1: 

2: %communicated to PLA

3: %\documentclass[11pt]{article}

4: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

5: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

6: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

7: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

8: \newcommand{\sn}{{\rm sn}}

9: \newcommand{\ds}{{\rm ds}}

10: \newcommand{\cs}{{\rm cs}}

11: \newcommand{\ns}{{\rm ns}}

12: \newcommand{\dn}{{\rm dn}}

13: \newcommand{\cn}{{\rm cn}}

14: \newcommand{\sech}{{\rm sech}}

15: 

16: \documentclass[showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

17: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

18: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point

19: \usepackage{bm}% bold math

20: 

21: \topmargin          -0.8in

22: \oddsidemargin      -.2in

23: \evensidemargin     0in

24: \textwidth          7.0in

25: \textheight         8.7in

26: \def\baselinestretch{1.7}

27: 

28: \begin{document}

29: \vspace{.5in}

30: \begin{center}

31: {\LARGE{\bf Exact Moving and Stationary Solutions of a Generalized Discrete

32: Nonlinear Schr\"odinger Equation}}

33: \end{center}

34: 

35: \vspace{.3in}

36: \begin{center}

37: {\LARGE{\bf Avinash Khare}} \\

38: {Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, Orissa 751005, India}

39: \end{center}

40: 

41: \begin{center}

42: {\LARGE{\bf Sergey V. Dmitriev}} \\

43: {General Physics Department, Altai State Technical University,

44: Barnaul 656038, Russia}

45: \end{center}

46: 

47: \begin{center}

48: {\LARGE{\bf Avadh Saxena}} \\

49: {Theoretical Division and Center for Nonlinear Studies, Los

50: Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA}

51: \end{center}

52: 

53: \vspace{.9in}

54: {\bf {Abstract}}

55: 

56: We obtain exact moving and stationary, spatially periodic and

57: localized solutions of a generalized discrete nonlinear

58: Schr\"odinger equation. More specifically, we find two different

59: moving periodic wave solutions and a localized moving pulse

60: solution. We also address the problem of finding exact stationary

61: solutions and, for a particular case of the model when stationary

62: solutions can be expressed through the Jacobi elliptic functions,

63: we present a two-point map from which all possible stationary

64: solutions can be found. Numerically we demonstrate the generic

65: stability of the stationary pulse solutions and also the

66: robustness of moving pulses in long-term dynamics.

67: 

68: \newpage

69: 

70: \section{Introduction}

71: 

72: The discrete nonlinear Schr\"odinger (DNLS) equation occurs

73: ubiquitously \cite{krb} throughout modern science. Most notable is

74: the role it plays in understanding the propagation of

75: electromagnetic waves in glass fibres and other optical waveguides

76: \cite{esm} as well as in the temporal evolution of Bose-Einstein

77: condensates \cite{tm}. One of the variants of the DNLS model is

78: the celebrated Ablowitz-Ladik (AL) model \cite{al} which is an

79: integrable model. Another aspect which stands out in favor of the

80: AL model is that, while most other discrete DNLS models have

81: stationary wave solutions \cite{krss}, this model has moving wave

82: solutions. Further, these moving waves avoid the discreteness

83: energy barrier (the so called Peierls-Nabarro (PN) barrier). These

84: solutions have played a major role in the computational studies of

85: the corresponding continuum NLS model \cite{ahs} as well as in

86: developing perturbation techniques \cite{kk}. It is clearly of

87: great interest to consider different variants of the DNLS equation

88: \cite{DNLSEx,pel,DNLSE1} and to try to obtain exact moving wave

89: solutions \cite{krss,DKYF}. The existence of such solutions

90: might help in discovering new integrable models and would also

91: help in further developing perturbative techniques in DNLS-type

92: equations. The purpose of this paper is to report on the existence

93: of exact moving as well as stationary solutions in a generalized

94: DNLS model with seven parameters. For finite lattices we find two

95: different periodic moving wave solutions while for the infinite

96: lattice we find a localized moving pulse solution.

97: 

98: In a recent paper, Pelinovsky \cite{pel}  has addressed the

99: question of spatial discretization of the NLS equation with cubic

100: nonlinearity

101: %

102: \be\label{1}

103:   i\dot{u} +u_{xx}+2|u|^2u =0\,.

104: \ee

105: %

106: While the {\it standard} choice for the DNLS equation is

107: %

108: \be\label{2}

109:   i\dot{u}_n +u_{n+1}+u_{n-1}-2u_{n}+2|u_n|^2u_n =0\,,

110: \ee

111: %

112: strictly speaking, there is no unique choice. Perhaps the only constraint

113: on the corresponding discrete model is that in

114: the continuum limit it should go over to the NLS Eq. (\ref{1}). By demanding

115: that the semi-discretization is symplectic and few other requirements,

116: Pelinovsky \cite{pel} showed that if one writes the DNLS equation in the form

117: %

118: \be\label{3}

119:   i\dot{u}_n +u_{n+1}+u_{n-1}-2u_{n}+f(u_{n-1},u_n,u_{n+1}) =0\,,

120: \ee

121: %

122: then the most general form for the nonlinear function $f$ is given by

123: \bea\label{4}

124:  &&f=\alpha_1|u_n|^2 u_n +\alpha_2|u_n|^2(u_{n+1}+u_{n-1})

125:  +\alpha_3u_n^2(\bar{u}_{n+1}+\bar{u}_{n-1}) \nonumber \\

126:  &&+\alpha_4 u_n(|u_{n+1}|^2+|u_{n-1}|^2)

127:  +\alpha_5 u_n(\bar{u}_{n+1}u_{n-1}+\bar{u}_{n-1}u_{n+1})

128:  \nonumber \\

129:  &&+\alpha_6 \bar{u}_n(u_{n+1}^2+u_{n-1}^2)

130:  +\alpha_7 \bar{u}_n u_{n+1}u_{n-1}

131:  +\alpha_8 (|u_{n+1}|^2 u_{n+1}+|u_{n-1}|^2 u_{n-1}) \nonumber \\

132:  &&+\alpha_9 (\bar{u}_{n-1}u_{n+1}^2+\bar{u}_{n+1}u_{n-1}^2)

133:  +\alpha_{10} (|u_{n+1}|^2 u_{n-1}+|u_{n-1}|^2 u_{n+1})\,,

134:  \eea

135: where $\bar{u}$ represents complex conjugate and the real valued

136: parameters ($\alpha_1,...,\alpha_{10}$) satisfy the continuity

137: constraint

138:  \be\label{5}

139:  \alpha_1+\alpha_7+2(\alpha_2+\alpha_3+\alpha_4+\alpha_5+\alpha_6+

140:  \alpha_8+\alpha_9+\alpha_{10})=2\,.

141:  \ee

142: The purpose of this paper is to obtain moving as well as stationary

143: solutions in this generalized model and study their stability.

144: 

145: We note in passing that, under weaker constraints than that used

146: in \cite{pel}, one can add to (\ref{4}) the term proportional to

147: $u_n(|u_{n-1} u_n|+|u_n u_{n+1}|)$, which was demonstrated to be

148: translationally invariant and conserving the norm, $\Sigma|u_n|^2$

149: \cite{DNLSEx}.

150: 

151: The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \ref{Sec:Analytics} we

152: derive exact moving solutions for a seven-parameter DNLS model of

153: Eq. (\ref{4}) with $\alpha_1=\alpha_8=0$ under the constraint

154: (\ref{5}). In addition, for a five-parameter translationally

155: invariant DNLS equation we obtain a nonlinear map from which all

156: possible stationary solutions can be derived. In Sec.

157: \ref{Sec:Numerics} we present numerical results for the stationary

158: and moving pulse solutions to demonstrate their stability. Section

159: \ref{Sec:Concl} summarizes our main findings and concludes the

160: paper. In the Appendix we list the identities for the Jacobi

161: elliptic functions used in the derivation of the periodic wave

162: solutions.

163: 

164: 

165: 

166: \section{Analytical results} \label{Sec:Analytics}

167: 

168: We now show that two moving periodic wave solutions can be

169: obtained with this general cubic polynomial in case terms of the

170: type $|u_n|^2u_n$ are absent, i.e.

171: %

172: \be\label{6}

173:   \alpha_1=\alpha_8=0\,.

174: \ee

175: %

176: It may be added here that the famous AL moving wave solutions

177: are obtained in case only $\alpha_2$ is non-zero while all other

178: $\alpha_{i}$ are zero.

179: 

180: 

181: \subsection{ Solution I} \label{Sec:dn}

182: 

183:  In particular, it is not difficult to show that one of the

184:   exact periodic wave solution

185:  to Eq. (\ref{3}) [with $f$ being given by Eq. (\ref{4}) satisfying

186:  constraints (\ref{5}) and (\ref{6})] is given by

187:  \be\label{7}

188:  u_n = A \exp[-i(\omega t-kn+\delta)]\,\dn [\beta (n-v t+c),m]\,,

189:  \ee

190:  provided the following six relations are satisfied

191:  \be\label{8}

192:  v\beta=2A^2(\alpha_2-\alpha_3)\sin(k)\cs(\beta,m)\,,

193:  \ee

194:  \be\label{9}

195:  \cs(\beta,m)\alpha_6 \sin(2k)+[\alpha_9\sin(3k)-\alpha_{10}\sin(k)]

196: \cs(2\beta,m)=0\,,

197:  \ee

198:  \bea\label{10}

199:  &&\frac{\sin(k)}{A^2}=(\alpha_2-\alpha_3)\sin(k)\cs^2(\beta,m)

200: -\alpha_6\sin(2k)\ds(\beta,m)\ns(\beta,m) \nonumber \\

201:  &&-[\alpha_9\sin(3k)-\alpha_{10}\sin(k)]

202: [\cs^2(2\beta,m)+\ds(2\beta,m)\ns(2\beta,m)]\,,

203:  \eea

204:  \be\label{11}

205:  [\alpha_4+\alpha_6 \cos(2k)]\cs(\beta,m)

206:  +[\alpha_9\cos(3k)+\alpha_{10}\cos(k)]\cs(2\beta,m)=0\,,

207:  \ee

208:  \bea\label{12}

209:  &&\frac{\cos(k)}{A^2}=[\alpha_2+\alpha_3]\cos(k)\cs^2(\beta,m)

210:  -[\alpha_4+\alpha_6 \cos(2k)]\ds(\beta,m)\ns(\beta,m) \nonumber \\

211:  &&+[2\alpha_5\cos(2k)+\alpha_7]\cs(\beta,m)\cs(2\beta,m) \nonumber \\

212:  &&-[\alpha_9\cos(3k)+\alpha_{10}\cos(k)][\ds(2\beta,m)\ns(2\beta,m)

213:  -\cs^2(2\beta,m)]\,,

214:  \eea

215:  \bea\label{13}

216:  &&\frac{\omega}{A^2}-\frac{2}{A^2}=-2[\alpha_2+\alpha_3]

217:  \cos(k)\ds(\beta,m)\ns(\beta,m) \nonumber \\

218:  &&+2[\alpha_4+\alpha_6 \cos(2k)]\cs^2(\beta,m)

219:  -[2\alpha_5\cos(2k)+\alpha_7]\cs^2(\beta,m)\,.

