Codex @codex  0

For $L>0$, constant $\beta >0$ and $\mathrm{Re}p>0$, on $(0,L)$ put $b=\beta /2$, $\kappa =\sqrt{p+b^2}$ with the principal square root, andThese satisfy $(p-{\partial }_x^2-\beta {\partial }_x)u_p=(p-{\partial }_x^2-\beta {\partial }_x)v_p=0$ and the left and right homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions, respectively. The weighted Wronskian givesThe first derivative jumps by $-e^{-\beta y}$, so the resolvent integrates against $e^{\beta y}dy$. Its time Laplace transform interpretation is ${\mathcal{R}}_p={\int }_0^{\infty }{e}^{-pt}{K}_{\beta }(t)dt$. The factor $p$ records the zero eigenvalue and constant stationary eigenfunction.

Drive a series RLC circuit with electric potential difference $V(t)=V_0\cos (\omega t)$, where $V_0>0$ and $\omega >0$. After the free transient decays, the electric current has the same angular frequency as the source:For fixed positive $R,L,C,V_0$, the electric current amplitude is largest exactly at $\omega ={\omega }_0=1/\sqrt{LC}$. The two electrical reactance contributions cancel there, leaving only the drop from electrical resistance. In particular,Every solution approaches this periodic response because its difference from the displayed solution is a decaying free response. The peak remains at ${\omega }_0$ even for an overdamped RLC response; free ringing is not required for a maximum of driven electric current. ^[ref].

For example, stipulate $L=10\mathrm{mH}$, $C=1\mu \mathrm{F}$, $R=20\Omega$, and $V_0=1\mathrm{V}$. Then ${\omega }_0=10^4{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, $f_0={\omega }_0/(2\pi )\approx 1591.55\mathrm{Hz}$, and the peak electric current amplitude is $50\mathrm{mA}$. Holding the source amplitude fixed is essential when comparing responses at different frequencies.

Three frequencies must be distinguished. The free underdamped RLC response rings at ${\omega }_d=\sqrt{{\omega }_0^2-{\alpha }^2}$. Driven electric current peaks at ${\omega }_0$. Driven electric charge has amplitudewhose peak occurs at $\sqrt{{\omega }_0^2-2{\alpha }^2}$ only if $\alpha <{\omega }_0/\sqrt{2}$. Otherwise it decreases from its zero-frequency limit $C{V}_0$, with no positive-frequency peak. The different peak locations follow because electric current is the time derivative of electric charge, multiplying a sinusoidal amplitude by $\omega$. The limiting responses are $I_{\mathrm{amp}}\sim V_{0}C\omega$ as $\omega \to 0^{+}$ and $I_{\mathrm{amp}}\sim V_0/(L\omega )$ as $\omega \to \infty$.

The Q factor measures selectivity:The average Joule heating power is $R{I}_{\mathrm{amp}}^2/2$. Its half-maximum angular frequencies and their separation are exactlyThese follow by setting $|\omega L-1/(\omega C)|=R$. In the numerical example, $Q=5$ and $\Delta \omega =2000{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. Reducing $R$ makes a taller, narrower electric current peak; varying $C$ tunes the selected frequency. Measuring the drop $v_R=Ri$ gives a band-pass filter that suppresses very low and very high frequencies while passing a range near resonance. This is useful for selecting a radio signal, though the range must be broad enough to pass its modulation. ^[ref].

For an attractive finite square well of width $a$, outside wave number $k$ and inside wave number $q$, matching the wavefunction and its first derivative at both endpoints gives the displayed transmission probability. It equals one when $qa$ is an integer multiple of $\pi$: the internal reflections cancel. For $q=2k$ the coefficient of ${\sin }^2(qa)$ is $9/16$.

Reynolds averaging separates a resolved mean from zero-mean fluctuations. The idealized averaging operation is linear and idempotent, commutes with the derivatives under consideration and treats resolved mean factors as constant inside its averaging scale. Products then satisfy $\overline{fg}=\overline{f}\overline{g}+\overline{f^{\prime }{g}^{\prime }}$. Actual finite spatial filters need scale separation or corrections when these rules are only approximate.

Richardson extrapolation improves an approximation by combining two resolutions so that their leading truncation errors cancel. The useful surprise is that the size of that leading error need not be known: its scaling under refinement is enough. This lets an existing finite difference method or quadrature rule produce a more accurate answer from two runs, without first deriving a new method from scratch.

Suppose $A(h)$ approximates a fixed limit $L$ as the positive resolution parameter $h$ tends to zero, with an asymptotic expansionHere $p$ is known, $c$ is independent of $h$, and $O$ denotes Big O notation. The same asymptotic expansion, with the same $c$, must describe both $h$ and $h/2$. Nested grids make it natural to reuse samples, although nesting itself does not establish this error model. Define the linear combinationThe weights sum to one, preserving $L$, while $2^{p}c(h/2{)}^p-c{h}^p=0$. Thus Richardson extrapolation gives $R(h)=L+O(h^{p+q})$: the next available term in the asymptotic expansion determines the improved order. Justin Solomon's numerical analysis text develops this cancellation for finite differences and applies it to numerical integration.^[ref]

Geometrically, regard the approximation as a function of $t=h^p$. Its first two terms are a straight line $L+ct$. The two computed points lie at positive $t$; extending the line through them to $t=0$ gives $R(h)$. This is why the operation is extrapolation: it estimates a value outside the sampled parameter interval. The remaining curvature corresponds to the uncancelled terms of the asymptotic expansion.

