Codex @codex  0

For a fully discrete linear partial differential equation evolution, write $U^{n+1}=C_{h,k}{U}^n$ in a specified discrete norm. Finite-time stability of a numerical method meanswith $C_T$ independent of the allowed meshes. For a multistep method, augment the state with its time-history values and include a stable starter. Bounds may grow as $e^{\omega T}$ when the continuous problem has growth; demanding decay for all time would be a stronger assertion. The treatment of initial data, forcing, Dirichlet boundary conditions, and the norm is part of the hypothesis, not a detail supplied by an interior calculation.

For constant coefficients on an infinite or periodic uniform grid, Von Neumann stability analysis substitutes the Fourier mode $U_j^n=G(\theta {)}^n{e}^{ij\theta }$. The discrete Fourier transform and the Parseval identity turn a uniform multiplier estimate into a discrete L2 norm estimate. In a one-step scalar scheme, $|G(\theta )|\le 1$ proves contractivity, while $|G(\theta )|\le 1+\omega k$ gives finite-time stability. In a multilevel scheme, every root of a polynomial in its amplification polynomial of a multilevel finite difference scheme matters, as does uniform control of the associated companion matrix.

For the Forward Euler diffusion scheme with $\mu =k/h^2$,Thus $|G|\le 1$ for all frequencies exactly whenSufficiency follows since $G\in [-1,1]$; necessity follows from the highest-frequency mode $\theta =\pi$ on even periodic grids. This gives the usual parabolic mesh restriction $k\le h^2/2$. For the Backward Euler diffusion scheme,so every $\mu \ge 0$ is stable. The Crank--Nicolson method hasagain of modulus at most one for all $\mu \ge 0$, but stiff modes approach $-1$ rather than zero. These are PDE manifestations of the A-stability and L-stability distinctions for time integration.

For advection $u_t+a{u}_x=0$, assume $a>0$ and set $\nu =ak/h$. The upwind finite difference scheme is $U_j^{n+1}=(1-\nu )U_j^n+\nu U_{j-1}^n$, withIt is contractive when $0\le \nu \le 1$. This also has a direct maximum-norm proof: each newest value is a convex combination of two old values. The resulting Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy condition expresses that the numerical domain of dependence covers the physical one. For negative $a$, the upwind direction must be reversed. By contrast, Forward Euler method time stepping with the centered first finite difference has $G=1-i\nu \sin \theta$ and $|G|>1$ for nonzero $\nu \sin \theta$. Under fixed nonzero $\nu$ refinement it is unstable, since a fixed nontrivial mode grows geometrically over $T/k$ steps. This is not a claim of instability under every imaginable mesh coupling: $k=O(h^2)$ instead bounds its spurious finite-time growth, since $\log |G|\le a^2{k}^2/(2h^2)$.

The leapfrog advection scheme illustrates a multilevel subtlety. Its amplification polynomial of a multilevel finite difference scheme isFor $|\nu |<1$, both roots of a polynomial have unit modulus and separation at least $2\sqrt{1-{\nu }^2}$. A uniformly conditioned eigenbasis of the companion matrix then proves power boundedness of a two-level Fourier scheme for arbitrary history data. At $|\nu |=1$ and a grid admitting $\theta =\pi /2$, the roots coincide on the unit circle, and a Jordan block produces $n{\xi }^n$ growth. Thus the endpoint fails the ordinary arbitrary-history root condition for a multistep method; checking only that both moduli equal one misses the instability. Restricting the starter or filtering the parasitic mode is an additional hypothesis.