220:  \eea

221: Here $c$ and $\delta$ are arbitrary constants, $k$, $\omega$, and

222: $v$ denote the wavenumber, frequency and velocity, respectively,

223: of the periodic wave whereas $\cs(a,m),\ds(a,m),\ns(a,m)$ stand for

224: the Jacobi elliptic functions $\cn(a,m)/\sn(a,m),

225: \dn(a,m)/\sn(a,m), 1/\sn(a,m)$ respectively with $m$ being the

226: modulus parameter ($0 \le m \le 1$) \cite{as}. While deriving

227: these relations, use has been made of the local identities

228: (\ref{14}) to (\ref{20}) for Jacobi elliptic functions $\dn(x,m)$

229: \cite{kls} which are given in the Appendix.

230: 

231: It may be noted that Eqs. (\ref{8}) to (\ref{13}) determine the

232: five parameters $A,\omega,k,v,\beta$ and give us one constraint

233: between the eight parameters $\alpha_2,...,\alpha_{10}$ (except

234: $\alpha_8$). In view of the constraint (\ref{5}) between these

235: parameters, it then follows that we have obtained a moving

236: periodic wave solution with six parameters. As expected, in the

237: limit $\alpha_2 \ne 0$ while all other $\alpha_i=0$, we recover

238: the well known periodic wave solution of the AL problem \cite{sb}.

239: Notice that in order that the periodic solution be compatible with

240: the lattice, the modulus $m$ has to be chosen such that $\beta

241: N_p=2K(m)$ where $K(m)$ denotes the complete elliptic integral of

242: the first kind \cite{as} and $N_p$ is the periodicity of the

243: lattice \cite{krss}.

244: 

245: \subsection{ Solution II} \label{Sec:cn}

246: 

247: As in the AL case, there is another periodic wave solution to the

248: DNLS Eq. (\ref{3}) with $f$ being given by Eq. (\ref{4})

249: satisfying constraints (\ref{5}) and (\ref{6}). It is given by

250:  \be\label{21}

251:  u_n = A \sqrt{m}\exp[-i(\omega t-kn+\delta)]\,\cn [\beta (n-v t+c),m]\,,

252:  \ee

253:  provided the following relations are satisfied

254:  \be\label{22}

255:  v\beta=2A^2(\alpha_2-\alpha_3)\sin(k)\ds(\beta,m)\,,

256:  \ee

257:  \be\label{23}

258:  \alpha_6 \sin(2k)\ds(\beta,m)+[\alpha_9\sin(3k)-\alpha_{10}\sin(k)]

259: \ds(2\beta,m)=0\,,

260:  \ee

261:  \bea\label{24}

262:  &&\frac{\sin(k)}{A^2}=(\alpha_2-\alpha_3)\sin(k)\ds^2(\beta,m)

263: -\alpha_6\sin(2k)\cs(\beta,m)\ns(\beta,m) \nonumber \\

264: &&-[\alpha_9\sin(3k)-\alpha_{10}\sin(k)]

265: [\ds^2(2\beta,m)+\cs(2\beta,m)\ns(2\beta,m)]\,,

266:  \eea

267:  \be\label{25}

268:  [\alpha_4+\alpha_6 \cos(2k)]\ds(\beta,m)

269:  +[\alpha_9\cos(3k)+\alpha_{10}\cos(k)]\ds(2\beta,m)=0\,,

270:  \ee

271:  \bea\label{26}

272:  &&\frac{\cos(k)}{A^2}=[\alpha_2+\alpha_3]\cos(k)\ds^2(\beta,m)

273:  -[\alpha_4+\alpha_6 \cos(2k)]\cs(\beta,m)\ns(\beta,m) \nonumber \\

274:  &&+[2\alpha_5\cos(2k)+\alpha_7]\ds(\beta,m)\ds(2\beta,m) \nonumber \\

275:  &&-[\alpha_9\cos(3k)+\alpha_{10}\cos(k)][\cs(2\beta,m)\ns(2\beta,m)

276:  -\ds^2(2\beta,m)]\,,

277:  \eea

278:  \bea\label{27}

279:  &&\frac{\omega}{A^2}-\frac{2}{A^2}=-2[\alpha_2+\alpha_3]

280:  \cos(k)\cs(\beta,m)\ns(\beta,m) \nonumber \\

281: &&+2[\alpha_4+\alpha_6 \cos(2k)]\ds^2(\beta,m)

282:  -[2\alpha_5\cos(2k)+\alpha_7]\ds^2(\beta,m)\,.

283:  \eea

284: 

285: \noindent While deriving these relations,

286: use has been made of the local identities (\ref{28}) to (\ref{34})

287: for the Jacobi elliptic function $\cn(x,m)$ \cite{kls} which have been

288: given in the Appendix.

289: 

290: As with the first solution, we again have a moving periodic wave

291: solution with six parameters and again in the limit when only

292: $\alpha_2 \ne 0$ while all other $\alpha_i$ are zero, we recover

293: the well known periodic wave solution of the AL problem \cite{sb}.

294: In addition, note that in order that the periodic solution be compatible

295: with the lattice, the modulus $m$ has to be chosen such that

296: $\beta N_p=4K(m)$ where $N_p$ is the periodicity of the lattice

297: \cite{krss}.

298: 

299: 

300: 

301: \subsection{ Two-Point maps for stationary solutions}

302: \label{Sec:TwoPointMap}

303: 

304: With the ansatz $u_n \left( t \right) = f_n e^{-i\omega t} $ we

305: obtain from the DNLS Eqs. (\ref{3}), (\ref{4}) the following

306: second-order difference equation for the amplitudes

307: \begin{eqnarray}\label{GenAmpl}

308:   f_{n - 1}  - (2 - \omega)f_n  + f_{n + 1} + \alpha_1 f_n^3

309:   % \nonumber \\

310:   + (\alpha _2  + \alpha _3)f_n^2 (f_{n - 1}  + f_{n + 1})

311:   + (\alpha _4  + \alpha _6)f_n

312:   \left( {f_{n - 1}^2  + f_{n + 1}^2 } \right) \nonumber \\

313:   +(2\alpha _5  + \alpha _7)f_{n - 1} f_n f_{n + 1}

314:   + \alpha_8 \left(f_{n - 1}^3 + f_{n + 1}^3 \right)

315:   + (\alpha_9  + \alpha_{10})f_{n - 1} f_{n + 1}(f_{n - 1} + f_{n + 1}) = 0.

316: \end{eqnarray}

317: 

318: For the following choice of parameters [that already includes the

319: continuity constraint (\ref{5})]

320: %

321: \be\label{stationary}

322:    \alpha_1=\alpha_8=0, \quad

323:    \alpha_4=-\alpha_6, \quad

324:    \alpha_9=-\alpha_{10},\, \quad {\rm and} \quad

325:    \alpha_7+2[\alpha_2+\alpha_3+\alpha_5]=2\,,

326: \ee

327: %

328: we get from (\ref{GenAmpl}) the following second-order

329: difference equation for the amplitudes

330: %

331: \begin{eqnarray}\label{amplitudes}

332:   f_{n - 1}  - \left( {2 - \omega } \right)f_n  + f_{n + 1}

333:   + \left( {\alpha _2  + \alpha _3 } \right)f_n^2

334:   \left( {f_{n - 1}  + f_{n + 1} } \right)

335:   + \left( {2\alpha _5  + \alpha _7 } \right)f_{n - 1} f_n f_{n + 1} = 0.

336: \end{eqnarray}

337: %

338: In this case, the

339: stationary problem is exactly solvable. Indeed, one can obtain

340: the first integral of (\ref{amplitudes}) and present it in the

341: form of a two-point nonlinear map

342: %

343: \begin{eqnarray}\label{map}

344:    f_{n + 1} &=& (2 - \omega)\frac{Zf_n \pm \sqrt {R(f_n)} }

345:    {{2 - \omega  + Yf_n^2 }}, \nonumber \\

346:    R(f_n)&=&-\frac{Y}

347:    {2 - \omega} (K - X f_n^2 + f_n^4) ,

348: \end{eqnarray}

349: %

350: where

351: %

352: \begin{eqnarray}\label{mapparam}

353:   Z = \frac{{(2 - \omega)^2

354:   - K\left( {2\alpha _5  + \alpha _7 } \right)^2 }}

355:   {{2K\left( {\alpha _2  + \alpha _3 } \right)\left( {2\alpha _5  + \alpha _7 } \right)

356:   + 2\left( {2 - \omega } \right)}}, \nonumber \\

357:   Y = 2\left( {\alpha _2  + \alpha _3 } \right)Z

358:   + \left( {2\alpha _5  + \alpha _7 } \right), \nonumber \\

359:   X = -\frac{KY^2 + (2 - \omega)^2(1 - Z^2)}{(2 - \omega)Y}.

