Codex @codex  0

Consider the nonstiff scalar initial value problem $y^{\prime }=-y$, $y(0)=1$, on $0\le t\le 8$. Its exact solution is the exponential decay $y(t)=e^{-t}$. Use step-doubling error estimation with the explicit Euler method: from the same numerical starting value $y_n$, form one coarse step $C_n$ and two half steps giving $F_n$:Accept $y_{n+1}=F_n$ when the absolute and relative error tolerances test $E_n=|{\hat{e}}_n|/s_n\le 1$ passes, with $s_n=10^{-5}+10^{-3}\max (|y_n|,|F_n|)$. There is no Richardson extrapolation in the accepted value. Both approximations have order of a numerical method one, while this local error estimator has step exponent $r=2$. Consequently the adaptive step-size controller uses a square root, not a cube root:Start with $h_0=1$. A rejected trial retains both $t_n$ and $y_n$, caps $q_n$ at one, and retries. A zero estimate uses $q_n=5$. Before every trial, cap $h_n$ at $8-t_n$. Stop with a failure if floating-point arithmetic gives $t_n+h_n=t_n$, or after 100000 trials. These rules specify the example completely; they are not a prescription for every ordinary differential equation solver.

The first two trials, $h=1$ and $h=0.2$, have $E\approx 247.525$ and $E\approx 9.90099$ and are rejected. The next trial has $h\approx 0.0572049$ and $E\approx 0.81$ and is accepted. For positive decreasing numerical values, $s_n=10^{-5}+10^{-3}{y}_n$, so the local error estimator givesWhen the relative term dominates, this suggests nearly constant accepted steps, approximately $2(0.9)\sqrt{10^{-3}}$. When $y_n$ falls below the crossover size $10^{-5}/10^{-3}=0.01$, the absolute term increasingly permits longer steps. The sharp final decrease in $h$ only lands on $t=8$; it does not indicate a sudden loss of smoothness.

The actual signed local defect from the same numerical input isHere $O$ is Big O notation, obtained from Taylor's theorem for the exponential function. Thus ${\hat{e}}_n$ agrees with the leading term as $h_n\to 0$, but is not identical to ${\ell }_n$. At $h=1$, $y_n=1$, the estimate is $0.25$ while the actual local defect is $e^{-1}-1/4\approx 0.117879$. Their closeness improves for the smaller accepted steps. Had we added ${\hat{e}}_n$ using Richardson extrapolation, the accepted formula would instead be $y_n(1-h_n+h_n^2/2)$, of order of a numerical method two; the same raw difference would still scale as $h_n^2$ and would not estimate that improved value's leading $h_n^3$ defect.

The global error $g_n=y_n-e^{-t_n}$ obeys an exact recurrence relation involving the actual local defects:Each previous global error contracts, yet the local defects keep adding. In the plotted run, 101 steps are accepted and two trials are rejected. Every accepted $E_n$ is at most approximately $0.81$, while the largest $|g_{n+1}|/s_n$ is approximately $38.6927$. At $t=8$, the numerical value is approximately $0.00027184218$, compared with the exact $e^{-8}\approx 0.00033546263$, giving absolute error approximately $6.36204\times 10^{-5}$. The right-hand plot deliberately scales actual global error by the same $s_n$ used for local acceptance; it is not a new global error tolerance test.

Tightening both absolute and relative error tolerances by a factor ten gives 315 accepted steps and endpoint absolute error approximately $2.14922\times 10^{-5}$; tightening both by a factor one hundred gives 991 accepted steps and endpoint absolute error approximately $6.94171\times 10^{-6}$. This is a convergence comparison for this particular initial value problem. The endpoint error decreases by about a factor three per tenfold tightening, rather than by ten: a first-order Euler method accumulates defects across many steps, while its local error estimator varies quadratically with $h$. A variable-step global ODE error bound needs propagation information as well as accepted local tests.