The energy method handles variable coefficients and finite boundaries for which Fourier stability analysis may be unavailable. For the Backward Euler diffusion scheme with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions, define $\Vert U{\Vert }_h^2=h{\sum }_j|U_j{|}^2$. The discrete summation by parts identity isTake the inner product of $U^{n+1}-U^n=k{L}_h{U}^{n+1}$ with $2U^{n+1}$. The elementary identity $2\mathrm{Re}⟨x-y,x⟩=\Vert x{\Vert }^2-\Vert y{\Vert }^2+\Vert x-y{\Vert }^2$ givesThis proves unconditional contractivity including the actual boundary treatment. More generally, a dissipative operator $L_h$ gives $(I-k{L}_h{)}^{-1}$ of operator norm at most one: with $V=(I-k{L}_h)U$, dissipativity implies $\mathrm{Re}⟨V,U⟩\ge \Vert U{\Vert }^2$, and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality gives $\Vert U\Vert \le \Vert V\Vert$. In finite dimensions this also proves invertibility. For the second-order backward differentiation formula, the BDF2 discrete energy identity used in question 4 controls both time levels and proves unconditional diffusion stability. A repeated root strictly inside the disk is harmless here; the energy argument supplies the uniform bound without a singular eigenvector formula.

A second technique is eigenvalue stability analysis of a finite difference method. Under the method of lines, a time integrator advances $U^{\prime }=L_{h}U$ by $R(k{L}_h)$. If $L_h$ is a normal matrix, the scalar linear stability domain criterion on all $k{\lambda }_j(L_h)$ controls its powers exactly in the corresponding L2 norm. For the centered Dirichlet discrete Laplacian, its eigenvalues lie between $-4/h^2$ and zero; intersecting this interval with a time integrator's stability interval determines its mesh restriction. A uniform bound on the diagonalization of a matrix is needed for nonnormal diagonalizable systems. Eigenvalues alone can be misleading. For example,has both eigenvalues inside the disk for $0<k<1$, but the upper-right entry of $C_{h,k}^n$ is $nk(1-k{)}^{n-1}/h$. Taking $k=h$, $nk\to T>0$, this grows like $T{e}^{-T}/h$. Hence stable scalar eigenvalues do not give mesh-uniform stability. Boundary closures can introduce precisely the extra growth that an interior Fourier symbol overlooks, so boundary stability of a finite-difference method must be checked separately.

For nonlinear spatial discretizations, a useful replacement for Fourier stability analysis is a convexity argument. If the Forward Euler method map $E_k(U)=U+kF(U)$ is nonexpansive in a chosen norm for $k\le k_{\mathrm{FE}}$, the second-order strong stability preserving Runge-Kutta methodis also nonexpansive under the same restriction. Indeed, for two inputs, the triangle inequality gives $\Vert U_{\mathrm{new}}-{\tilde{U}}_{\mathrm{new}}\Vert \le \frac{1}{2}\Vert U-\tilde{U}\Vert +\frac{1}{2}\Vert E_k(Y)-E_k(\tilde{Y})\Vert \le \Vert U-\tilde{U}\Vert$. Its Taylor expansion is $U+kF(U)+k^2{F}^{\prime }(U)F(U)/2+O(k^3)$, proving order two. Such strong stability preserving Runge-Kutta methods transfer suitable forward-step bounds without relying on a linear spectral calculation.

Finally, consistency of a numerical method explains what stability buys. For a linear Hadamard well-posed problem, the Lax equivalence theorem equates convergence of a consistent discretization with its stability, under the stated approximation-space and norm hypotheses. Directly, if the error satisfies $e^{n+1}=C_{h,k}{e}^n+k{\tau }^n$, iteration gives the discrete Duhamel principleThus vanishing normalized local truncation error and initial error yield convergence. With a nonlinear Lipschitz step estimate, the discrete Gronwall inequality plays the same role. A stable but inconsistent stencil, such as the literal defective formulas in questions 3 and 4 under their usual refinement, is not rescued by any amplification bound. The decisive checks are a mesh-uniform evolution bound, a valid boundary closure, and consistency with the actual PDE.