360: \end{eqnarray}

361: %

362: Apart from the model parameters $\alpha_i$ and frequency $\omega$,

363: the nonlinear map (\ref{map}), (\ref{mapparam}) contains the

364: integration constant $K$. Due to the symmetry of equation

365: (\ref{amplitudes}) one can substitute $f_{n+1}$ for $f_{n-1}$ in

366: (\ref{map}). For any set of admissible values $f_0$, $K$, and

367: $\omega$ one can find the amplitudes of a stationary solution

368: by iterating (\ref{map}). For $R(f_n)>0$ the map (\ref{map}) gives

369: two values for $f_{n+1}$ and one should take the one which

370: satisfies the original three-point problem (\ref{amplitudes}). It

371: is sufficient to take $f_{n+1}$ different from $f_{n-1}$.

372: 

373: The above two-point map can also be constructed from the Jacobi

374: elliptic function solutions (\ref{7}) or (\ref{21}) as described

375: in our recent work on a discrete $\phi^4$ model

376: \cite{DKKSinpress}. The corresponding DNLS equation has five free

377: parameters because (\ref{stationary}) sets up five constraints

378: between the ten parameters ($\alpha_i$) of the model. We note that

379: {\em any} stationary solution to the DNLS equation defined by

380: (\ref{3}) and (\ref{4}) with the parameters satisfying

381: (\ref{stationary}) can be constructed from the nonlinear map

382: (\ref{map}), (\ref{mapparam}). Such investigations have been

383: carried out in our recent work on the DNLS equation \cite{DKYF}

384: and the $\phi^4$ equation \cite{DKKSinpress,DKYF2006PRE}.

385: 

386: It is also worth pointing out that the three-point problem given by

387: Eq. (\ref{amplitudes}) and the three-point problem studied by Quispel

388: {\it et al.} \cite{Quispel} both can be presented in the following

389: general form

390: %

391: \be\label{qui}

392:    f_{n+1}=\frac{h_1(f_n)-h_2(f_n)f_{n-1}}{h_2(f_n)-h_3(f_n)f_{n-1}}\,.

393: \ee

394: %

395: For a particular choice of the functions $h_i(f_n)$, Quispel {\it

396: et al.} have found a two-point map (i.e., the first integral of the

397: corresponding three-point problem) which is quadratic in both

398: $\phi_n$ and $\phi_{n+1}$ \cite{Quispel}. For our choice of these

399: functions,

400: %

401: \be\label{qui1}

402:    h_1(f_n)=(2-\omega)f_n\,,~~~h_2(f_n)=1+(\alpha_2+\alpha_3)f_n^2\,,

403:    ~~~h_3(f_n)=-(2\alpha_5+\alpha_7)f_n\,,

404: \ee

405: %

406: we found the map (\ref{map}) which is, in general, quartic

407: in $\phi_n$ and quadratic in $\phi_{n+1}$. Clearly, our map

408: (\ref{map}) does not belong to the 12 parameter map discussed in

409: \cite{Quispel}.

410: 

411: The above result is new in that it generalizes the map reported

412: in our recent work \cite{DKKSinpress}. For completeness, let us

413: also reproduce here the well-known result \cite{pel,DKKSinpress}

414: for the case of

415: %

416: \be\label{stationary2}

417:    \alpha _8  = \alpha _9  + \alpha _{10}, \quad

418:    \alpha_1 =\alpha_4  + \alpha_6, \quad

419:    \alpha _1  = 2\alpha_5  + \alpha_7\,, \quad {\rm and}

420:    \quad 4\alpha_1 +2[\alpha_2+\alpha_3 + 2\alpha_8]=2\,,

421: \ee

422: %

423: when the continuity constraint (\ref{5}) is satisfied and

424: (\ref{GenAmpl}) reduces to the following second-order

425: difference equation

426: %

427: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Add1}

428:   f_{n - 1}  - (2 - \omega)f_n  + f_{n + 1}

429:   + \alpha_1 f_n \left[

430:    f_{n - 1}^2 + f_n^2 + f_{n + 1}^2

431:   +f_{n - 1}f_{n + 1} \right] \nonumber \\

432:   + (\alpha _2  + \alpha _3)f_n^2 (f_{n - 1}  + f_{n + 1})

433:   + \alpha_8 \left[f_{n - 1}^3 + f_{n + 1}^3

434:   + f_{n - 1} f_{n + 1}(f_{n - 1} + f_{n + 1}) \right] = 0.

435: \end{eqnarray}

436: %

437: The first integral of (\ref{Add1}) is

438: %

439: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Add2}

440:   V\left( {f_{n - 1},f_n} \right) \equiv f_{n - 1}^2

441:   + f_n^2  - \left( {2 - \omega }

442:   \right)f_{n - 1}f_n + \alpha _1 \left( {f_{n - 1}^2  + f_n^2 } \right)

443:   f_{n - 1}f_n \nonumber \\ + \left(

444:   {\alpha _2  + \alpha _3 } \right)f_{n - 1}^2 f_n^2

445:   + \alpha _8 \left( {f_{n - 1}^4  + f_n^4 } \right) + K = 0,

446: \end{eqnarray}

447: %

448: where $K$ is the integration constant. This is so because

449: (\ref{Add1}) can be rewritten in the form

450: %

451: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Add3}

452:   \frac{V(f_n,f_{n + 1})- V(f_{n-1},f_n)}{f_{n + 1} -f_{n - 1}} = 0,

453: \end{eqnarray}

454: %

455: and one can verify that if $V\left( {f_{n - 1},f_n} \right)=0$ then

456: (\ref{Add1}) is satisfied. Solving the algebraic problem

457: (\ref{Add2}) iteratively for an admissible initial value $f_0$ one

458: can construct a stationary solution to (\ref{Add1}). This

459: model has six free parameters because (\ref{stationary2}) sets up

460: four constraints between the ten parameters ($\alpha_i$) of the model.

461: In general, stationary solutions to the DNLS equation with the

462: parameters satisfying (\ref{stationary2}) cannot be expressed in

463: terms of the Jacobi elliptic functions, but, as it was already

464: mentioned, they can be constructed iteratively from (\ref{Add2})

465: and they can be placed anywhere with respect to the lattice sites.

466: 

467: We note that the translationally invariant discrete models

468: possessing the form of equation (\ref{Add3}) have been introduced

469: by Kevrekidis in \cite{Kevrekidis:2003-68:PD}.

470: 

471: 

472: 

473: \subsection{Moving and stationary pulse solution} \label{Sec:Pulse}

474: 

475: In the limit $m \rightarrow 1$, both the periodic moving wave

476: solutions (\ref{7}) and (\ref{21}) reduce to the localized moving

477: pulse solution

478: %

479:  \be\label{35}

480: u_n = A \exp[-i(\omega t-kn+\delta)]\,\sech [\beta (n-v t+c)]\,,

481:  \ee

482: %

483:  and the relations (\ref{8}) to (\ref{13}) [as well as (\ref{22}) to

484: (\ref{27})] take a simpler form

485: %

486:  \be\label{36}

487:  v=\frac{2\sin(k)\sinh(\beta)}{\beta}\,,

488:  \ee

489:  %

490:  \be\label{37}

491: 2\alpha _6 \sin(2k)\cosh (\beta)  + \alpha _9 \sin(3k) - \alpha

492: _{10} \sin (k) = 0\,,

493:  \ee

494:  \be\label{38}

495:  \left[ {\sinh ^2 (\beta)  + \left( {\alpha _3  - \alpha _2 }

496: \right)A^2 } \right]\sin (k) = 0\,, \ee

497:  \be\label{39}

498:  A^2  = \frac{{2\sinh ^2 (\beta) \cosh (\beta) \cos (k)}}{{2\left(

499: {\alpha _2  + \alpha _3 } \right)\cos (k)\cosh (\beta)  + 2\left(

500: {\alpha _5  - \alpha _6 } \right)\cos(2 k) + \alpha _7 - 2\alpha

501: _4 }}\,,

502:  \ee

503:  \be\label{40}

504: 2[\alpha _4 + \alpha _6\cos(2k)] \cosh (\beta) + \alpha _9 \cos

505: (3k) + \alpha _{10} \cos (k) = 0\,,

506:  \ee

507:  \be\label{41}

508:  \omega=2[1-\cos(k)\cosh(\beta)]\,.

509:  \ee

510: 

511: From (\ref{36}), pulse velocity is zero when $k=0$ or $k=\pi$. In

512: the former case we have the non-staggered stationary pulse while

513: in the latter case we have the staggered pulse. Needless to say

514: that these remarks equally apply to the periodic wave solutions

515: (\ref{7}) and (\ref{21}). In particular for $k=0$ we obtain the

516: non-staggered stationary pulse solution

517: %

518: \begin{eqnarray}\label{NonStaggStationaryPulse}

519:    u_n = A \exp[-i(\omega t+\delta)]\,\sech [\beta (n+c)]\,,

520:    \nonumber \\

521:    \omega  = 2 - 2\cosh (\beta) , \nonumber \\

522:    A^2  = \frac{{2\sinh ^2 (\beta) \cosh (\beta) }}

523:    {{2\left( {\alpha _2  + \alpha _3 } \right)\cosh (\beta)

524:    + 2\left( {\alpha _5  - \alpha _4  - \alpha _6 } \right) + \alpha _7 }}, \nonumber \\

525:    2\left( {\alpha _4  + \alpha _6 } \right)\cosh (\beta)  + \alpha _9  + \alpha _{10}  = 0,

526: \end{eqnarray}

527: %

528: while in the latter case we obtain the staggered stationary pulse,

529: %

530: \begin{eqnarray}\label{StaggStationaryPulse}

531:    u_n = (-1)^n A \exp[-i(\omega t+\delta)]\,\sech [\beta (n+c)]\,,

532:    \nonumber \\

533:    \omega  = 2 + 2\cosh (\beta) , \nonumber \\

534:    A^2  = \frac{{ - 2\sinh ^2 (\beta) \cosh (\beta) }}

535:    {{ - 2\left( {\alpha _2  + \alpha _3 } \right)\cosh (\beta)

536:    + 2\left( {\alpha _5 - \alpha _4 - \alpha _6 } \right) + \alpha _7

537:    }}, \nonumber \\

538:    2\left( {\alpha _4  + \alpha _6 } \right)\cosh (\beta)

539:    - \alpha _9  - \alpha _{10}  = 0.

