Use of Commutativity for Cryptology in Secret Communication

Mehmet Emir Koksal
Department of Mathematics, Ondokuz Mayis University, 55139 Atakum, Samsun, Turkey
emir_koksal@hotmail.com

Abstract: Commutativity of subsystems in cascade connected forms to form larger systems gets
worthy to improve noise disturbance properties, stability, robustness and many other properties in
system design. In this paper, another benefit of commutativity property is indicated, as far as the
author knowledge for the first time, and illustrated by examples. This benefit is the gain of a new
and original method for transmission of secret signals when travelling in a transmission channel.
Hence, the paper presents an original and alternative method in cryptology. Their results are all
validated by illustrative examples and Matlab simulation toolbox Simulink.

Keywords: Commutativity, Cryptology, Communication, Linear time-varying system,
Differential equation

I.

Introduction
Second-order differential equations appears in many branches of engineering. They are

used for a huge range of applications, including electrical systems, fluid systems, thermal systems
and control systems. Especially, they are utilized as a powerful tool for modelling, analyzing,
physical simulations and solving problems in modern and robust control theory, which is essential
in any field of engineering and sciences.

1

In many cases, engineering systems are designed by interconnection of better simple first
or second-order systems to achieve beneficial properties such as easy controllability, design
flexibility, less sensitivity to disturbances and robustness. Feedback and cascade connection are
among the commonly used interconnection structures in control and communication systems
respectively. Cascade connection being an old but still an up to date designed method [1-4] can be
used to improve further different system performances in connection with the commutativity
concept. Commutativity of traditional linear time-invariant systems is straightforward; however
linear time-varying systems have found many applications recently [5-10]. Therefore, the subject
of this paper is devoted on the commutativity of linear time-varying systems only.
It is well-known that a cascade-connected systems is a combination of two subsystems so
that the output of one is the input of the other [11]. If the input-output relation of the combination
of two subsystems in cascade form is not effected by the order of the connection then, these two
systems are set to be commutative [12].
There is a great deal of literature about the commutativity of continuous time-varying linear
systems. Some of the important results about the commutativity are summarized in the sequel
superficially.
J. E. Marshall is the first scientist studying on commutativity. In 1977, he proved that “for
commutativity, either both systems are time-invariant or both systems are time-varying” [12].
Moreover, he proved necessary and sufficient conditions of first-order linear time-varying systems.
Then, investigation of commutativity conditions for second-order, third-order and fourth-order
continuous time-varying linear systems were studied in [13-15], [16] and [17] respectively together
with some contributions appeared as conference presentations and a few short papers focusing to
special cases such as first, second, third, and forth order systems.

2

In 1988, in [18], M. Koksal introduced the basic fundamentals of the subject [13], which is
the first and one of two tutorial exhaustive journal papers. Another work joint by the same author
has presented explicit commutativity conditions of fifth-order systems in addition to reviews of
commutativity of systems with non-zero initial conditions, commutativity and system disturbance,
commutativity of Euler systems [19].
In [20], all the second-order commutative pairs of a first-order linear time-varying analogue
systems are derived. In [21], the decomposition of a second-order linear time-varying systems into
its first-order commutative pairs are studied. This is important for the cascade realization of the
second-order linear time-varying systems.
Even though there is a large cycle of works on the commutativity of continuous-time
systems, there is only one journal literature on the commutativity of discrete-time systems [22].
Some benefits of commutativity of linear time-varying systems have already been appeared
in the literature; for example designing systems less sensitive to parameter values [23], reducing
noise interference and disturbance [20], improving robustness [19].
This paper focuses attention for a new encrypting method of obscuring the information
transmitted through any communication channel by disguising it between transmitter and receiver.
More precisely consider a communication system as shown in Fig. 1. In the figure,

3

Figure 1: Transmitting a secret input signal in different transmitted forms through a double
transmission channel.

Figure 2: Transmitting a secret input signal in different forms through a single transmission
channel by switching.