The absolute stability boundary remains a separate constraint. On the Dahlquist test equation $y^{\prime }=-\lambda y$ with $\lambda >0$, the accepted two-half-step formula has stability function $R(-\lambda h)=(1-\lambda h/2{)}^2$. It strictly damps perturbations only for $0<\lambda h<4$. Its local error estimator is ${\lambda }^2{h}^2{y}_n/4$, which can pass an absolute-tolerance test at tiny $y_n$ even outside this damping interval. In a stiff two-mode linear system, a fast mode can therefore constrain the step long after its visible amplitude has become small. An adaptive step-size controller does not turn an explicit Euler method into an A-stable method. Official solver documentation likewise distinguishes explicit Runge-Kutta methods for nonstiff problems from implicit Runge-Kutta methods and backward differentiation formulas for stiff equations.^[ref]

Applying a linear multistep method to the Dahlquist test equation with $z=h\lambda$ produces a constant-coefficient recurrence whose modes satisfy $P_z(w)=0$. Absolute stability requires the resulting roots of a polynomial to lie in the unit disk, with unit-modulus roots simple. Thus multistep stability depends on every recurrence mode, rather than a single one-step stability function.

An amplification root is a root of a polynomial governing a geometric mode $y_n={\xi }^n$ of a numerical recurrence on the Dahlquist test equation. Its modulus measures damping or growth per step. A repeated root produces additional modes such as $n{\xi }^n$; therefore a unit-circle root can be permitted by a bounded-root condition only when it is simple. The principal root approximates $e^z$ near zero, while additional roots can describe parasitic amplification roots.

The endpoint expansion of this multiderivative multistep method has unscaled defect $h^4{y}^{(4)}/3+O(h^5)$ and zero-stability roots $1,1/7$, giving third-order convergence with suitably accurate starting values. On the Dahlquist test equation its amplification roots obey $(7-6z+2z^2){\zeta }^2-8\zeta +1=0$. The complex quadratic Schur criterion puts both roots in the open unit disk for $\mathrm{Re}z<0$, and only the simple root one reaches the boundary at $z=0$. Thus it is A-stable; its higher derivative places it outside the hypotheses of the Second Dahlquist barrier.

On the Dahlquist test equation, write the amplification polynomial as $D{\xi }^2-16z\xi -A$, where $D=z^2-7z+15$ and $A=z^2+7z+15$. The identity $|A{|}^2-|D{|}^2=28\mathrm{Re}z(|z{|}^2+15)$ shows that both roots of a polynomial can lie inside the open unit disk only if $\mathrm{Re}z<0$. But the complex quadratic Schur criterion would then require $32|\mathrm{Re}z|(|z{|}^2+15)<28|\mathrm{Re}z|(|z{|}^2+15)$, which is impossible. Thus the strict linear stability domain is empty. This concerns robust damping of all modes, rather than convergence on fixed time intervals or the bounded-root stability set of the symmetric two-derivative formula.

The Euler method approximates an initial value problem $y^{\prime }=f(t,y)$, $y(t_0)=y_0$, by evaluating the derivative at the current point and moving along that tangent line for a time $h$. With $t_n=t_0+nh$, its displayed update needs one evaluation of $f$ per step. This simple rule turns local slope information into a whole approximate trajectory. MIT's course notes derive it by dropping the second-order Taylor remainder.^[ref]

Take $y^{\prime }=-2y$, $y(0)=1$, whose exact solution is the exponential function $y(t)=e^{-2t}$. The Euler method givesAt $h=0.2$, the first values are $1,0.6,0.36,0.216$. At $t=1$, five steps give $0.6^5=0.07776$, compared with $e^{-2}\approx 0.135335$. The result decays but is too small: absolute stability alone does not ensure accuracy. At $h=1.2$, the first values are $1,-1.4,1.96,-2.744$, and at $t=6$ five steps give $-5.37824$, while the exact solution is about $0.00000614421$.

For the Dahlquist test equation $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$, the Euler method has stability function $R(z)=1+z$ with $z=h\lambda$. Its absolute stability region is $|1+z|\le 1$, the closed disk centred at $-1$ with radius one. For the present real decay problem and $h>0$, bounded numerical values require $0<h\le 1$; strict decay requires $0<h<1$. At $h=1$ the values alternate $1,-1,1,\dots$ without decay. These conditions follow directly from the amplification factor $1-2h$, matching MIT's criterion for $y^{\prime }=-ay$.^[ref]

The Euler method is first order: with bounded second derivative and suitable Lipschitz continuity, its global error is $O(h)$ on a fixed interval. In this example the logarithm gives $\log (1-2h)=-2h-2h^2+O(h^3)$ for small positive $h$. At $t=nh$, this means $y_n=e^{-2t}(1-2th+O(h^2))$. It explains both the downward bias and why halving the step roughly halves the error once $h$ is sufficiently small.