540: \end{eqnarray}

541: %

542: 

543: 

544: 

545: \begin{figure}

546: \includegraphics{fig1.ps}

547: \caption{(a) Velocity $v$ and (b) frequency $\omega$ of the pulse

548: as functions of the wavenumber parameter $k$ at fixed value of the

549: other parameter, inverse width of the pulse, $\beta=1/2$ (dashed

550: lines) and $\beta=1$ (solid lines).  These functions are defined

551: by (\ref{36}) and (\ref{41}) and they do not depend on the model

552: parameters $\alpha_i$. Pulse velocity is zero at $k=0$ and

553: $k=\pi$, the former case corresponds to the non-staggered

554: stationary pulse (\ref{NonStaggStationaryPulse}) while the latter

555: case to the staggered stationary pulse

556: (\ref{StaggStationaryPulse}).} \label{Figure1}

557: \end{figure}

558: 

559: 

560: 

561: 

562: \begin{figure}

563: \includegraphics{fig2.ps}

564: \caption{Nonzero model parameters $\alpha_3$ and $\alpha_7$ and

565: the pulse amplitude $A$ as functions of the parameter $k$ at fixed

566: value of the other parameter $\beta=1/2$ (dashed lines) and

567: $\beta=1$ (solid lines). These functions are defined by

568: (\ref{38a}). For $\beta=1/2$ the solution exists (i.e. $A$ is

569: real) for $|k|< 1.11$ while for $\beta=1$ it exists for $|k|<

570: 1.23$. The velocity $v$ and frequency $\omega$ of the pulse are

571: shown in Fig. \ref{Figure1}.} \label{Figure2}

572: \end{figure}

573: 

574: 

575: 

576: \begin{figure}

577: \includegraphics{fig3.ps}

578: \caption{Pulse amplitude $A$ as a function of the parameter $k$ at

579: $\beta=1/2$ (dashed lines) and $\beta=1$ (solid lines) for the

580: model with three nonzero parameters, $\alpha_3$, $\alpha_5$ and

581: $\alpha_7$. Here we set $\alpha_5=1$ and find other model and

582: pulse parameters from (\ref{38b}). For $\beta=1/2$ the solution

583: exists (i.e. $A$ is real) for $|k|< \pi/4$ and $1.12<|k|< 3\pi/4$,

584: while for $\beta=1$ it exists for $|k|< \pi/4$ and $1.24<|k|<

585: 3\pi/4$. The velocity $v$ and frequency $\omega$ of the pulse are

586: shown in Fig. \ref{Figure1}.} \label{Figure3}

587: \end{figure}

588: 

589: 

590: 

591: \begin{figure}

592: \includegraphics{fig4.ps}

593: \caption{Pulse amplitude $A$ as a function of the parameter $k$ at

594: $\beta=1/2$ (dashed lines) and $\beta=1$ (solid lines) for the

595: model with three nonzero parameters, $\alpha_2$, $\alpha_3$ and

596: $\alpha_5$. The relation between model and pulse parameters are given

597: by (\ref{38c}). For $\beta=1/2$ the solution exists (i.e. $A$ is

598: real) for $|k|< 1.26$ and $\pi/2 <|k|\le \pi$, while for $\beta=1$

599: it exists for $|k|< 1.32$ and $\pi/2 <|k|\le \pi$. The velocity $v$

600: and frequency $\omega$ of the pulse are shown in Fig.

601: \ref{Figure1}.} \label{Figure4}

602: \end{figure}

603: 

604: 

605: \section{ Analysis of the pulse solution and numerical results}

606: \label{Sec:Numerics}

607: 

608: 

609: 

610: For given model parameters $\alpha_i$, the moving pulse solution

611: (\ref{35})-(\ref{41})

612: %(as well as the corresponding moving

613: %staggered pulse solution) are

614: is characterized by two parameters, $\beta>0$ and $-\pi < k \le

615: \pi$. As it can be seen from (\ref{36}) and (\ref{41}), the pulse

616: velocity and frequency do not depend on model parameters while the

617: pulse amplitude does, see (\ref{39}). Using (\ref{36}) one can

618: express $\omega$ in (\ref{41}) as function of $v$ and $\beta$.

619: Also using (\ref{41}) one can express the group velocity

620: $d\omega/dk$. The pulse solution exists for given $\beta$ and $k$

621: if the right-hand side of (\ref{39}) is positive and if

622: (\ref{37}), (\ref{38}), and (\ref{40}) can be satisfied together

623: with the continuity constraint (\ref{5}), where we assume

624: (\ref{6}).

625: 

626: As for the stationary pulse solution

627: (\ref{NonStaggStationaryPulse}) or (\ref{StaggStationaryPulse}),

628: for given model parameters $\alpha_i$, the moving pulse solution

629: is characterized by a single parameter $\beta>0$. In general, as

630: far as the model parameters are fixed, the parameter $\beta$ of

631: the stationary pulse is also fixed through the last equation in

632: (\ref{NonStaggStationaryPulse}) or (\ref{StaggStationaryPulse}).

633: However, for $\alpha _4 = -\alpha _6$ and $\alpha _9 = -\alpha

634: _{10}$, this constraint disappears and $\beta$ can change

635: continuously within a domain where $A^2>0$.

636: Recall that in this particular case

637: the stationary pulse solution can also be constructed from the

638: two-point map presented in Sec. \ref{Sec:TwoPointMap}, for which

639: one should set the integration constant $K=0$.

640: 

641: \subsection{Different moving solutions}

642: 

643: Coming back to the moving pulse solution (\ref{35})-(\ref{41}),

644: several comments are in order.

645: 

646: \begin{enumerate}

647: 

648: % 1

649: \item The relations (\ref{36}) and (\ref{41}) are exactly the same as in the

650: AL case \cite{al}. It is indeed remarkable that the velocity $v$

651: and the frequency $\omega$ in our case are identical to those in

652: the AL model even though our model has eight nonlinear terms (with

653: coefficients $\alpha_2$ to $\alpha_{10}$ with $\alpha_8=0$) while

654: AL has only one term with $\alpha_2=1$.

655: %We believe that there must

656: %be a deeper underlying reason for these universal relations for

657: %$v$ and $\omega$ irrespective of the number of terms in the

658: %nonlinear function $f$ as given by Eq. (\ref{4}).

659: It is amusing to

660: note that these two relations have also been obtained by

661: Pelinovsky and Rothos from an entirely different approach

662: \cite{pr}, namely from the linear dispersion relation for the

663: corresponding differential advance-delay equation. In Fig.

664: \ref{Figure1} we show how $v$ and $\omega$ depend on one of the

665: pulse parameter, $k$, at fixed values of the other parameter,

666: $\beta=1/2$ (dashed lines) and $\beta=1$ (solid lines).

667: 

668: % 2

669: \item Unfortunately, we do not know the Hamiltonian from which the

670: DNLS Eq. (\ref{3}) with $f$ given by Eq. (\ref{4}) can be derived.

671: As a result, we cannot demonstrate the absence of the PN barrier

672: from the energy consideration. However, since our stationary

673: solutions have an effective translational invariance (i.e. the

674: solution is valid for any value of the constant $c$), this

675: suggests that the PN barrier would be zero for these solutions.

676: 

677: % 3

678: \item From Eq. (\ref{38}) it follows that the moving pulse solution

679: exists only if $\alpha_2$ and/or $\alpha_3$ are nonzero.

680: Further, in case $\alpha_2=0$, then it follows from Eq. (\ref{38}) that

681: $\alpha_3 < 0$.

682: 

683: % 4

684: \item In the limit when only $\alpha_2$ is nonzero while all other

685: $\alpha_i$ are zero, we recover the well known AL moving pulse

686: solution \cite{al}.

687: 

688: %5

689: \item The $\sn$-type and hence dark soliton solution can also be obtained

690: in this generalized model provided the right hand side of the continuity

691: Eq. (\ref{5}) is $-2$ (instead of 2).

692: 

693: % 6

694: \item In case only $\alpha_2$ and/or $\alpha_3$ are nonzero while all other

695: $\alpha_i=0$, then the generalized DNLS Eq. (\ref{3}) with $f$

696: given by Eq. (\ref{4}) conserves the momentum defined by

697: \be\label{mom1} P=i\sum_{n} \big

698: (u_{n+1}\bar{u}_n-\bar{u}_{n+1}u_n \big ) \,. \ee On the other

699: hand, in case only $\alpha_5$ and/or $\alpha_7$ are nonzero while

700: all other $\alpha_i=0$, then the generalized DNLS Eq. (\ref{3})

701: with $f$ given by Eq. (\ref{4}) conserves the momentum defined by

702: \be\label{mom2} P=i\sum_{n} \big

703: (u_{n+2}\bar{u}_n-\bar{u}_{n+2}u_n \big ) \,. \ee

704: %

705: Expression (\ref{mom2}) is similar to that introduced in

706: \cite{DKKSinpress} for the $\phi^4$ discrete equation.

707: 

708: %7

709: \item From Eqs. (\ref{36}) to (\ref{41}) it follows that the moving

710: pulse solution is also possible when only two of the eight

711: parameters are nonzero. For example, the moving pulse solution

712: (\ref{35}) exists in case $\alpha_3,\alpha_7$ are nonzero while

713: all other $\alpha_i$ are zero. While the relations (\ref{36}) and

714: (\ref{41}) are always valid, the other relations and the

715: constraint (\ref{5}) take the form

716: %

717: \be\label{38a}

718:    \alpha _3  = \frac{1}{{1 - 2\cos (k)\cosh (\beta)}}, \quad

719:    \alpha _7  = 2\left( {1 - \alpha _3 }\right), \quad

720:    A^2  = \frac{{\cos (k)\cosh (\beta) \sinh ^2 (\beta)}}

721:    {{\alpha _3 [\cos (k)\cosh (\beta) - 1]  + 1}}.

722: \ee

723: %

724: For a pair of pulse parameters, $k$ and $\beta$, we find

725: $\alpha_3$ and then $\alpha_7$ and $A$ from (\ref{38a}) and

726: present the result in Fig. \ref{Figure2} for $\beta=1/2$ (dashed

727: lines) and $\beta=1$ (solid lines). For $\beta=1/2$ the solution

728: exists (i.e. $A$ is real) for $|k|< 1.11$ while for $\beta=1$ it

729: exists for $|k|< 1.23$. One can see that the non-staggered

730: stationary pulse ($k=0$) exists while staggered stationary pulse

731: ($k=\pi$) does not exist in this case.