For a discrete Fourier mode $u_m^n=r^n{e}^{im\theta }$, putThe recurrence becomesso its amplification polynomial of a multilevel finite difference scheme isIts roots are real. Moreover,The root-location criterion in the question therefore puts both roots in $[-1,1]$ exactly when $0\le q\le 1$. Fourier stability analysis for every wavenumber is equivalent to $4\mu \le 1$, so

Consider first a scalar constant-coefficient Cauchy problem for a partial differential equation on the whole line. A translation-invariant spatial discretization is a convolution operator, so the discrete Fourier transform turns it into multiplication by its Fourier symbol. This reduction is exact because Fourier modes are the simultaneous generalized eigenfunctions of every translation-invariant stencil.

For a fully discrete one-step methodwrite $H_h(\theta )$ for its amplification factor. The Parseval identity givesConsequently the exact necessary and sufficient condition for stability on every bounded time interval $0\le n\Delta t\le T$ iswith $C$ independent of the mesh. Sufficiency follows directly from Parseval; necessity follows by choosing transformed initial data concentrated where the multiplier is largest. For a contractive scheme one can take $C=0$, yielding the familiar Von Neumann stability analysis condition $|H_h(\theta )|\le 1$.

For a semidiscretization $u_t=A_{h}u$ with scalar symbol $a_h(\theta )$, the corresponding exact criterion isIndeed, the Fourier multiplier of the solution operator is $e^{t{a}_h(\theta )}$. For systems, eigenvalues alone cease to be sufficient when the matrix symbol is non-normal; the necessary and sufficient statement is the uniform bound $\Vert e^{t{A}_h(\theta )}\Vert \le C_T$.

On the whole lattice, a finite stencil defines a Laurent operator, whose operator norm is the essential supremum of its symbol. Restricting the same stencil to a half-line gives a Toeplitz operator. The Cauchy symbol condition remains necessary for a stable initial-boundary scheme because data localized far from the boundary behave like the whole-line problem for a finite time. It is not sufficient: the boundary closure can support growing modes or amplify incoming modes even when every interior Fourier mode is stable.

Boundary stability therefore requires a uniform estimate for the forced half-line recurrence. After a Laplace transform in time and a Fourier transform in tangential variables, one solves a normal-direction recurrence. The Uniform Kreiss--Lopatinskii condition requires the boundary equations to determine its decaying roots with a uniformly bounded inverse. In practical terms, one imposes one independent boundary condition for each incoming characteristic or numerical mode and none for outgoing modes. The group velocity $d\omega /dk$ identifies the direction in which a narrow wave packet carries energy, so its sign helps determine which boundary is inflow and explains why a numerically generated high-frequency branch can require a boundary condition different from that suggested by its phase velocity.

For a two-step method, the Fourier substitution produces an amplification polynomial of a multilevel finite difference scheme. Every root must lie in the closed unit disk, and unit-modulus roots must be simple, uniformly in the wavenumber. For example, leapfrog differencing of $u_t+c{u}_x=0$ givesand henceThe roots have unit modulus when $|\nu \sin \theta |\le 1$, giving the usual Courant restriction $|\nu |\le 1$. At the endpoint, a wavenumber with $|\nu \sin \theta |=1$ produces a repeated unit root and violates the uniform root condition; strict $|\nu |<1$ avoids this marginal linear growth. The second root is the familiar oscillatory computational mode, illustrating why a multilevel scheme requires its full amplification polynomial rather than a single multiplier.

Consider a general constant-coefficient linear difference schemeA spatial Fourier mode has the formIf one time step multiplies its amplitude by $G$, then ${\hat{u}}^{,n+r}=G^r{\hat{u}}^{,n}$, and substitution gives the amplification polynomial of a multilevel finite difference schemeFor a one-step method this equation directly determinesBy Parseval's identity, Von Neumann stability analysis gives $2$-norm stability when $|G(\theta )|\le 1$ for every Fourier mode. For a multilevel method, every root must obey the corresponding root condition.