𝐴 and 𝐵 represent commutative linear time-varying systems so that both channels 𝐴𝐵 and
𝐵𝐴 produce the same output signal for any applied input signal. But the transferred signal from
transmitter to receiver proceeds in completely different shapes through the transmitting medium.
Hence, this generates somewhat prevention against the infiltrators to stealing the secret
information during transmission. More professional communication structure is indicated by using
a single transmission channel which is used by time-sharing between two channels of Fig. 1 is
shown in Fig. 2.
The above concept can be extended to more complex structures by using higher number of
switching greater than 1. For example, with two identical subsystems 𝐴 and two identical
subsystems 𝐵 (commutative with 𝐴) 4 communication passages of the input signal can be achieved
through transmitting medium to obtain the same output signal. In fact, the structures 𝐴 → 𝐴𝐵𝐵,
𝐴𝐴 → 𝐵𝐵, 𝐴𝐴𝐵 → 𝐵, 𝐴𝐵 → 𝐴𝐵 where the arrow " → " separates the subsystems appearing in
4

the transmitter and receiver sides. All these structures transfer any input signal to the same output
signal which is transmitted in different shapes in transmitting medium by all of four structures.
The concept can be extended for more complicated cases by using more than two different
commutative pairs.
Since the concept of the use of commutativity property has already been introduced in
Section 1, the paper is organized as to illustrate this original application by an example in Section
2. In the case of transmission using a single transmission channel which must be used time-sharing
for transmission paths 𝐴 → 𝐵 and 𝐵 → 𝐴, switching is necessary; switching and switching effects
are investigated in Section 3. Further applications is possible by using nearly commutative (or
pseudo-commutative) subsystems and this is subjected in Section 4. For the same input-output
signal pairs, the frequency spectrums of different transmitted signals proceeded in the transmission
channel are compared in Section 5 to better illustrate the mentioned differences. Finally, the paper
ends with Section 6 which includes conclusions.
2. Illustrative Example
To see how any input signal is transmitted to the same output signal in different forms of
the transmitting medium, consider the communication structure in Fig. 1 with the following
example:
Example 1
Let the linear time-varying subsystems A and B described by
1

𝐴: 𝑦̈𝐴 + (2 + 2𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑤0 𝑡)𝑦̇𝐴 + (5 − 2 𝑐𝑜𝑠2𝑤0 𝑡 + 2𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑤0 𝑡 + 𝑤0 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑤0 𝑡) 𝑦𝐴 = 𝑥𝐴 ,
𝐵:

1
2

3

409

1

3

(1a)

1

𝑦̈ 𝐵 + (4 + 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑤0 𝑡) 𝑦̇ 𝐵 + ( 32 − 4 𝑐𝑜𝑠2𝑤0 𝑡 + 4 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑤0 𝑡 + 2 𝑤0 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑤0 𝑡) 𝑦𝐵 = 𝑥𝐵 , (1b)

where 𝑥𝑖 and 𝑦𝑖 represent the input and output, respectively, of the subsystems 𝑖 = 𝐴, 𝐵: (Double)
dot on the top indicates (second) time derivative.
5

It is straight forward to show that 𝐴 and 𝐵 are commutative since the time-varying
coefficients of 𝐵 can be obtained from those of 𝐴 by the relation (3a) in [20]
𝑎2 (𝑡)
0
𝑏2 (𝑡)
0,5
[𝑏1 (𝑡)] = [𝑎1 (𝑡) 𝑎2 (𝑡)
𝑏0 (𝑡)
𝑎0 (𝑡)
𝑓𝐴 (𝑡)

0 𝑘2
0] [𝑘1 ],
1 𝑘0

(2a)

where
1

1

𝑘2 = 2 , 𝑘1 = − 4 , 𝑘0 =

4213
400

(2b)

and
𝑓𝐴 =

2𝑎1 −𝑎̇ 2
4√𝑎2

= 1 + 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑤0 𝑡.