732: 

733: % 8

734: \item The moving pulse solution (\ref{35}) also exists in case only (i)

735: $\alpha_3,\alpha_5$ are nonzero; (ii) $\alpha_2,\alpha_5$ are

736: nonzero and $\cos(2k)=0$, i.e., regardless of the model parameters,

737: in this case one can have only $k=\pm \pi/4$ and $k=\pm 3\pi/4$.

738: Constraints similar to those in (\ref{38a}) are easily written

739: down from relations (\ref{5}) and (\ref{36}) to (\ref{41}). We

740: were unable to find other sets of model parameters supporting the

741: pulse solution when there are only two nonzero parameters.

742: 

743: % 9

744: \item There are several possibilities, with three of the eight $\alpha_i$

745: being nonzero (the remaining five $\alpha_i$ being zero), in which case

746: the moving pulse solution (\ref{35}) is still valid. These

747: cases are: (i) $\alpha_2, \alpha_3, \alpha_5$ are nonzero; (ii)

748: $\alpha_2, \alpha_3, \alpha_7$ are nonzero; (iii) $\alpha_3,

749: \alpha_5, \alpha_7$ are nonzero; (iv) $\alpha_2, \alpha_5,

750: \alpha_7$ are nonzero; (v) $\alpha_2, \alpha_4, \alpha_6$ are

751: nonzero with $\alpha_4=\alpha_6$ and $k=\pm\pi/2$; (vi) $\alpha_3,

752: \alpha_4, \alpha_6$ are nonzero with $\alpha_4=\alpha_6$ and

753: $k=\pm\pi/2$; (vii) $\alpha_2, \alpha_9, \alpha_{10}$ are nonzero

754: with $\alpha_9=\alpha_{10}$ and $k=\pm\pi/4$ or $k=\pm 3\pi/4$.

755: %and (viii) $\alpha_3, \alpha_9, \alpha_{10}$ are nonzero with

756: %$\alpha_9=\alpha_{10}$ and $ k=\pm\pi/2$.

757: 

758: In all these cases the constraints similar to those in (\ref{38a})

759: are easily obtained from relations (\ref{5}) and (\ref{36}) to

760: (\ref{41}). For example, in case only $\alpha_3, \alpha_5,

761: \alpha_7$ are nonzero, while the relations (\ref{36}) and

762: (\ref{41}) are always valid, the other relations and the

763: constraint (\ref{5}) take the form

764: %

765: \be\label{38b}

766:    \alpha _3  = \frac{{1 - 2\alpha _5 \sin ^2 \left( k \right)}}

767:    {{1 -2\cos \left( k \right)\cosh \left( \beta \right)}}, \quad

768:    \alpha_7 = 2\left( {1 - \alpha _3  - \alpha _5 } \right), \quad

769:    A^2  = \frac{{\cos \left( k \right)\sinh ^2 (\beta)\cosh

770:    \left( \beta  \right)}}{{1 + \alpha _3 \left[ {\cos \left( k

771:    \right)\cosh \left( \beta  \right) - 1} \right] - 2\alpha _5 \sin

772:    ^2 \left( k \right)}}.

773: \ee

774: %

775: The number of constraints in this case is such that one has a free

776: model parameter, say $\alpha_5$, and pulse parameters $k$ and

777: $\beta$ can change continuously within a certain domain. For

778: $\alpha_5$ with a small absolute value the solution is close to

779: (\ref{38a}) shown in Fig. \ref{Figure2}, but, for example, for

780: $\alpha_5=1$ the result is qualitatively different, as it can be

781: seen from Fig. \ref{Figure3}. Also note that in this case the

782: non-staggered stationary pulse ($k=0$) exists while the staggered

783: stationary pulse ($k=\pi$) does not exist.

784: 

785: On the other hand, in case only $\alpha_2, \alpha_3, \alpha_5$ are

786: nonzero we have the following constraints

787: %

788: \begin{eqnarray}\label{38c}

789:    \alpha_3 = \frac{-\alpha_5\cos(2k)}{2\cos(k)\cosh(\beta)}, \quad

790:    \alpha _2 = 1 - \alpha _3- \alpha _5 ,

791:    \quad A^2 = \frac{{\cos(k)\sinh ^2(\beta)\cosh(\beta)}}

792:    {{\left( {\alpha _2  + \alpha _3 } \right)\cos(k)\cosh

793:    (\beta) + \alpha _5 \cos (2 k)}}.

794: \end{eqnarray}

795: %

796: The relation between pulse parameters and model parameters in this

797: case are shown in Fig. \ref{Figure4}. In this case one has both

798: non-staggered and staggered stationary pulse solutions for $k=0$

799: and $k=\pi$, respectively.

800: 

801: We give two more solutions, for the case when only $\alpha_2,

802: \alpha_4, \alpha_6$ are nonzero,

803: %

804: \begin{eqnarray}\label{38d}

805:    A^2  = \frac{{\sinh ^2 \beta }}{{\alpha _2 }},

806:    \quad \alpha _4  =\frac{1 - \alpha _2 }{2},

807:    \quad \alpha _4  = \alpha _6, \quad k = \pm \frac{\pi}{2},

808: \end{eqnarray}

809: %

810: and for the case when only $\alpha_2, \alpha_9, \alpha_{10}$ are

811: nonzero,

812: %

813: \begin{eqnarray}\label{38e}

814:    A^2  = \frac{{\sinh ^2 \beta }}{{\alpha _2 }},

815:    \quad \alpha _{10}= \frac{{1 - \alpha _2 }}{2},

816:    \quad \alpha _9  = \alpha _{10},

817:    \quad k = \pm \frac{{ \pi }}{4}, \quad {\rm or}

818:    \quad k = \pm \frac{{ 3\pi }}{4}.

819: \end{eqnarray}

820: %

821: These two {\em moving} solutions are interesting because for them

822: the relations (\ref{stationary}) are violated.

823: %i.e., the

824: %corresponding DNLS equations are not translationally invariant.

825: These models have one free parameter, for example, $\alpha_2 >0$.

826: Among the two pulse parameters, only $\beta$ can change

827: continuously, while $k$ can assume only a few isolated discrete

828: values, that do not depend on model parameters $\alpha_i$. For the

829: cases when there are only three nonzero parameters, we were unable

830: to find sets of model parameters supporting the pulse solution

831: other than the ones described above.

832: 

833: % 10

834: \item Similarly, there are several possibilities when less than eight

835: parameters are nonzero and still the moving pulse solution

836: (\ref{35}) continues to exist and relations similar to those in

837: Eq. (\ref{38a}) can easily be obtained in all these cases.

838: 

839: % 11

840: \item Since the DNLS equation (\ref{3}), (\ref{4}) with any set

841: of parameters $\alpha_i$ satisfying the continuity constraint

842: (\ref{5}) reduces to the same NLS equation (\ref{1}), for a

843: sufficiently wide (small $\beta$) and slow (small $|k|$) pulse,

844: all the solutions given above are close and can be well

845: approximated by the moving solution to the continuous NLS

846: equation.

847: 

848: \end{enumerate}

849: 

850: \subsection{Stability of the pulse solution}

851: 

852: Let us now discuss the small amplitude vibration spectrum for the

853: lattice containing a stationary pulse in order to observe the

854: peculiarities of the spectrum of the pulse in a translationally

855: invariant lattice and to discuss the stability of the pulse. The

856: vibrational spectrum was calculated following the methodology

857: presented in Ref. \cite{Carr:1985-201:PLA} similar to the work

858: in \cite{DKYF}. In brief, we consider a small

859: complex perturbation of a stationary solution and substitute the

860: ansatz $u_n \left( t \right) = [f_n +\varepsilon_n(t)] e^{-i\omega

861: t} $ with $\varepsilon_n(t) =a_n(t)+ ib_n(t)$ into the DNLS

862: equation (\ref{3}), (\ref{4}) and obtain a linear equation for

863: $\varepsilon_n(t)$. Separating real and imaginary parts of the

864: equation, we derive the following system

865: %

866: \begin{eqnarray}

867:   \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}

868:     {{\mathbf{\dot b}}}  \\

869:     {{\mathbf{\dot a}}}  \\

870:   \end{array} } \right)

871:   = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}

872:     0 & \mathbf{K}  \\

873:     \mathbf{J} & 0  \\

874:   \end{array} } \right)

875:   \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}

876:     {\mathbf{b}}  \\

877:     {\mathbf{a}}  \\

878:   \end{array} } \right),

879:   \label{EigProblem}

880: \end{eqnarray}

881: %

882: where vectors $\mathbf{a}$ and $\mathbf{b}$ contain $a_n$ and

883: $b_n$, respectively, while the nonzero coefficients of matrices

884: $\mathbf{K}$ and $\mathbf{J}$ are given by,

885: %

886: \begin{eqnarray}\label{K}

887:    K_{n,n-1}  = 1 + \left( {\alpha _2  + \alpha _3 } \right)f_n^2

888:    + \left( {2\alpha _5  + \alpha _7 } \right)f_n f_{n + 1}

889:    + (\alpha_9 + \alpha_{10})\left(f_{n+1}^2 + 2f_{n-1} f_{n+1}\right) , \nonumber \\

890:    K_{n,n}  =  - \left( {2 - \omega } \right) + 2\left( {\alpha _2

891:    + \alpha _3 } \right)f_n \left( {f_{n - 1}  + f_{n + 1} } \right)

892:    + (\alpha_4 + \alpha_6)\left(f_{n-1}^2 + f_{n+1}^2\right)

893:    + \left( {2\alpha _5  + \alpha _7 } \right)f_{n - 1} f_{n + 1}, \nonumber \\

894:    K_{n,n+1}  = 1 + \left( {\alpha _2  + \alpha _3 } \right)f_n^2

895:    + \left( {2\alpha _5  + \alpha _7 } \right)f_{n - 1} f_n

896:    + (\alpha_9 + \alpha_{10})\left(f_{n - 1}^2 + 2f_{n - 1} f_{n + 1}\right) ,

897: \end{eqnarray}

898: %

899: \begin{eqnarray}\label{J}

900:    J_{n,n - 1}  =  - 1 - (\alpha _2  - \alpha _3)f_n^2

901:    - 2\alpha _6 f_{n - 1} f_n  - \alpha _7 f_n f_{n + 1}

902:    - 2\alpha _9 f_{n - 1} f_{n + 1}  + \left( {\alpha _9

903:    - \alpha _{10} } \right)f_{n + 1}^2,  \nonumber \\

904:    J_{n,n}  = \left( {2 - \omega } \right) - 2\alpha _3 f_n

905:    \left( {f_{n - 1}  + f_{n + 1} } \right) - \left( {\alpha _4

906:    - \alpha _6 } \right)\left( {f_{n - 1}^2  + f_{n + 1}^2 } \right)

907:    - \left( {2\alpha _5  - \alpha _7 } \right)f_{n - 1} f_{n + 1}, \nonumber \\

908:    J_{n,n + 1}  =  - 1 - \left( {\alpha _2  - \alpha _3 } \right)f_n^2

909:    - 2\alpha _6 f_n f_{n + 1}  - \alpha _7 f_{n - 1} f_n  - 2\alpha _9

910:    f_{n - 1} f_{n + 1}  + (\alpha_9 - \alpha_{10})f_{n - 1}^2.