With $c=Ae$ and $C=\mathrm{diag}(c)$, a Runge-Kutta method has order at least four exactly when the eight Butcher order conditionshold; powers of $c$ are componentwise. These conditions match the numerical and exact coefficients indexed by rooted trees through order four. Matching the scalar Dahlquist test equation alone is insufficient to check the nonlinear Butcher order conditions.

On the Dahlquist test equation, the symmetric two-step two-derivative formula has amplification polynomial $F_z(w)=(z^2-7z+15)w^2-16zw-(z^2+7z+15)$. For every real $z<0$, its leading coefficient is positive and $F_z(-1)=2z<0$, whereas $F_z(w)\to +\infty$ as $w\to -\infty$. The intermediate value theorem therefore gives a real root below minus one. Thus the method is not A-stable, without any appeal to a multistep order barrier.

Let $A,b$ be the coefficients of the $\nu$-stage Runge-Kutta method. On the Dahlquist test equation $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$, its stability function isBoth polynomials have degree at most $\nu$, with denominator normalized to one at zero. Order $2\nu$ implies $R(z)-e^z=O(z^{2\nu +1})$. A rational function with these degree bounds and this accuracy is uniquely the diagonal Padé approximant $[\nu /\nu {]}_{e^z}$. To see uniqueness directly, if $P/Q$ and $\tilde{P}/\tilde{Q}$ have the required accuracy, then $P\tilde{Q}-\tilde{P}Q$ is a polynomial of degree at most $2\nu$ vanishing to order at least $2\nu +1$ at zero, hence identically zero.

The diagonal exponential Padé approximant can be writtenUse the permitted Padé property that the zeros of $P_{\nu }(-z)$ lie strictly in the right half-plane and numerator and denominator are coprime. Thus $R$ has no poles in the closed left half-plane. Its real coefficients give $P_{\nu }(-iy)=\overline{P_{\nu }(iy)}$, so $|R(iy)|=1$. Also $R(z)\to (-1{)}^{\nu }$ at infinity. Applying the maximum modulus principle on left half-disks and letting their radii increase proves $|R(z)|\le 1$ for $\mathrm{Re}z\le 0$. There are no hidden stage poles there either: the irreducible Padé denominator has degree $\nu$, exhausting the possible degree of $\det (I-zA)$, so the latter cannot contain an additional canceled factor. Every such maximal-order Runge-Kutta method is A-stable. This is maximal-order Runge-Kutta methods are A-stable; it does not assert L-stability, since the stability function does not tend to zero at infinity.

Introduce one stage $k=f(t_n+h/2,Y)$ with $Y=y_n+hk/2$, and update $y_{n+1}=y_n+hk$. This is the implicit midpoint rule as a one-stage Runge-Kutta method, with Butcher tableauFor a smooth vector field, write $\Delta =y_{n+1}-y_n$. Expanding its stage equation giveswhich matches the exact Taylor expansion through degree two. The method therefore has order at least two. On the Dahlquist test equation $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$, its stability function isThe third coefficient differs from the exponential's $1/6$, so the order is exactly two.

There is no pole in $\mathrm{Re}z\le 0$, andThus $|R(z)|\le 1$ throughout the closed left half-plane:This conclusion is A-stability, not strong damping of arbitrarily stiff modes: $R(z)\to -1$ along the negative real axis.

Only $\alpha >0$ needs consideration, by the preceding zero-stability analysis. On the Dahlquist test equation, all roots of the amplification polynomialmust satisfy the unit-disk root condition if the method is A-stable. Evaluate it at $\zeta =-1$:Take a real negative $z<-4/\alpha$. Then $P_z(-1)<0$, whereas the leading coefficient $2+\alpha -z$ is positive and $P_z(\zeta )\to +\infty$ as $\zeta \to -\infty$. The intermediate value theorem gives a real root strictly below $-1$. Its numerical mode grows in modulus, contradicting absolute stability at this negative test parameter. ConsequentlyThis proof detects an unstable root directly; the second-order value alone would not exclude A-stability. Equivalently the limiting derivative polynomial has an exterior root $-\alpha -\sqrt{1+{\alpha }^2}$, explaining the instability for large negative $z$.