(2c)

Since 𝑘1 ≠ 0, the second one of the sufficient conditions of commutativity
𝐴0 (𝑡) = 𝑎0 − 𝑓𝐴2 − √𝑎2 𝑓𝐴 (𝑡) = 3.5

(3)

is satisfied since 𝐴0 (𝑡) in Eq. (3c) is constant (See Eq. (2.b). in [22]). It is easy to show that when
the average values of coefficients are considered both systems are asymptotically stable with
eigenvalues
𝐴1,2 = −1 ± 𝑗2,
3

𝐵1,2 = − 4 ± 𝑗5.

(4a)
(4b)

This implies though not guaranties, the high possibility of stability of actual time-varying
subsystems 𝐴 and 𝐵 defined by Eqs. (1a) and (1b), respectively [24]; in fact, simulation results
show that both systems are asymptotically stable.
To observe that both of the switching alternatives 𝐴 → 𝐵 and 𝐵 → 𝐴 shown in Figure 1
where 𝐴 and 𝐵 are defined in Eqs. (1a) and (1b) with 𝑤0 = 2𝜋 yield the same output at the receiver
side, an input signal (30𝑠𝑖𝑛1.2𝜋𝑡 + a saw-tooth of period 3.3s and increasing from −30 to +30)
is applied on the transmitter side. As observed in Figure 3, the transmissions 𝐴 → 𝐵 and 𝐵 → 𝐴

6

yield the same output signal (see ---- Output signal *10). In spite of the same input-output pairs
for switchings 𝐴𝐵 and 𝐵𝐴, the travelled signals processed through transmission medium (see ….
Transmitted signal 𝐴 − 𝐵, …. Transmitted signal 𝐵 − 𝐴) are quite different.

Figure 3: Input, output and transmitted signals in the communication system of Example 1.

To verify that the discussions are independent of the input signal applied, the simulations
are repeated with a pulse train of amplitude 30, period 5 and with a pulse with of 10 %. The input
signal and the same output of both transmission switching paths 𝐴 → 𝐵 and 𝐵 → 𝐴 are shown in
Figure 4 (see ____ Input signal/10, Outpu signal*10, respectively). It is also seen in this figure that
the signals proceeded through the transmission medium, namely (….Transmitted s. 𝐴 − 𝐵) and
(…. Transmitted s. 𝐵 − 𝐴), are quite different. Hence the same output signal is received by

7

channels 𝐴𝐵 and 𝐵𝐴 for the same input signals irrespective of the shape of the input signal whilst
different signals are transmitted through the transmission medium.

Figure 4: Input, output and transmitted signals in the communication system in Example 1 for a
different input.

3.

Effects of Switching on Commutativity
When commutativity concept is used to transmit a signal through a transmission medium

secretly using a single transmission channel time shared by transmissions 𝐴 → 𝐵 and 𝐵 → 𝐴 as
described in Section 5.1, a sufficiently high rate of switching is necessary to puzzle malicious
persons or infiltrator to resolve the transmitted information. At the beginning of each transmission
slots (say 𝐴 → 𝐵) some initial conditions had been formed in the subsystems 𝐴 and 𝐵 during the
previous slot (𝐵 → 𝐴 in this case) and these initial conditions may not satisfy the second
8

commutativity condition for unrelaxed systems 𝐴 and 𝐵 at the initial time of the current time slot
[6 , Theorem 3.1 (Koksal 2)]. Therefore the output of the switched transmission system will be
different from those of non switched systems 𝐴𝐵 and 𝐵𝐴. This difference will be more appreciated
if the damping properties of subsystems 𝐴 and 𝐵 are weak (time constants are large with respect
to switching period). This is because such properties will elongate natural responses of subsystems
and the effect due initial conditions that had been formed improperly for commutativity in the
previous time slot. Hence, the subsystems used in single channel transmitting system described in
Section 5.1 better to have high damping coefficients for the output signal not effected by the
switching considerably. This argument will be illustrated by the following two examples, namely
Examples 2 and 3:
Example 2
To illustrate the above mentioned effect first consider the systems 𝐴 and 𝐵 which are
commutative under zero initial conditions:
𝐴: 𝑦̇𝐴 (𝑡) + (1 + 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜋𝑡)𝑦𝐴 (𝑡) = 𝑥𝐴 (𝑡); 𝑦𝐴 (0) = 0,

(1a)

𝐵: 𝑦̇ 𝐵 (𝑡) + (2 + 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜋𝑡)𝑦𝐵 (𝑡) = 𝑥𝐵 (𝑡); 𝑦𝐵 (0) = 0.