911: \end{eqnarray}

912: %

913: A stationary solution is characterized as linearly stable if and

914: only if the eigenvalue problem

915: %

916: \begin{eqnarray} \label{EigValProblem}

917:    \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}

918:    0 & {\mathbf{K }}  \\    {\mathbf{J}} & 0  \\

919:    \end{array} } \right) \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\mathbf{b}}  \\

920:    {\mathbf{a}} \\ \end{array} } \right)= \gamma

921:    \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\mathbf{b}}  \\

922:    {\mathbf{a}} \\ \end{array} } \right)

923: \end{eqnarray}

924: %

925: results in nonpositive real parts of all eigenvalues $\gamma$.

926: 

927: Setting in the above matrices $f_n=0$, and solving the resulting

928: eigenvalue problem one finds the spectrum of vacuum

929: %

930: \begin{eqnarray}\label{vacuum}

931:    \Omega  =  \pm \left[-\omega + 4\sin^2 \left(\frac{Q}{2}\right) \right],

932: \end{eqnarray}

933: %

934: where $\Omega$ and $Q$ are the frequency and the wavenumber of a

935: small-amplitude harmonic mode, respectively.

936: A stationary pulse was placed in the middle of a lattice of $N=200$

937: points and the eigenvalue problem (\ref{EigValProblem}) was solved

938: employing periodic boundary conditions.

939: Here we do not aim to present a comprehensive numerical study of

940: the stability of the pulse because the DNLS equation under

941: consideration has a multi-dimensional parameter space and such an

942: exhaustive study would entail enormous effort. Instead, our intent

943: is to check several sets of parameters and to provide a few examples

944: illustrating the generic

945: stability of the pulse solution.

946: 

947: Two examples of stationary, stable pulses and their spectra are

948: presented in Fig. \ref{Figure5}. Left panels present the results

949: for a non-staggered pule, while the right panels are for a staggered

950: pulse. Model parameters correspond to a translationally invariant

951: lattice, i.e., they satisfy (\ref{stationary}). For panels (a), (b)

952: parameters are $\alpha_2=1$, $\alpha_3=-1/2$, $\alpha_4=-\alpha_6=1/2$,

953: $\alpha_5=-1/2$, $\alpha_7=2$, and $\alpha_9=-\alpha_{10}=-1/2$.

954: For panels (a'), (b') parameters are $\alpha_2=1$, $\alpha_3=0$,

955: $\alpha_4=-\alpha_6=1/2$, $\alpha_5=-1/2$, $\alpha_7=1$, and

956: $\alpha_9=-\alpha_{10}=-1/2$. The choice of parameters is rather

957: arbitrary. For the non-staggered pulse all coefficients are

958: nonzero so that all terms of the DNLS equation are involved. For

959: the staggered pulse we found that nonzero $\alpha_3$ makes the

960: pulse unstable, that is why we set this coefficient equal to zero.

961: The non-staggered and staggered pulses are defined by,

962: respectively, (\ref{NonStaggStationaryPulse}) and

963: (\ref{StaggStationaryPulse}) with parameters $\beta=1$,

964: $\delta=0$, and $c=0.25$. We then found for the non-staggered pulse

965: $\omega=-1.0862$ and $A=1.2946$, and for the staggered one,

966: $\omega=5.0862$ and $A=1.1752$. The pulses are placed asymmetrically

967: with respect to the lattice, nevertheless, they are stationary and

968: stable since all eigenvalues $\gamma$ have zero real parts. The

969: spectrum of non-staggered pulse contains the spectrum of vacuum

970: (\ref{vacuum}) with the bands $1.0862 \le |\Omega| \le 5.0862$;

971: the three pulse internal modes with frequencies $\pm 0.195$, $\pm

972: 5.290$, and $\pm 6.396$; and the two pairs of zero eigenvalues,

973: one pair corresponding to the translational invariance and another

974: to the invariance with respect to the phase shift. The spectrum of

975: staggered pulse is similar but it contains not three but only one

976: pulse internal mode with frequencies $\pm 5.308$.

977: 

978: We have checked the stability of stationary pulses (both non-staggered

979: and staggered) with different $\beta \sim 1$, and also different

980: positions with respect to the lattice, $c$, and for various model

981: parameters with $|\alpha_i| \sim 1$, and in many of the cases found

982: these pulses to be stable. Thus, we conclude that the stationary

983: pulse solutions (\ref{NonStaggStationaryPulse}) and

984: (\ref{StaggStationaryPulse}) to DNLS equation (\ref{3}), (\ref{4})

985: with parameters satisfying (\ref{stationary}) are generically

986: stable.

987: 

988: We have also checked the stability of a stationary pulse in the

989: model where the pulse solution exists only for a selected $\beta$

990: and, for the pulse placed asymmetrically with respect to the

991: lattice we found that it is stable. In this simulation, for the

992: solution (\ref{NonStaggStationaryPulse}) we took the following

993: pulse parameters $\beta=1/2$, $c=1/4$, and model parameters

994: $\alpha_2=-0.2553$, $\alpha_4=\alpha_6=-1/2$, and

995: $\alpha_9=2.2553$ with all other $\alpha_i$ equal to zero. We then

996: found $\omega = -0.2553$ and $A=0.6557$.

997: 

998: The robustness of {\em moving} pulse solutions was checked by

999: observing the evolution of their velocity in a long-term numerical

1000: run. For pulses with amplitudes $A \sim 1$ and velocities $v \sim

1001: 0.1$ and for various model parameters supporting the pulse,

1002: $|\alpha_i| \sim 1$, we found that the pulse typically preserves

1003: its velocity with a high accuracy. Two examples of such

1004: simulations, one for the non-staggered pulse and another one for

1005: the staggered pulse are given in Fig. \ref{Figure6} (a), (b) and

1006: (a'), (b'), respectively. In (a) and (a') we show the pulse

1007: configuration at $t=0$ and in (b) and (b') the pulse velocity as

1008: a function of time for two different integration steps,

1009: $\tau=5\times 10^{-3}$ (solid lines) and $\tau=2.5\times 10^{-3}$

1010: (dashed lines), while the numerical scheme with an accuracy

1011: $O(\tau^4)$ is employed.

1012: 

1013: In both cases, one can notice the linear increase in the pulse

1014: velocity with time, which is due to the numerical error,

1015: since the slope of the line decreases with the decrease in

1016: $\tau$. The presence of perturbation in the form of rounding

1017: errors and integration scheme errors does not result in pulse

1018: instability within the numerical run. Velocity increase rate for

1019: the staggered pulse in (b') is larger than for the non-staggered

1020: one in (b). This can be easily understood because the frequency

1021: of the staggered pulse in almost five times larger than that of

1022: the non-staggered one.

1023: 

1024: The pulse presented in Fig. \ref{Figure6} (a) is given by

1025: (\ref{38b}). The model has one free parameter and we set

1026: $\alpha_5=1$. For the pulse parameters we set $\beta=1$ and

1027: $k=0.102102$ (close to zero). Then we find from (\ref{35}),

1028: (\ref{36}), (\ref{41}), and (\ref{38b}) the pulse velocity

1029: $v=0.239563$, frequency $\omega=-1.07009$, and amplitude

1030: $A=1.7087$, and the dependent model parameters

1031: $\alpha_3=-0.473034$ and $\alpha_7=0.946068$.

1032: 

1033: In Fig. \ref{Figure6} (a') the moving pulse solution is given by

1034: (\ref{38c}). The model has one free parameter and we set

1035: $a_5=0.3$. For the pulse parameters we set $\beta=1$ and

1036: $k=3.09447$ (close to $\pi$). Then we find from (\ref{35}),

1037: (\ref{36}), (\ref{41}), and (\ref{38c}) the pulse velocity

1038: $v=0.110719$, frequency $\omega=5.08274$, and amplitude

1039: $A=1.65172$, and the dependent model parameters

1040: $\alpha_2=0.603116$ and $\alpha_3=0.0968843$.

1041: 

1042: Similar results were observed for the cases when only $\alpha_3$

1043: and $\alpha_5$ are nonzero; only $\alpha_3$ and $\alpha_7$ are

1044: nonzero; only $\alpha_2$, $\alpha_3$, and $\alpha_5$ are nonzero;

1045: only $\alpha_2$, $\alpha_3$, and $\alpha_7$ are nonzero; and  only

1046: $\alpha_2$, $\alpha_5$, and $\alpha_7$ are nonzero.