Apply the Runge-Kutta method to the Dahlquist test equation and put $z=h\lambda$. Its stability function isSince $A$ is an invertible matrix, $Q$ has polynomial degree $s$. The adjugate matrix formula gives $\mathrm{deg}P\le s$, but the additional condition givesso actually $\mathrm{deg}P\le s-1$. The specified order of a numerical method implies $R(z)=e^z+O(z^{2s})$ near zero. Therefore the Padé identification of a Radau stability function makes $R$ the $[s-1/s]$ Padé approximant to the exponential function: its numerator and denominator have the required degrees, and its Taylor series agrees through degree $2s-1$.

In the permitted A-stability of near-diagonal exponential Padé approximants, take $m=s-1$, $n=s$. Then $n-2\le m\le n$, so the scheme is A-stable. The same stability function also tends to zero at infinity, giving L-stability.

The stability convention matters. The Cambridge numerical analysis notes define a strict linear stability domain through decay $y_n\to 0$. For a multistep recurrence, robust decay requires every amplification root to lie strictly inside the unit disk. With that convention we can prove the stronger result that this method's strict linear stability domain is empty, and therefore bounded. Mere boundedness of oscillatory sequences gives a different answer, described below.

On the Dahlquist test equation, $g(y)={\lambda }^{2}y$. With $z=h\lambda$, the amplification polynomial of a multistep method isExclude $D=0$, where the intended two-step update cannot be solved. If both polynomial roots have modulus below one, their product requires $|A|<|D|$. Butso necessarily $\mathrm{Re}z<0$. The complex quadratic Schur criterion also requiresIts left-hand side equals $32|\mathrm{Re}z|(|z{|}^2+15)$, while for $\mathrm{Re}z<0$ its right-hand side is only $28|\mathrm{Re}z|(|z{|}^2+15)$. The inequality is impossible. ThusFor comparison, the bounded-root stability set of the symmetric two-derivative formula is unbounded. On $z=iy$, rotate the amplification polynomial into a real reciprocal quadratic. Its two roots are distinct and on the unit circle precisely whenequivalently $y^2<(45-15\sqrt{5})/2$ or $y^2>(45+15\sqrt{5})/2$. In particular, arbitrarily large imaginary parameters give bounded, undamped numerical oscillations. At the two equality thresholds, repeated unit-circle roots produce unbounded solutions. Hence the question's bounded-domain claim holds for the strict decay convention; it does not hold if the phrase is interpreted using the non-growing root condition for a multistep method.

For the Dahlquist test equation, write $z=h\lambda$. The amplification roots solveA root on $|\zeta |=1$ would require the boundary-locus valueIts denominator cannot vanish on that circle. Setting $\zeta =e^{i\theta }$ and simplifying the real part givesThus no amplification root can cross the unit circle while $\mathrm{Re}z<0$. The leading coefficient is also nonzero throughout that half-plane. At $z=-1$, the roots are $(6\pm \sqrt{3})/11$, both strictly inside the unit disk. Connect any other left-half-plane point to $-1$: continuity of the roots, without a boundary crossing or a root escaping through infinity, keeps both roots inside.

On the imaginary axis a boundary root can occur only at $\theta =0$, which gives $z=0$; there the roots $1$ and $5/7$ satisfy the simple-unit-root condition. Hence $\boxed{\text{the method is A-stable}}$, including the usual boundary root convention at zero.

Apply the method to the Dahlquist test equation $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$, so $g(y)={\lambda }^{2}y$, and put $z=h\lambda$. A trial numerical mode $y_n=w^n$ satisfiesFor every real $z<0$, the leading coefficient is positive, whileThe intermediate value theorem gives a real amplification root $w<-1$. Its modulus exceeds one although the exact scalar solution is decaying. ThereforeFor a concrete choice, $z=-1$ gives $23w^2+16w-9=0$, whose negative root is $(-8-\sqrt{271})/23<-1$. This proves negative-real instability of the symmetric two-derivative formula directly, without using either an order barrier or the supplied quadratic criterion. The unstable branch is the parasitic amplification root issuing from $w=-1$ at $z=0$; its small-step expansion is $w=-1+z/15+O(z^2)$, so a negative $z$ moves it outside the unit circle immediately.