(1b)

Where 𝐵 is obtained from 𝐴 by using constants 𝑐1 = 𝑐0 = 1(see Eq. 26 in [24]); namely,
𝑏
1
[ 1] = [
𝑏0
1 + 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜋𝑡

0 𝑐1
1
][ ] = [
1 𝑐0
1 + 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜋𝑡

0 1
1
][ ] = [
].
1 1
2 + 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜋𝑡

(2)

Note the eigenvalues of 𝐴 and 𝐵 are 𝜆𝐴 (𝑡) = −1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜋𝑡 and 𝜆𝐵 (𝑡) = −2 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜋𝑡, respectively.
These eigenvalues remain in the left half of 𝑠 −plane all the time (except the instants 𝑡 = 1. 3. 5, …
when it moves to origin instantly for subsystem 𝐴), hence both are likely asymptotically stable
[25].
For the commutativity of subsystems under non zero initial conditions as well, it is required
by the above mentioned second commutativity condition (Theorem 3.1 in [19], Eq. 27 in [21]) that
9

𝑐1 + 𝑐0 = 1,

(3a)

𝑦𝐴 (𝑡𝑠 ) = 𝑦𝐵 (𝑡𝑠 ),

(3b)

where 𝑡𝑠 is any switching instant (see Eq. 11 and 12 in [24], respectively). When either one or two
of these conditions are not satisfied, the systems 𝐴𝐵 and 𝐵𝐴 may not have the same output when
excited by any input. In the present example Condition in Eq. (3a) is not obviously satisfied since
𝑐1 + 𝑐0 = 2 ≠ 1; considering the second condition, there is no guaranty that Eq. (3b) will be valid
at the initial time of any switching slot since the initial conditions have been formed in the previous
slot according to the dynamics of 𝐴 and 𝐵 rather independently. But, it is intuitively expected that
the initial condition responses will decay fast to zero for highly damped subsystems and the outputs
of 𝐴𝐵 and 𝐵𝐴 will dominantly be determined by the forced response generated by the input signal.
Hence the coherence between the outputs 𝐴𝐵 and 𝐵𝐴 will not be effected considerably due to
nonsatisfaction of the second commutativity condition spoiled by switching. The subsystems 𝐴
and 𝐵 defined by Eqs. (1a) and (1b), respectively, are examples of low damping systems
(compared to subsystems that will be considered in Example 3), so that switching is expected to
will cause a great difference in the outputs when compared with the same output of 𝐴𝐵 and 𝐵𝐴
resulted without switching.
For an input 10𝑠𝑖𝑛2𝜋𝑡 + 𝑠𝑎𝑤𝑡𝑜𝑜𝑡ℎ 𝑤𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑 3 𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒 ± 30 both
systems 𝐴𝐵 and 𝐵𝐴 give the same output (____ Output signal*2.5) as shown in Fig. 5; on the same
figure the input signal the transmitted signal 𝐴 → 𝐵 and 𝐵 → 𝐴 are shown by (____ Input signal/2),
(….Transmitted s. 𝐴 − 𝐵), (…. Transmitted s. 𝐵 − 𝐴), respectively.

10

Figure 5. Input, Output and Transmitted signals by transmission paths 𝐴 → 𝐵 and 𝐵 → 𝐴 for
Example 2

11

Figure 6. Transmitted signal in the single channel transmission and comparison of the output
signals with and without switching for Example 2.