1047: 

1048: So far we have studied numerically the pulses in the

1049: %translationally invariant

1050: models with the parameters satisfying

1051: (\ref{stationary}). However, moving pulse solutions exist even in

1052: the case when (\ref{stationary}) is violated. Two such solutions

1053: are presented by (\ref{38d}) and  (\ref{38e}) together with

1054: (\ref{35}), (\ref{36}), and (\ref{41}). As it can be seen from

1055: Fig. \ref{Figure7}, the pulses show a stable long-term dynamics

1056: with pulse velocity being practically constant with the accuracy

1057: increasing with decrease in the step size of numerical

1058: integration. The pulse in (a) is given by (\ref{35}), (\ref{36}),

1059: (\ref{41}), and (\ref{38d}). The model and pulse parameters are as

1060: follows: $\alpha_2=2$, $a_4=-1/2$, and $\alpha_6=-1/2$; $\beta=1$,

1061: $k=\pi/2$, $v=1.662$, $\omega=-0.1822$, and $A=0.8310$. The pulse

1062: in (a') is given by (\ref{35}), (\ref{36}), (\ref{41}), and

1063: (\ref{38e}). The model and pulse parameters are as follows:

1064: $\alpha_2=2$, $\alpha_9=-1/2$, and $a_{10}=-1/2$; $\beta=1$,

1065: $k=\pi/4$, $v=2.350$, $\omega=2$, and $A=0.8310$.

1066: 

1067: Velocity increase rate in (b) is considerably larger than in (b')

1068: (note the different abscissa scale for these two panels) and this

1069: result can be expected when we take into account that pulse frequency

1070: in (b) is 11 times larger than in (b').

1071: 

1072: \begin{figure}

1073: \includegraphics{fig5.ps}

1074: \caption{Two examples of (a), (a') stationary pulse profiles and

1075: (b), (b') their spectra. Left panels show the results for a

1076: non-staggered pulse, while right panels are for a staggered pulse.

1077: Model parameters correspond to a translationally invariant lattice,

1078: i.e., they satisfy (\ref{stationary}). For (a), (b) parameters are

1079: $\alpha_2=1$, $\alpha_3=-1/2$, $\alpha_4=-\alpha_6=1/2$,

1080: $\alpha_5=-1/2$, $\alpha_7=2$, and $\alpha_9=-\alpha_{10}=-1/2$.

1081: For (a'), (b') parameters are $\alpha_2=1$, $\alpha_3=0$,

1082: $\alpha_4=-\alpha_6=1/2$, $\alpha_5=-1/2$, $\alpha_7=1$, and

1083: $\alpha_9=-\alpha_{10}=-1/2$. The pulses are defined by,

1084: respectively, (\ref{NonStaggStationaryPulse}) and

1085: (\ref{StaggStationaryPulse}) with parameters $\beta=1$,

1086: $\delta=0$, and $c=0.25$. Pulses are placed asymmetrically with

1087: respect to the lattice, nevertheless, they are stationary and

1088: stable since all eigenvalues $\gamma$ have zero real parts. The

1089: spectra also contain two pairs of zero eigenvalues, one pair

1090: corresponds to the translational invariance and another to the

1091: invariance with respect to the phase shift.} \label{Figure5}

1092: \end{figure}

1093: 

1094: 

1095: \begin{figure}

1096: \includegraphics{fig6.ps}

1097: \caption{(a) Non-staggered moving pulse at $t=0$ and (a') same for

1098: the staggered pulse. In (b) and (b') the long-term evolution of

1099: pulse velocity is shown for the corresponding pulses for the

1100: integration steps of $\tau=5\times 10^{-3}$ (solid line) and

1101: $\tau=2.5\times 10^{-3}$ (dashed line). Numerical scheme with an

1102: accuracy $O(\tau^4)$ is employed. Pulses preserve their velocity

1103: with the accuracy increasing with the increase in the accuracy of

1104: numerical integration. Within the numerical run, the pulse

1105: dynamics is stable in spite of the presence of small perturbations

1106: in the system in the form of rounding errors and integration

1107: scheme errors. The pulse in (a) is given by (\ref{35}),

1108: (\ref{36}), (\ref{41}), and (\ref{38b}). The model and pulse

1109: parameters are as follows: $\alpha_3=-0.473034$, $a_5=1$, and

1110: $\alpha_7=0.946068$; $\beta=1$, $k=0.102102$ (close to 0),

1111: $v=0.239563$, $\omega=-1.07009$, and $A=1.7087$. The pulse in (a')

1112: is given by (\ref{35}), (\ref{36}), (\ref{41}), and (\ref{38c}).

1113: The model and pulse parameters are as follows:

1114: $\alpha_2=0.603116$, $\alpha_3=0.0968843$, and $a_5=0.3$;

1115: $\beta=1$, $k=3.09447$ (close to $\pi$), $v=0.110719$,

1116: $\omega=5.08274$, and $A=1.65172$.} \label{Figure6}

1117: \end{figure}

1118: 

1119: 

1120: \begin{figure}

1121: \includegraphics{fig7.ps}

1122: \caption{Results similar to that shown in Fig. \ref{Figure6} but

1123: for models that are not translationally invariant. (a) and (a')

1124: show the moving pulse profiles at $t=0$. In (b) and (b') the

1125: long-term evolution of pulse velocity is shown for the

1126: corresponding pulses. The integration steps are (b) $\tau=

1127: 10^{-3}$ (solid line) and $\tau=5\times 10^{-4}$ (dashed line) and

1128: (b') $\tau=5\times 10^{-3}$ (solid line) and $\tau=2.5\times

1129: 10^{-3}$ (dashed line). The pulse in (a) is given by (\ref{35}),

1130: (\ref{36}), (\ref{41}), and (\ref{38d}). The model and pulse

1131: parameters are as follows: $\alpha_2=2$, $a_4=-1/2$, and

1132: $\alpha_6=-1/2$; $\beta=1$, $k=\pi/2$, $v=1.662$,

1133: $\omega=-0.1822$, and $A=0.8310$. The pulse in (a') is given by

1134: (\ref{35}), (\ref{36}), (\ref{41}), and (\ref{38e}). The model and

1135: pulse parameters are as follows: $\alpha_2=2$, $\alpha_9=-1/2$,

1136: and $a_{10}=-1/2$; $\beta=1$, $k=\pi/4$, $v=2.350$, $\omega=2$,

1137: and $A=0.8310$.} \label{Figure7}

1138: \end{figure}

1139: 

1140: 

1141: 

1142: \section{Conclusions and future challenges } \label{Sec:Concl}

1143: 

1144: For the nine-parameter DNLS equation (\ref{3}), (\ref{4}) with the

1145: continuity constraint (\ref{5}), in Sec. \ref{Sec:dn} and Sec.

1146: \ref{Sec:cn}, we obtained the two moving periodic wave solutions

1147: for the case of $\alpha_1= \alpha_8=0$ (thus, the moving solutions

1148: are supported by the seven-parameter model). The solutions have

1149: the form of ${\rm dn}$ and ${\rm cn}$ Jacobi elliptic functions.

1150: In the limit $m \rightarrow 1$ both solutions reduce to the moving

1151: pulse solution (see Sec. \ref{Sec:Pulse}). We found and described

1152: several sets of model parameters supporting the moving pulse

1153: solution. For the particular choice of model parameters

1154: (\ref{stationary}), the problem of finding stationary solutions is

1155: integrable and the first integral of this problem was given in

1156: Sec. \ref{Sec:TwoPointMap} in the form of a nonlinear map. From

1157: this map {\em any} stationary solution of the corresponding

1158: problem can be constructed iteratively.

1159: 

1160: We found the stationary pulse solutions to be generically stable,

1161: i.e., for rather arbitrary choice of model parameters $|\alpha_i|

1162: \sim 1$, in many cases, the spectra of the small-amplitude vibrations

1163: calculated for the lattice containing a pulse included no eigenvalues

1164: with positive real parts. In addition, we confirmed the robustness

1165: of moving pulses by observing the pulse velocity evolution in a

1166: long-term numerical run. We found the velocity to be nearly constant

1167: and the deviation from constancy was attributed to the influence of

1168: the accuracy of the numerical integration.  We specifically note that

1169: the moving pulse solutions exist and they exhibit a stable behavior

1170: in long-term numerical runs even for models which do not support

1171: translationally invariant stationary pulse solutions, as demonstrated

1172: in Fig. \ref{Figure7}.

1173: 

1174: On using the identities for the Jacobi elliptic functions $\cn$ and $\dn$

1175: given below and similar identities for $\sn$, one can similarly obtain

1176: exact solutions of a rather general discrete $\lambda \phi^4$ field

1177: theory with four parameters, as well as of a modified Fermi-Pasta-Ulam

1178: (FPU) model \cite{fpu}, which will be discussed elsewhere.  Our results

1179: are potentially important for optical pulse propagation in glass fibers

1180: and optical waveguides \cite{esm} and time evolution of Bose-Einstein

1181: condensates \cite{tm}.

1182: 

1183: \newpage

1184: 

1185: \section{ Appendix} \label{Sec:Appendix}

1186: 

1187: We list here the various identities for the Jacobi elliptic

1188: functions $\dn(x,m)$ and $\cn(x,m)$ which have been used in

1189: obtaining the various solutions in this paper.

