According to my understanding, continuous first order systems do not exhibit oscillatory behavior because a first order system has only one energy storage element and thus oscillation is not possible. I was simulating the below difference equation for a first order discrete system:

$$y[n] = \tfrac{1}{10} u[n] - \tfrac{7}{10} y[n-1]$$

where $u[n]$ is a unit step function. As can be seen, this equation describes a first order difference equation. However, when plotting $y[n]$, I can see that it oscillates at the start and settles next:

enter image description here

However, when I simulate the following difference equation then this oscillation disappears:

$$y[n] = \tfrac{1}{10} u[n] + \tfrac{7}{10} y[n-1]$$

enter image description here

I am not sure how first order discrete time systems are different from their continuous counterparts, and why would the sign change the stability of the system. Any explanation?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ this is a good question about an edge case issue. putting a single pole $p$ on the negative real-axis of the $z$-plane so that $-1 < p < 0$ is all of stable and realizable. but it has no counterpart with an analog filter with poles on the $s$-plane. as best as i can understand, that single pole on the $z$-plane sorta corresponds to two poles on the $s$-plane at $\pm$ Nyquist. it's a first-order pole that looks like a second-order pair of poles. $\endgroup$ Feb 15, 2020 at 2:07

3 Answers 3


For continuous-time systems, a pole at location $s_0=\sigma_0+j\omega_0$ will create a time-domain contribution of the form


which is a damped oscillation if the pole is in the left half-plane (i.e., $\sigma_0<0$), and if the pole is not on the real axis (i.e., $\omega_0\neq 0)$. For $\omega_0=0$ there is no oscillation. This is the case for a real-valued first-order system, which can only have a real-valued pole.

For discrete-time systems, a pole at $z_0=re^{j\omega_0}$ ($r\ge 0$) causes a sequence of the form


If the pole is inside the unit circle (i.e., $r<1$) that sequence will decay in amplitude. Note that the sequence will not oscillate only if $\omega_0=0$, i.e., if the pole is on the positive real axis. If the pole is real, but if it is negative, we have $\omega_0=\pi+2\pi k$, i.e., we have an oscillation with maximum frequency, corresponding to an alternating sequence.

In sum, for continuous-time systems if the pole is on the real axis, it will not cause oscillations. For discrete-time systems, there are no oscillations only if the pole is on the positive real axis. A pole on the negative real axis causes oscillations with maximum frequency. Consequently, a discrete-time real-valued first-order system can exhibit oscillations if the pole happens to be on the negative real axis.

For additional insight consider the exact mapping between the $s$-plane and the $z$-plane:


where $T$ is the sampling interval. Inversion of $(3)$ gives


A $z$-plane pole $z_0=-r$ ($r>0$) on the negative real axis maps to a complex valued pole in the $s$-plane:

$$s_0=\frac{\ln(-r)}{T}=\frac{\ln(r)}{T}\pm j\frac{\pi}{T}\tag{5}$$

The frequency $\omega_0=\pi/T$ corresponds to half the sampling frequency, i.e., the maximum frequency of the corresponding discrete-time system.

As a final note, oscillations have nothing to do with whether the system is stable or not (stability in the bounded-input bounded-output sense). For stability, it only matters if the contributions of the poles to the output signal decay or not.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the great explanation. Any idea why the oscillation dies out in the example above? $\endgroup$
    – HaneenSu
    Feb 15, 2020 at 15:32
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @HaneenSu: It dies out because the pole radius is $r=0.7$, and $(0.7)^n$ goes to zero for $n\to\infty$. As long as the pole is inside the unit circle, the system is stable, i.e., all transients decay. $\endgroup$
    – Matt L.
    Feb 15, 2020 at 15:45
  • $\begingroup$ Would 2 purely complex poles be mapped as a single discrete pole, or would you still get 2 discrete poles, albeit repeated. $\endgroup$
    – Ben
    Feb 15, 2020 at 17:42
  • $\begingroup$ In case I wasn't clear. 2 poles at pi/T $\endgroup$
    – Ben
    Feb 15, 2020 at 17:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Ben: Yes, it doesn't have a real-valued first-order continuous-time equivalent. $\endgroup$
    – Matt L.
    Feb 16, 2020 at 15:17

In the first case you have a pole at the location (-0.7). In the second case, your pole is at 0.7.

Having a pole at -0.7 means that the natural frequency of your system is fs/2, that's why you have an oscillation at fs/2. Since the pole is stable, i.e. inside the unit circle, the oscillation eventually dies down.

Edit : You happen to have a pole at fs/2, the maximum frequency, with low-damping, which is why it oscillates. Continuous systems don't have a maximum frequency. This discrete system does not have a continuous equivalent... At least, that's my intuition.

unit circle and natural frequency here

  • $\begingroup$ why would a continuous system not exhibit this oscillation, which eventually dies out? $\endgroup$
    – HaneenSu
    Feb 15, 2020 at 0:56
  • $\begingroup$ the reason why this phenomenon would not happen in a continuous system because this is a discretization issue. $\endgroup$
    – Ben
    Feb 15, 2020 at 1:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I would say that because zero order hold introduce phase-shift or delay of Ts/s which causing oscillation. If you add delay to continuous time system, it will oscillate as well. $\endgroup$
    – M lab
    Nov 30, 2023 at 13:39

A real continuous time system has more restrictions than a discrete time system.

The reason is that a first order continuous system of the form $\dot{x} = f(x)$ cannot pass to the 'other side' of an equilibrium. A discrete time system has no such limitations.

It has nothing to do with the poles of the system, which need not be linear.

The discrete time systems $x_{n+1} = {1 \over 2} x_n$ and $x_{n+1} = -{1 \over 2} x_n$ are both exponentially stable. The first system could be a sampled version of a first order continuous time system, the second could not.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.