To observe the effect of switching on the shape of the output signal, the path 𝐴 → 𝐵 and
𝐵 → 𝐴 are switched periodically in sequence for durations of 10 seconds. The output signal at the
receiver end is shown in Fig. 6 (____ Output signal *2.5 with switching); on the same figure, the
output signal of connections 𝐴𝐵 and 𝐵𝐴 which appear in Fig. 5 (____ Output signal*2.5) is replotted.
As it is expected there is a difference between the direct communication with two lines without
switching and communication by switching with a single transmission line; this difference is really
apparent just after each switching instant for about 4-5 second duration and then disappear in the
rest of the switching period so that the output coincides with the ideal case of direct communication
without switching. This vacancy of switching can be reduced by using subsystems having higher

12

damping. Fig. 6 also includes the transmitted signal on the single line time shared by transmissions
𝐴 → 𝐵 and 𝐵 → 𝐴 (…. Transmitted signal).
Example 3
To observe the reduction of difference between two channel transmissions without
switching and single channel transmission with switching, we consider similar subsystems in
Example 2 but having relatively high damping then subsystems of Example 2.
Consider the systems 𝐴 and 𝐵 which are commutative under zero initial conditions:
𝐴: 𝑦̇𝐴 (𝑡) + (5 + 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜋𝑡)𝑦𝐴 (𝑡) = 𝑥𝐴 (𝑡); 𝑦𝐴 (0) = 0,

(4a)

𝐵: 𝑦̇ 𝐵 (𝑡) + (2 + 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜋𝑡)𝑦𝐵 (𝑡) = 𝑥𝐵 (𝑡); 𝑦𝐵 (0) = 0 ,

(4b)

where 𝐵 is obtained from 𝐴 by using constants 𝑐1 = 1, 𝑐0 = −3 (see Eq. 26 in [24]); namely,
𝑏
1
[ 1] = [
𝑏0
5 + 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜋𝑡

0 𝑐1
1
] [𝑐 ] = [
1 0
5 + 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜋𝑡

0 1
1
][ ] = [
].
1 −3
2 + 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜋𝑡

(5)

Note the eigenvalues of 𝐴 and 𝐵 are 𝜆𝐴 (𝑡) = −5 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜋𝑡 and 𝜆𝐵 (𝑡) = −2 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜋𝑡, respectively.
These eigenvalues remain in the left half of 𝑠 −plane all the time; in fact, exception of some
instants for subsystem 𝐴 in Example 2 does not occur in this case. Note also that the subsystem of
Example 2 having larger damping or being more stable (subsystem 𝐵) is preserved in this example.
Hence, speaking about both subsystems generally, those of Example 3 are more likely
asymptotically stable and have higher damping than those of Example 2 [25]. Therefore, due to
the reasons explained in Example 2, using a single channel by switching is expected to cause less
deviation in the outputs when compared with the same output of 𝐴𝐵 and 𝐵𝐴 resulted without
switching.
For the same input as in Example 2 both systems 𝐴𝐵 and 𝐵𝐴 give the same output
(____Output signal*2.5) as shown in Fig. 7; on the same figure the input signal, the transmitted

13

signal 𝐴 → 𝐵 and 𝐵 → 𝐴 are shown by (____ Input signal/2), (….Transmitted s. 𝐴 − 𝐵), (….
Transmitted s. 𝐵 − 𝐴), respectively.
To observe the effect of switching on the shape of the output signal, the path 𝐴 → 𝐵 and
𝐵 → 𝐴 are switched periodically in sequence for durations of 10 seconds. The output signal at the
receiver end is shown in Fig. 8 (____ Output signal *2.5 with switching); on the same figure, the
output signal of connections 𝐴𝐵 and 𝐵𝐴 which appear in Fig. 5 (____ Output signal*2.5) is replotted.
As it is expected there is a difference between the direct communication with two lines without
switching and communication by switching with a single transmission line; this difference is really
apparent just after each switching instant for about smaller than 1.5 second duration and then
disappear in the rest of the switching period so that the output coincides with the ideal case of
direct communication without switching. Note that this vacancy of switching is reduced from 5-7
seconds of Example 2 to values less than 1.5 by using subsystems having higher damping in

14

Figure 7. Input, Output and Transmitted signals by transmission paths 𝐴 → 𝐵 and 𝐵 → 𝐴 for
Example 3

Figure 8. Transmitted signal in the single channel transmission and comparison of the output
signals with and without switching for Example 2.