1190: 

1191: 

1192: 

1193: {\bf Identities for $\dn(x,m)$}

1194: 

1195:  \be\label{14}

1196:  \dn^2(x,m)[\dn(x+a,m)+\dn(x-a,m)]=-\cs^2(a,m)[\dn(x+a,m)+\dn(x-a,m)]

1197:  +2\ns(a,m)\ds(a,m)\dn(x,m)\,,

1198:  \ee

1199:  \be\label{15}

1200:  \dn(x,m)\dn(x+a,m)\dn(x-a,m)=-\cs(a,m)\cs(2a,m)[\dn(x+a,m)+\dn(x-a,m)]

1201:  +\cs^2(a,m)\dn(x,m)\,,

1202:  \ee

1203:  \bea\label{16}

1204:  &&\dn(x,m)[\dn^2(x+a,m)+\dn^2(x-a,m)]=\ds(a,m)\ns(a,m)[\dn(x+a,m)+\dn(x-a,m)]

1205:  \nonumber \\

1206:  &&-2\cs^2(a,m)\dn(x,m)

1207:  +m\cs(a,m)[\cn(x+a,m)\sn(x+a,m)-\cn(x-a,m)\sn(x-a,m)]\,,

1208:  \eea

1209:  \bea\label{17}

1210:  &&\dn(x+a,m)\dn(x-a,m)[\dn(x+a,m)+\dn(x-a,m)] \nonumber \\

1211:  &&=[\ds(2a,m)\ns(2a,m)-\cs^2(2a,m)]

1212:  [\dn(x+a,m)+\dn(x-a,m)] \nonumber \\

1213:  &&+mcs(2a,m)[\cn(x+a,m)\sn(x+a,m)-\cn(x-a,m)\sn(x-a,m)]\,,

1214:  \eea

1215:  \be\label{18}

1216:  \dn^2(x,m)[\dn(x+a,m)-\dn(x-a,m)]=-\cs^2(a,m)[\dn(x+a,m)-\dn(x-a,m)]

1217:  -2m\cs(a,m)\cn(x,m)\sn(x,m)\,,

1218:  \ee

1219:  \bea\label{19}

1220:  &&\dn(x,m)[\dn^2(x+a,m)-\dn^2(x-a,m)]=\ds(a,m)\ns(a,m)[\dn(x+a,m)-\dn(x-a,m)]

1221:  \nonumber \\

1222:  &&+m\cs(a,m)[\cn(x+a,m)\sn(x+a,m)+\cn(x-a,m)\sn(x-a,m)]\,,

1223:  \eea

1224:  \bea\label{20}

1225:  &&\dn(x+a,m)\dn(x-a,m)[\dn(x+a,m)-\dn(x-a,m)] \nonumber \\

1226: &&=[\ds(2a,m)\ns(2a,m)+\cs^2(2a,m)][\dn(x+a,m)-\dn(x-a,m)]

1227:  \nonumber \\

1228:  &&+mcs(2a,m)[\cn(x+a,m)\sn(x+a,m)+\cn(x-a,m)\sn(x-a,m)]\,.

1229:  \eea

1230: 

1231: {\bf Identities for $cn(x,m)$}

1232: 

1233:  \be\label{28}

1234:  m\cn^2(x,m)[\cn(x+a,m)+\cn(x-a,m)]=-\ds^2(a,m)[\cn(x+a,m)+\cn(x-a,m)]

1235:  +2\ns(a,m)\cs(a,m)\cn(x,m)\,,

1236:  \ee

1237:  \be\label{29}

1238:  m\cn(x,m)\cn(x+a,m)\cn(x-a,m)=-\ds(a,m)\ds(2a,m)[\cn(x+a,m)+\cn(x-a,m)]

1239:  +\ds^2(a,m)\cn(x,m)\,,

1240:  \ee

1241:  \bea\label{30}

1242:  &&m\cn(x,m)[\cn^2(x+a,m)+\cn^2(x-a,m)]=\cs(a,m)\ns(a,m)[\cn(x+a,m)+\cn(x-a,m)

1243: ]

1244:  \nonumber \\

1245:  &&-2\ds^2(a,m)\cn(x,m)

1246:  +ds(a,m)[\dn(x+a,m)\sn(x+a,m)-\dn(x-a,m)\sn(x-a,m)]\,,

1247:  \eea

1248:  \bea\label{31}

1249:  &&m\cn(x+a,m)\cn(x-a,m)[\cn(x+a,m)+\cn(x-a,m)] \nonumber \\

1250:  &&=[\cs(2a,m)\ns(2a,m)-\ds^2(2a,m)]

1251:  [\cn(x+a,m)+\cn(x-a,m)] \nonumber \\

1252:  &&+ds(2a,m)[\dn(x+a,m)\sn(x+a,m)-\dn(x-a,m)\sn(x-a,m)]\,,

1253:  \eea

1254: \be\label{32}

1255:  m\cn^2(x,m)[\cn(x+a,m)-\cn(x-a,m)]=-\ds^2(a,m)[\cn(x+a,m)-\cn(x-a,m)]

1256:  -2\ds(a,m)\dn(x,m)\sn(x,m)\,,

1257:  \ee

1258:  \bea\label{33}

1259:  &&m\cn(x,m)[\cn^2(x+a,m)-\cn^2(x-a,m)]=\cs(a,m)\ns(a,m)[\cn(x+a,m)-\cn(x-a,m)

1260: ]

1261:  \nonumber \\

1262:  &&+ds(a,m)[\dn(x+a,m)\sn(x+a,m)+\dn(x-a,m)\sn(x-a,m)]\,,

1263:  \eea

1264:  \bea\label{34}

1265:  &&m\cn(x+a,m)\cn(x-a,m)[\cn(x+a,m)-\cn(x-a,m)] \nonumber \\

1266: &&=[\cs(2a,m)\ns(2a,m)+\ds^2(2a,m)][\cn(x+a,m)-\cn(x-a,m)]

1267:  \nonumber \\

1268:  &&+ds(2a,m)[\dn(x+a,m)\sn(x+a,m)+\dn(x-a,m)\sn(x-a,m)]\,.

1269:  \eea

1270: 

1271: {\bf Acknowledgment}

1272: 

1273: A.K. acknowledges the hospitality of the Center for Nonlinear

1274: Studies at LANL.  This work was supported in part by the U.S.

1275: Department of Energy.

1276: 

1277: \newpage

1278: 

1279: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1280: 

1281: %1

1282: \bibitem{krb} Kevrekidis P G, Rasmussen K O and Bishop A R 2001 {\it Int. J.

1283: Mod. Phys.} {\bf 15} 2833

1284: 

1285: %2

1286: \bibitem{esm} Eisenberg H S, Silberberg Y, Boyd A R and Aitchison J S 1998

1287: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 81} 3383

1288: 

1289: %3

1290: \bibitem{tm} Trombettoni A and Smerzi A 2001 {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 86}

1291: 2353

1292: 

1293: %4

1294: \bibitem{al} Ablowitz M J and Ladik J F 1975 {\it J. Math. Phys.} {\bf 16}

1295: 598; 1976 {\it J. Math. Phys.} {\bf 17} 1011

1296: 

1297: %5

1298: \bibitem{krss} Khare A, Rasmussen K O, Samuelsen M R and Saxena A 2005

1299: {\it J. Phys. A} {\bf 38} 807; Khare A, Rasmussen K O, Salerno M,

1300: Samuelsen M R and Saxena A 2006 {\it Phys. Rev.} E {\bf 74} 016607

1301: 

1302: %6

1303: \bibitem{ahs} Ablowitz M J, Herbst B M and Schober C 1993 {\it J. Comp.

1304: Phys.} {\bf 126} 299

1305: 

1306: %7

1307: \bibitem{kk} Kapitula T and Kevrekidis P G 2001 {\it Nonlinearity} {\bf 14}

1308: 533

1309: 

1310: \bibitem{DNLSEx} Dmitriev S V, Kevrekidis P G,

1311: Sukhorukov A A, Yoshikawa N and Takeno S 2006 {\it Phys. Lett.} A

1312: {\bf 356} 324

1313: 

1314: %8

1315: \bibitem{pel} Pelinovsky D E 2006 {\it Nonlinearity} {\bf 19} 2695

1316: 

1317: \bibitem{DNLSE1} Kevrekidis P G, Dmitriev S V and Sukhorukov A A 2007

1318: {\it Math. Comput. Simulat.} {\bf 74} 343

1319: 

1320: %13

1321: \bibitem{DKYF} Dmitriev S V, Kevrekidis P G, Yoshikawa N and

1322: Frantzeskakis D J 2007 {\it J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.} {\bf 40}

1323: 1727

1324: 

1325: %19

1326: %\bibitem{TMK} Tiofack G C L, Mohamadou A, and

1327: %Kofane T C 2007 {\it J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.} {\bf 40} 6133

1328: 

1329: 

1330: %%

1331: %\bibitem{ks} A preliminary version of this work appeared in

1332: %A. Khare, A. Saxena, arXiv:nlin/0612012. The present paper is a

1333: %substantially extended version of that work.

1334: 

1335: %9

1336: \bibitem{as} Abramowitz M and Stegun I A (eds) 1964 {\it Handbook of

1337: Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical

1338: Tables} (Washington, DC:US Govt Printing Office)

1339: 

1340: %10

1341: \bibitem{kls} Khare A and Sukhatme U P 2002 {\it J. Math. Phys.} {\bf 43}

1342: 3798; Khare A, Lakshminarayan A and Sukhatme U P 2003 {\it J.

1343: Math. Phys.} {\bf 44} 1822; Khare A, Lakshminarayan A and Sukhatme

1344: U P 2004 {\it Pramana (Journal of Physics)} {\bf 62} 1201; {\it

1345: math-ph}/0306028

1346: 

1347: %11

1348: \bibitem{sb} Scharf R and Bishop A R 1991 {\it Phys. Rev. A} {\bf 43} 6535

1349: 

1350: %12

1351: \bibitem{DKKSinpress} Dmitriev S V, Kevrekidis P G, Khare A and

1352: Saxena A 2007 {\it J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.} {\bf 40} 6267

1353: 

1354: %14

1355: \bibitem{DKYF2006PRE} Dmitriev S V, Kevrekidis P G, Yoshikawa N and

1356: Frantzeskakis D J 2006 {\it Phys. Rev.} E  {\bf 74} 046609

1357: 

1358: %15

1359: \bibitem{Quispel} Quispel G R W, Roberts J A G and Thompson C J 1989

1360: {\it Physica} D {\bf 34} 183

1361: 

1362: \bibitem{Kevrekidis:2003-68:PD}

1363: Kevrekidis P G 2003 {\it Physica} D {\bf 183} 68

1364: 

1365: %16

1366: \bibitem{pr} Pelinovsky D E and Rothos V M 2005 {\it Physica} D {\bf

1367: 202} 16

1368: 

1369: %17

1370: %\bibitem{stability} Flach S and Gorbach A 2005, Chaos {\bf 15} 015112

1371: 

1372: %17

1373: \bibitem{Carr:1985-201:PLA}

1374: Carr J and Eilbeck J C 1985 {\it Phys. Lett.} A {\bf 109} 201

1375: 

1376: %18

1377: \bibitem{fpu} Ford J 1992 {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 213} 271

1378: 

1379: 

1380: 

1381: \end{thebibliography}

1382: 

1383: \end{document}

1384: