): eigenvalues are −2μ<0-2\sqrt\mu<0 and −1<0-1<0 — both negative, a hyperbolic sink; Hartman–Grobman and the Corollary both apply, confirming this equilibrium is (exponentially) asymptotically stable exactly as the linearization suggests. At (−μ,0)(-\sqrt\mu,0): eigenvalues are 2μ>02\sqrt\mu>0 and −1<0-1<0 — a hyperbolic saddle; the nonlinear phase portrait near this point is a topologically genuine saddle. Now let μ→0+\mu\to0^+. The two equilibria collide at the origin when μ=0\mu=0, where

Df(0,0)=(000−1),Df(0,0) = \begin{pmatrix}0&0\\0&-1\end{pmatrix},

which has eigenvalue 00 (and −1-1): the origin is nonhyperbolic at μ=0\mu=0. Hartman–Grobman gives no information here — and indeed the true dynamics at μ=0\mu=0 (x˙=−x2\dot x=-x^2, a one-sided flow with x(t)→0−x(t)\to0^- from the left and x(t)→−∞x(t)\to-\infty... actually diverging for x(0)>0x(0)>0) is qualitatively different from the linearization x˙=0\dot x = 0 (a whole line of equilibria), showing concretely how the sink and saddle merge and annihilate exactly as hyperbolicity is lost. This is the prototypical saddle-node bifurcation, and it illustrates why "nonhyperbolic" is precisely the locus where the qualitative picture is unstable under parameter variation.

CounterexampleWhy hyperbolicity cannot be dropped: a center perturbed into a spiral

Take the hypothesis of hyperbolicity away and consider the linear center

x˙=−y,y˙=x,A=(0−110),\dot x = -y, \qquad \dot y = x, \qquad A = \begin{pmatrix}0&-1\\1&0\end{pmatrix},

with eigenvalues λ=±i\lambda = \pm i, purely imaginary: nonhyperbolic. The linear flow is eAt(x0,y0)=R(t)(x0,y0)e^{At}(x_0,y_0) = R(t)(x_0,y_0), pure rotation, so every solution traces a circle x2+y2=constx^2+y^2=\text{const} forever; the origin is stable (Lyapunov stable, orbits stay on their circle) but not asymptotically stable. Now perturb by an arbitrarily small cubic term:

x˙=−y−εx(x2+y2),y˙=x−εy(x2+y2),ε>0 fixed, however small.\dot x = -y - \varepsilon x(x^2+y^2), \qquad \dot y = x - \varepsilon y(x^2+y^2), \qquad \varepsilon>0 \text{ fixed, however small.}

This system has exactly the same linearization AA at the origin, since the added terms are O(∥(x,y)∥3)=o(∥(x,y)∥)O(\|(x,y)\|^3) = o(\|(x,y)\|). Let r2=x2+y2r^2 = x^2+y^2; compute

ddt(12r2)=xx˙+yy˙=x(−y−εxr2)+y(x−εyr2)=−εr2(x2+y2)=−εr4.\frac{d}{dt}\left(\tfrac12 r^2\right) = x\dot x + y\dot y = x(-y-\varepsilon x r^2) + y(x - \varepsilon y r^2) = -\varepsilon r^2 (x^2+y^2) = -\varepsilon r^4.

So r r˙=−εr4r\,\dot r = -\varepsilon r^4, i.e. r˙=−εr3<0\dot r = -\varepsilon r^3 <0 for all r>0r>0. Every trajectory (other than the origin) spirals strictly inward, and in fact solving r˙=−εr3\dot r=-\varepsilon r^3 gives r(t)=r0/1+2εr02t→0r(t) = r_0/\sqrt{1+2\varepsilon r_0^2 t}\to0 as t→∞t\to\infty: the origin is asymptotically stable, a genuine stable spiral, not a center. Flip the sign to x˙=−y+εx(x2+y2), y˙=x+εy(x2+y2)\dot x = -y+\varepsilon x(x^2+y^2),\ \dot y = x+\varepsilon y(x^2+y^2): an identical computation gives r˙=εr3>0\dot r = \varepsilon r^3 >0, so every trajectory spirals outward and the origin is unstable, even though the linearization is again exactly the same center matrix AA. Three systems — a pure center, an inward spiral, an outward spiral — share the identical linearization AA with eigenvalues ±i\pm i on the imaginary axis. If Hartman–Grobman's conclusion held without the hyperbolicity hypothesis, all three nonlinear flows would be topologically conjugate to the same rotation flow eAte^{At}, and hence to each other; but a stable spiral (orbits spiral into the origin, ω\omega-limit set of every point is {0}\{0\}) is not topologically conjugate to a center (orbits are closed curves, no point's ω\omega-limit set is {0}\{0\} except the origin itself) — a homeomorphism cannot turn nested closed curves into inward spirals, since it would have to map a closed loop (compact, invariant, not equal to a point) to a set that is simultaneously invariant under eAte^{At} and must be a single circle or the origin, which spirals are not. This contradiction shows the hyperbolicity hypothesis is not a technical convenience: without it, the theorem's conclusion genuinely fails.