Example 3. Fig. 8 also includes the transmitted signal on the single line time shared by
transmissions 𝐴 → 𝐵 and 𝐵 → 𝐴 (…. Transmitted signal). As a conclusion, effects of switching
between the transmission channels can be better reduced by using highly damped subsystems 𝐴
and 𝐵.
4.

Use of Pseudo-Commutative Subsystems

15

In the following example, how the use of commutativity in cryptology can be expanded by
using the concept of nearly-commutative subsystems. Since the purpose is just to introduce this
goal, first order subsystems are considered for simplicity.
Example 4
Let 𝐴 be the first order linear time-varying system of Example 3, namely defined by
𝐴: 𝑦̇𝐴 (𝑡) + (5 + 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜋𝑡)𝑦𝐴 (𝑡) = 𝑥𝐴 (𝑡); 𝑦𝐴 (0) = 0.

(6a)

The system is chosen purposely as to have highly damped characteristic value always
remaining in the left half of s-plane far away from the imaginary axis. This is because to have
sufficiently fast decaying natural responses due to mismatching initial conditions preventing
commutativity as mentioned before. Otherwise, when switching take place as described in Section
5.2 nonzero initial conditions not satisfying the commutativity conditions that had been formed
before the switching from 𝐴 → 𝐵 to 𝐵 → 𝐴 or vice and these paths will not give the same
responses. We now consider the transformation in Eq. (5) which gives all the commutative pairs
of Subsystem 𝐴; instead of choosing 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 as constants, let us choose them as parameters
varying slowly with respect to the natural dynamics of Subsystem 𝐴 and 𝐵. This is expected to
result with nearly commutative subsystems so that the cascade connections 𝐴𝐵 and 𝐵𝐴 will yield
almost the same outputs whilst the spectrum of the transmitted signal trough the communication
medium continuously changing with varying parameters

𝑐1 and 𝑐2 ; this will puzzle the third

persons trying to catch the actual information illegally. To observe this, we choose 𝑐1 = 2 +
𝑠𝑖𝑛0.1𝜋𝑡 and 𝑐0 = −3𝑐𝑜𝑠0.2𝜋𝑡 in the mention respect and by a similar equation to Eq. (5) we
obtain Subsystem 𝐵 as
𝐵: (2 + 𝑠𝑖𝑛0.1𝜋𝑡)𝑦̇ 𝐵 (𝑡) + (105𝑠𝑖𝑛0.1𝜋𝑡 − 3𝑐𝑜𝑠0.2𝜋𝑡)𝑦𝐵 (𝑡) = 𝑥𝐵 (𝑡); 𝑦𝐵 (0) = 0. (6b)

16

For an input 𝑥(𝑡) = 12𝑠𝑖𝑛2𝜋𝑡 which is shown in Fig. 9 (___Input/10), the outputs of
transmissions 𝐴 → 𝐵 and 𝐵 → 𝐴 are also plotted in the figure (___Output*50: 𝐴𝐵 and
___Output*50:

𝐵𝐴, respectively). Even though 𝐴 and 𝐵 are not exactly commutative, It is seen that

𝐴𝐵 and 𝐵𝐴 almost produce the same output owing to the slow variations of parameters 𝑐1 and 𝑐0
used to obtain 𝐴 from 𝐵 through a similar equation to Eq. (5). Further, on the same figure is shown
the output (___Output*50: 𝐴𝐵 − 𝐵𝐴 switched.) of the single line system which is used time-sharing
between transmissions 𝐴 → 𝐵 and 𝐵 → 𝐴. It is obvious that switching used for a single channel
transmission does not spoil to achieve the same response of systems 𝐴𝐵 and 𝐵𝐴.
In Fig. 10, it is seen that although all outputs are almost the same, the shape of the
proceeding signals on the channel 𝐴 → 𝐵 (___Transmitted s. 𝐴𝐵), on the channel 𝐵 → 𝐴
(___Transmitted s. 𝐵𝐴), and on the common channel (…Transmitted s. 𝐴𝐵 − 𝐵𝐴 switched) quite
different. Hence, the same output signal is transferred through the transmission medium in
different forms and this complicates attaining it by unauthorized persons.