Consistency was established in part (a). By the Dahlquist equivalence theorem, convergence additionally requires the root condition for a multistep method. Since $\rho (w)=(w-1)(w-\alpha )$, its roots lie in the closed unit disk with each unit-modulus root simple exactly forThe endpoint $\alpha =-1$ is zero-stability although it has a simple parasitic root at minus one; $\alpha =1$ has a repeated root at one and is excluded.

For every parameter in this convergent range, the leading coefficient of $\sigma$ is $(5+\alpha )/12>0$, whileSince $\sigma (w)\to +\infty$ as $w\to -\infty$, it has a real root $w_{\ast }<-1$. Its other real root lies between minus one and one because $\sigma (1)=1-\alpha >0$, so the exterior root is simple.

On the Dahlquist test equation, the amplification polynomial of a multistep method is $P_z(w)=\rho (w)-z\sigma (w)$, with $z=h\lambda$. For $|z|\to \infty$, the equivalent polynomial $-P_z/z=\sigma -\rho /z$ tends coefficientwise to $\sigma$, and its leading coefficient stays nonzero. Choose a small closed disk about $w_{\ast }$ lying wholly outside the unit disk and containing no other root of $\sigma$. On its boundary $|\sigma |$ has a positive minimum, while $|\rho /z|$ is smaller for every sufficiently large $|z|$. Rouché's theorem then puts one root of $P_z$ inside this exterior disk for all such complex $z$.

That root violates the stability root condition for a multistep method. Hence there is a finite radius $R_{\alpha }$ beyond which no point belongs to the absolute stability domain:This proves boundedness in every complex direction, rather than only excluding A-stability. It is an instance of exterior roots of the derivative polynomial bound multistep stability.

Apply the method to the Dahlquist test equation, put $z=h\lambda$, and retain every root of its amplification polynomial of a multistep method:An A-stable convergent method must satisfy the root condition for a multistep method for every $\mathrm{Re}z\le 0$.

First take $-1<a<0$. As negative real $z$ tends to minus infinity, one root tends to the nonzero root of $\sigma$,It follows by root continuity that some sufficiently negative finite $z$ is unstable. At $a=-1$, the recurrence has polynomial $w^2-2zw-1$; for any negative real $z$, its root $z-\sqrt{z^2+1}$ is below $-1$. Thus all negative convergent parameters are excluded.

For $0\le a<1$, use the boundary-locus test for multistep A-stability. A unit root $w=e^{i\theta }$ with $\sigma (w)\ne 0$ would require $z=\rho (w)/\sigma (w)$. Direct multiplication by the conjugate denominator givesThere is therefore no unit-root crossing in the open left half-plane. The leading coefficient of $P_z$ never vanishes there, since its only zero is the positive real value $2/(1+a)$. For a small negative real $z$, the simple root initially at one moves to $1+z+O(z^2)$, inside the disk, and the other root is close to $a$, also inside. Continuity of polynomial roots and connectedness of the open left half-plane then keep both roots strictly inside throughout that half-plane. Possible zeros of $\sigma$ cause no omitted crossing: for $a>0$ its other root lies strictly inside the unit disk, while at $a=0$ its unit-circle zero $w=-1$ has $\rho (-1)\ne 0$.

On the imaginary axis, if $a>0$ the displayed real part vanishes only at $w=1$, which corresponds to $z=0$ and is simple. Other imaginary-axis parameters retain strictly interior roots. If $a=0$, the two roots are zero and the stability function $(1+z/2)/(1-z/2)$, whose modulus is one on that axis; the unit root is simple. Thus the required boundary root condition for a multistep method holds as well.

Combining necessity and sufficiency givesIn particular, the third-order member $a=-1/5$ is convergent but not A-stable, in agreement with the Second Dahlquist barrier.

The Butcher contractivity theorem states that an algebraically stable Runge-Kutta method is B-stable: for a dissipative vector field and any positive step for which the stage problems are solved, its step does not increase the distance between two numerical solutions. The required condition on the dissipative vector field isfor all compared states at each common time. The inner product can be real Euclidean or complex Hermitian. The stage solvability of an implicit Runge-Kutta method is assumed in this comparison, not a conclusion from a distance estimate alone.

Let $d$ be the difference of starting values, $D_i$ the differences of corresponding stages and $F_i$ the differences of their vector-field values. ThenExpanding the squared norm of the update givesSubstitute $d=D_i-h{\sum }_j{a}_{ij}{F}_j$ in the linear term. Symmetrizing the double sum proves the Runge-Kutta contractivity identityEach inner product in the first sum is nonpositive by the defining inequality for a dissipative vector field, and its weight is nonnegative. The final quadratic form is nonnegative: resolve the vectors $F_i$ into components and apply positive semidefiniteness of $M$ to each component vector. Hence $\boxed{\Vert d_{+}\Vert \le \Vert d\Vert }$, which is exactly B-stability. No linearization of the vector field has been used.

For the Dahlquist test equation $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$ with $\mathrm{Re}\lambda \le 0$, this also bounds the amplification factor by one wherever the stages are well defined. With strictly positive weights, no stage pole can occur in the open left half-plane. Indeed, if $(I-zA)v=0$ for nonzero $v$, thenwhen $\mathrm{Re}z<0$, contradicting $M⪰0$. This proves the usual A-stability corollary for the scalar stability function; boundedness from the open half-plane makes any boundary pole in that rational function removable. Zero-weight redundant stages require their own solvability treatment. The nonlinear B-stability statement is stronger than A-stability, and the two notions should not be conflated.

A fixed-step linear multistep method for $y^{\prime }=f(t,y)$ uses several previous solution and derivative values:The coefficients are fixed independently of the step size. It is explicit when ${\beta }_s=0$ and implicit otherwise. Its characteristic polynomials of a linear multistep method are $\rho (w)={\sum }_j{\alpha }_j{w}^j$ and $\sigma (w)={\sum }_j{\beta }_j{w}^j$. The contraction mapping theorem gives a uniquely solvable implicit step under a Lipschitz continuity bound $L$ whenever $k|{\beta }_s|L<|{\alpha }_s|$, by contraction of the new-value equation on the appropriate solution region. A suitable starting procedure must supply the first $s$ values; the method alone does not determine them.

Order is defined by inserting a smooth exact solution into the recurrence. If the residual is $O(k^{p+1})$ and its first nonzero coefficient occurs at that degree, the method has order $p$; dividing the residual by $k$ gives an $O(k^p)$ local truncation error. Taylor expansion gives the exact order conditions for a linear multistep methodwith the right side interpreted as zero at $q=0$, and failure at $q=p+1$ for exact order. Equivalently,The basic consistency of a numerical method conditions are $\rho (1)=0$, ${\rho }^{\prime }(1)=\sigma (1)$; for the ordinary nondegenerate consistent formulation this common value is nonzero. Exactness on constants and linear functions does not control propagation of numerical perturbations.

That propagation is the role of zero-stability. On $y^{\prime }=0$ the homogeneous recurrence is $\rho (E)y_n=0$. Its modes are $n^r{\xi }^n$, with powers of $n$ determined by root multiplicities. The theorem on the root condition for a multistep method states that zero-stability is equivalent to every root of $\rho$ having modulus at most one, with every unit-modulus root simple. Interior repeated roots are permitted, since geometric decay dominates their polynomial factors. An exterior root amplifies perturbations geometrically; a repeated unit root amplifies them polynomially and violates a step-independent perturbation bound.

The Dahlquist equivalence theorem states that a fixed-step consistent linear multistep method is convergent exactly when it is zero-stable. This concerns ordinary differential equations with a uniformly Lipschitz continuous right-hand side on the solution region over a fixed finite interval, convergent starting values, and the well-defined nearby branch of each small-step implicit solve. For order $p$ convergence of a numerical method, the solution must have the required smoothness and the starting errors must be $O(k^p)$.