Scope, edge cases & common traps

SituationWhat Hartman–Grobman givesWhat it does NOT give
All eigenvalues Re⁡λ<0\operatorname{Re}\lambda<0Topological conjugacy to sink; asymptotic (even exponential) stabilityExact trajectory shapes; smoothness of hh
Mixed signs, none zero (saddle)Genuine saddle topology, stable/unstable manifolds tangent to Es,EuE^s,E^uStraight-line invariant manifolds (only tangent, generally curved)
One eigenvalue =0=0, rest hyperbolicNothing from this theorem alone; typically a bifurcation (center manifold analysis needed)Any stability conclusion from linearization
Pure imaginary pair (center candidate)Nothing; behavior decided by nonlinear termsAny default assumption of neutral/closed-orbit behavior
hh constructed by the theoremA homeomorphism, generally not differentiable at x∗x^*A diffeomorphism / smooth change of coordinates in general

The mathematician behind it

Origins · 1 minPhilip Hartman and how this was discovered
PH
Philip Hartman
1915–2015 · American mathematician, differential equations and dynamical systems, Johns Hopkins University

Philip Hartman worked extensively on ordinary differential equations, proving the linearization theorem (independently of David Grobman, who established the analogous discrete-time / diffeomorphism result) in 1960. His textbook Ordinary Differential Equations (1964) became a standard rigorous reference for the qualitative theory of ODEs, systematizing exactly the kind of hypothesis-first, proof-complete treatment this theorem exemplifies.

History
- 1959: David Grobman proves the analogous local linearization result for diffeomorphisms near a hyperbolic fixed point.
- 1960: Philip Hartman independently proves the continuous-time (flow) version for vector fields near a hyperbolic equilibrium.
- 1964: Hartman's textbook Ordinary Differential Equations consolidates the theorem within the broader qualitative theory of ODEs.
- 1970s: Structural stability and hyperbolic dynamics (Smale, Anosov, and collaborators) generalize the local picture to global hyperbolic sets.
- Present: the theorem is a standard tool taught alongside the Classification of Planar Fixed Points in every qualitative ODE and dynamical systems course.
What exactly does "hyperbolic" mean, and why that word?

A fixed point is hyperbolic when the Jacobian there has no eigenvalue with zero real part. The term comes from the prototypical planar picture: with one positive and one negative eigenvalue, the linearized phase portrait consists of curves asymptotic to two crossing lines (the eigendirections), geometrically resembling a family of hyperbolas xy=constxy=\text{const} in suitable coordinates. The word has since been extended to any equilibrium (or more general invariant set) whose linearization splits cleanly into exponentially contracting and expanding directions, even when the picture is a node or spiral rather than literally a saddle — the defining feature is always the spectral gap across the imaginary axis, not the visual shape.

Does Hartman–Grobman work for maps (discrete dynamical systems) too?

Yes. The discrete-time analogue, due to Grobman (1959) and proved independently around the same time as Hartman's flow version, states that if gg is a C1C^1 diffeomorphism with g(p)=pg(p)=p and the Jacobian Dg(p)Dg(p) has no eigenvalue on the unit circle (rather than the imaginary axis), then gg is locally topologically conjugate near pp to its linearization Dg(p)Dg(p) acting near 00. The condition "eigenvalue modulus ≠1\neq 1" for maps plays exactly the role that "eigenvalue real part ≠0\neq0" plays for flows, since eλte^{\lambda t} has modulus 11 for all tt precisely when Re⁡λ=0\operatorname{Re}\lambda=0.

Can the conjugacy hh ever be made smooth?

Sometimes, but not automatically. Sternberg's linearization theorem shows that if, in addition to hyperbolicity, the eigenvalues avoid certain resonance conditions (integer linear relations among them) and the vector field is sufficiently smooth, then a smooth (even CkC^k or C∞C^\infty) conjugacy exists. Hartman–Grobman itself only ever promises a homeomorphism; smoothness is a genuinely stronger and separate conclusion requiring genuinely stronger hypotheses, so one should never assume differentiability of hh without invoking such a resonance-free result explicitly.

Why doesn't the theorem say anything about global behavior, only local?

The proof (via the Lyapunov–Perron contraction argument) only controls the nonlinear remainder term g(y)g(y) by making ∥y∥\|y\| small enough that its Lipschitz constant is smaller than the spectral gap α\alpha from the linear part. Far from the equilibrium, nonlinear terms can dominate arbitrarily and produce phenomena — multiple equilibria, limit cycles, chaotic attractors — that have no counterpart in any single linear system. The theorem is deliberately local: it certifies only that a sufficiently small neighborhood of a hyperbolic equilibrium looks, topologically, like the corresponding neighborhood of the linearization's origin.

How does this connect to stability analysis I might already know from eigenvalues?

The familiar rule "all eigenvalues have negative real part ⇒\Rightarrow asymptotically stable; some eigenvalue has positive real part ⇒\Rightarrow unstable" is a direct corollary of Hartman–Grobman (proved independently and more elementarily above via Grönwall's inequality). The rule is silent exactly when an eigenvalue has zero real part, which is exactly the nonhyperbolic case the theorem excludes — this is why introductory treatments always add the caveat "if the linearization has an eigenvalue on the imaginary axis, the test is inconclusive," which foreshadows the need for Lyapunov Functions and Stability as a tool that can succeed precisely where linearization fails.

Is a center ever "wrong" to draw from a linearization?

It is not wrong to note that the linearization is a center, but it is wrong to conclude the nonlinear system has a center without further nonlinear analysis. The linearization being a center is a genuine, correctly computed fact about the matrix AA; the error is inferring anything about the true nonlinear phase portrait from that fact alone. The counterexample in this article shows a single matrix AA (a center) arising as the linearization of a true center, a true stable spiral, and a true unstable spiral, depending on cubic terms invisible to AA.

Before this

Where this leads