17

Figure 9. Output signals obtained at the receiver side for Example 4.

Figure 10. Transmitted signals travelling through transmission medium for Example 4.

18

5.

Power Spectrums
On the base of their frequency spectrums, this section explains the use of commutativity

for encrypting signals when travelling through the transmission channels. Since the power or
frequency spectrum is an important subject for comparing signals and is a very essential analysis
tool in communication theory, especially for studying different modulation techniques, the
comparison of signals transmitted through the transmission medium depicted in Fig. 1 by
comparing their spectrums is essential and this is considered in this section.
For Example 1, the spectrums of the transmitted signal from Subsystem 𝐴 to Subsystem 𝐵
and the transmitted signal from Subsystem 𝐵 to Subsystem 𝐴 are shown in Fig. 11 by
(__Transmitted 𝐴𝐵) and (__Transmitted 𝐵𝐴), respectively. Obviously the spectrums are quite
different in spite of the fact that these signals produce the same outputs at the receiver end (See
___Output signal*10 in Fig. 3).

Figure 11. Power spectrums of the signals transmitted 𝐴 → 𝐵 and 𝐵 → 𝐴 for Example 1.

19

It has been already noted that the distortive effects of using switching for single channel
communication as described in Section 3 and pseudo-commutative subsystems to strength
cryptological actions as illustrated in Section 4 are hardly seen at the receiver output, the
propagating signals from transmitter to receiver side depicted in Figs. 5, 7, 10 will naturally contain
quite different spectrums similar to those in Fig. 11; whilst they are producing almost the same
output signal on the receiver side (See Figs. 6, 8, 9, respectively). Therefor it is satisfied with this
much dealing about the frequency spectrums characteristics.
6.

Conclusions
Cryptology is an important subject for hiding signals in communication systems

transferring information from one local area to another. In this paper, how commutativity property
of subsystems in a communication system can be used for transmitting signals safely by reducing
the probability of stealing by unauthorized persons. In fact, it is shown that the same output signal
at the receiver side of a communication channel can be transmitted simultaneously through the
same channel by using commutative subsystems at the transmitter and receiver sides together with
switching while changing its transmitted version through the transmission medium.
Instead of fixing some system parameters as in 𝑐1 and 𝑐0 in Example 4, some certain timechange for 𝑐1 and 𝑐0 , for example changing them arbitrarily but slowly with time, will yield using
pseudo-commutative subsystems and thus additional alternatives for hiding the transmitted
information.
Moreover, the transmitted signal trough the transmission medium in case of
communication on a signal channel can be further puzzled by changing the switching strategy; for
example, changing the switching frequency and switching periods of channels AB and BA

20

unsymmetrically will produce extra advantages for a safe communication. And this can be
forwarded as a further research subject on the area.

Acknowledgments: This study was supported by the Scientific and Technological Research
Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) under the project no. 115E952.

REFERENCES
[1]

M. Borenovic, A. Neskovic, D. Budimir, Space partitioning strategies for indoor wlan
positioning with cascade-connected ann structures, International Journal of Neural
Systems, 21, 1-15, 2011.

[2]

D. Antic, Z. Jovanovic, V. Nikolic, M. Milojkovic, S. Nikolic, N. Dankovic, Modelling of
cascade-connected

systems

using

quise-orthagonal

functions,

Elektronika

Ir

Elektrotechnika, 18, 3-8, 2012
[3]

K. Nagase, Wave analysis and control of double cascade-connected damped mass-spring
systems, Mechanics Research Communications, 70, 49-57, 2015.