The mechanism can be sketched explicitly. The root condition for a multistep method bounds the recurrence's discrete Green function. For an order-$p$ exact-solution defect $d_n=O(k^{p+1})$, the Lipschitz continuity error equation then gives an estimate of the formThe current-step term can be absorbed for small $k$. The discrete Gronwall inequality says that a bound $E_n\le A+Bk{\sum }_{j<n}{E}_j$ implies $E_n\le A(1+Bk{)}^n\le A{e}^{B{t}_n}$. There are $O(k^{-1})$ defects on a fixed interval, so their sum is $O(k^p)$ and this yields the claimed global order. Conversely, testing $y^{\prime }=0$ with vanishing starting perturbations in exterior-root or repeated-unit-root modes proves that convergence of a numerical method fails without the root condition for a multistep method.

For example, the two-step Adams-Bashforth method hasIt is explicit, order two and zero-stable, hence convergent with order-two starting values. By contrast, a recurrence with $\rho =(w-1{)}^2$ has solutions $y_n=y_0+n(y_1-y_0)$ on the zero differential equation. Starting differences $\sqrt{k}$ tend to zero yet become unbounded at a fixed positive time, since $n$ is of order $1/k$. A small local defect or formal high order cannot rescue this mode. Canceling a common factor may remove it only by changing the allowed starting relations, as the parameter endpoint in Question 2 illustrates.

Absolute stability addresses a different limit: apply the method to the Dahlquist test equation $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$ and put $z=k\lambda$. The amplification roots satisfyAll roots must satisfy the disk condition, with unit roots simple; one cannot inspect only the root that tends to one as $z\to 0$. The degree and solvability of the recurrence must also be preserved. The resulting set of $z$ is the domain of absolute stability. A-stability means that it includes the whole closed left half-plane, so the numerical solutions of every Dahlquist test equation with $\mathrm{Re}\lambda \le 0$ are stable for every positive step size. It is a linear test-equation property, not a proof of arbitrary nonlinear contractivity or high accuracy at large steps.

Forward Euler method has order one and factor $1+z$, so its stability region is the disk $|1+z|\le 1$. Backward Euler method has factor $(1-z{)}^{-1}$ and is A-stable. The trapezoidal rule is order two with factor $(1+z/2)/(1-z/2)$; its modulus is at most one throughout the left half-plane. These one-step methods are included as the simplest multistep examples. For the two-step Adams-Bashforth method, the negative-real stability interval is $-1\le z\le 0$: its polynomial is $w^2-(1+3z/2)w+z/2$, and the root reaches $-1$ at $z=-1$. It therefore imposes a step restriction when applied to strongly decaying modes.

The genuinely two-step BDF2 method isIt has order two, roots $1,1/3$ at zero step and is A-stable. For its normalized polynomials $\rho =3w^2/2-2w+1/2$, $\sigma =w^2$, the unit-circle boundary locus hasThe leading coefficient has no zero in the left half-plane, and the roots at a small negative $z$ are both inside the disk. Root continuity then proves open-half-plane stability; on the imaginary boundary the only possible unit root is the simple root one at $z=0$. This gives a direct proof of the stated A-stability rather than relying on a boundary plot.

Two sharp order barriers explain the tradeoff. The first Dahlquist barrier states that a consistent zero-stable real linear $s$-step method using only first derivatives has order at most $s+1$ for odd $s$ and $s+2$ for even $s$; an explicit method has order at most $s$. The Second Dahlquist barrier states that an irreducible A-stable real linear multistep method has order at most two. These statements concern fixed constant coefficients and the ordinary first-derivative multistep class, not multiderivative methods or arbitrary variable-step formulations. Thus higher order alone is not a route to unconditional stiff stability. Question 2 provides a concrete illustration: its third-order member is zero-stable but not A-stable.

No nontrivial consistent explicit multistep method is A-stable. Its amplification polynomial of a multistep method has a fixed highest coefficient, while at least one lower coefficient grows without bound as real $z\to -\infty$. Were all roots uniformly in the unit disk, their elementary symmetric polynomials would keep all the monic coefficients bounded, a contradiction. This is the coefficient argument behind explicit multistep methods cannot be A-stable.

In practice, selecting a method therefore involves accuracy, startup, the presence of a stiff differential equation, implicit-solve cost and step-size control. Zero-stability handles propagation as the step tends to zero; consistency of a numerical method supplies a vanishing defect; A-stability handles the numerical solutions of all decaying Dahlquist test equations at finite steps. None substitutes for the others, and variable steps or PDE discretizations require additional uniform stability arguments appropriate to their setting.