[4]

B. Samardzic, B. M. Zlatkovic, Analysis of spatial chaos appearance in cascade connected
nonlinear electrical circuits, Chaos Solutions and Fractals, 95, 14-20, 2017.

[5]

T. Kaczorek, Positive time-varying continuous-time linear systems and electrical circuits,
The journal of Polish Academy of Sciences, 63, 1-6, 2015.

[6]

B. Basu, A. Staino, Control of a linear time-varying system with a forward Ricatti
formulation in wavelet domain, Journal of Dynamic systems Measurement and ControlTransactions of the ASME, 138, 1-6, 2016.

[7]

R.K.R. Alla, J.S. Lather, G.L. Pahuja, New delay dependent stability criterion for linear
system with time-varying delay using Wirtinger’s inequality, Journal of Engineering
21

Research, 4, 103-116, 2016.
[8]

J. Wang, C.M. Mak, An active vibration control system with decoupling scheme for linear
periodically time-varying systems, Journal of Vibration and Control, 22, 2370-2379, 2016.

[9]

W. Guan, C. Wang, D.S. Chen, C.Y. Luo, F.F. Su, Recursive principal component analysis
with forgetting factor for operational modal analysis of linear time-varying system,
International Journal of Applied Electromagnetics and Mechanics, 52, 999-1006, 2016.

[10]

J. Lataire, R. Pintelon, D. Piga, R. Toth, Continuous-time linear time-varying system
identification with a frequency-domain kernel-based estimator, IET Control Theory and
Applications, 11, 457-465, 2017.

[11]

R. Boylestad and L. Nashelsky, Electronic Devices and Circuit Theory, Prentice Hall, New
Jersey, 2013.

[12]

E. Marshal, Commutativity of time varying systems, Electronics Letters, 13, 539-540,
1977.

[13]

M. Koksal, Commutativity of second order time-varying systems, International Journal of
Control, 36, 541-544, 1982.

[14]

S. V. Salehi, Comments on ‘Commutativity of second-order time-varying systems’,
International Journal of Control, 37, 1195-1196, 1983.

[15]

M. Koksal, Corrections on ‘Commutativity of second-order time-varying systems’,
International Journal of Control, 38, 273-274, 1983.

[16]

M. Koksal, General conditions for the commutativity of time-varying systems,
International Conference on Telecommunication and Control, Halkidiki, Greece, pp. 223225, August 27-30, 1984.

[17]

M. Koksal, A Survey on the Commutativity of Time-Varying Systems, METU, Technical

22

Report no: GEEE CAS-85/1, 1985.
[18]

M. Koksal, An exhaustive study on the commutativity of time-varying systems,
International Journal of Control, 47, 1521-1537, 1988.

[19]

M. Koksal and M. E. Koksal, Commutativity of linear time-varying differential systems
with non-zero initial conditions: A review and some new extensions, Mathematical
Problems in Engineering, 2011, 1-25, 2011.

[20]

M. E. Koksal, The Second order commutative pairs of a first order linear time-varying
system, Applied Mathematics and Information Sciences, 9, 1-6, 2015.

[21]

M. E. Koksal, Decomposition of a second-order linear time-varying differential system as
the series connection of two first-order commutative pairs, Open Mathematics, 14, 693704, 2016.

[22]

M. Koksal and M. E. Koksal, Commutativity of cascade connected discrete-time linear
time-varying systems, Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, 37, 615622, 2015.

[23]

M. Koksal, Effects of commutativity on system sensitivity. In: Proceeding of the 6th Int.
symposium on networks, systems and signal processing, Zargeb, Yugoslavia, 1989, pp.6162.

[24]

B. Zhou, On asymptotic stability of linear time-varying systems, Automatica, 68, 266-276,
2016.

[25]

A. Ilchmann, D. H. Owens, D. Prätzel-Wolters, Sufficient conditions for stability of linear
time-varying systems, Systems & Control Letters, 9, 157-163, 1987.

23