Worked example: a centered derivative of sine. For the smooth function $f(x)=\sin x$, the exact derivative at $x=0$ is $L=\cos 0=1$. The centered difference quotient, a central finite difference, isThe Taylor series of sine gives the signed truncation errorThus $p=2$, $q=2$ and $c=-1/6$. Halving $h$ divides the leading truncation error by four. Combining the two centered difference quotients with Richardson extrapolation givesIndeed, the $h^4$ coefficient becomes $(4/16-1)/(3\cdot 120)=-1/480$; the $h^2$ coefficient vanishes. This is the even-power case of Richardson extrapolation discussed in Persson's authored lecture notes.^[ref]

For $h=0.4$ and $h/2=0.2$, the actual computations areThe absolute error drops from about $2.6454\times 10^{-2}$ for $A(0.4)$ to $5.3080\times 10^{-5}$ for $R(0.4)$, an improvement by roughly a factor of 498. Refining again gives $R(0.2)\approx 0.999996670632607$, whose absolute error is about $3.3294\times 10^{-6}$. The refined truncation errors decrease by nearly four for $A$ and nearly sixteen for $R$, reflecting their second and fourth orders.

The logarithmic scale on each axis turns power laws into straight lines. The dashed reference curves are $h^2/6$ and $h^4/480$, the magnitudes of the leading truncation errors. The plotted errors are computed with 70-digit decimal arithmetic, rather than clipped to a display floor; this isolates the asymptotic expansion from roundoff error.

Worked example: integrating an exponential. Approximate the definite integral of the exponential function on $[0,1]$:For numerical integration, the composite trapezoidal rule adds the areas of trapezoids between successive samples; this is the quadrature use of the endpoint average that also occurs in the ODE trapezoidal rule. On $n$ equal intervals, with $h=1/n$, defineSumming the geometric series gives $T_n=(e-1)\frac{h}{2}\frac{e^h+1}{e^h-1}$. Expanding the exponential function near zero yieldsThe leading truncation error again has $p=2$, $q=2$. On the uniform nested grids with $n$ and $2n$ intervals, Richardson extrapolation therefore givesThis linear combination is exactly composite Simpson's rule on the finer grid, whose spacing is $h/2$. On each coarse panel, an old endpoint receives weight $h/6$ and the new midpoint weight $2h/3$; shared old endpoints receive weight $h/3$. These are the usual Simpson's rule weights $1,4,2,\dots ,4,1$ multiplied by $h/6$. The equivalence is explained directly in LeMesurier's university notes.^[ref]

For two coarse panels and four fine panels,The absolute errors are about $0.0356493$, $0.00894008$ and $0.0000370135$, respectively. Reusing the fine-grid samples makes Richardson extrapolation especially attractive here: the resulting Simpson's rule needs no samples beyond those already used by $T_{2n}$.

When the improvement is justified. Richardson extrapolation requires the stated asymptotic expansion and the correct positive $p$. If the actual leading exponent is $r\ne p$, its coefficient after combination is $c(2^{p-r}-1)/(2^p-1)$, so the leading truncation error generally remains. Merely knowing $A(h)-L=O(h^p)$ does not supply a common coefficient $c$ or a higher-order remainder. A discontinuity of a function, a singular endpoint, or unrelated changes between grids can invalidate the assumed asymptotic expansion; refinement alone does not guarantee improvement for every numerical problem.

Roundoff error and errors in the sampled values survive the cancellation of truncation error. If the coarse and fine values have absolute perturbations bounded by $\epsilon$, the perturbation in $R(h)$ is bounded by $(2^p+1)\epsilon /(2^p-1)$; for $p=2$ this is $5\epsilon /3$. In floating-point arithmetic, a centered difference quotient can also amplify sample errors through division by $h$, so an indefinitely smaller $h$ need not be more accurate. Persson's notes describe this balance between truncation error and roundoff error.^[ref]

The same cancellation idea appears in step-doubling error estimation. For an order-$p$ one-step method for an ordinary differential equation, two half steps each contribute local truncation error of order $h^{p+1}$, so their accumulated leading local error has ratio $2^{-p}$ to one full step. This explains the denominator $2^p-1$ there; the appropriate exponent follows from that local error model, rather than automatically from a generic use of Richardson extrapolation.

Rolle's theorem is the equal-endpoint case of the mean value theorem. Let $a<b$ and let the real-valued function $f:[a,b]\to \mathbb{R}$ be continuous on the closed interval $[a,b]$ and differentiable on the open interval $(a,b)$. If $f(a)=f(b)$, there exists $c\in (a,b)$ with $f^{\prime }(c)=0$. Geometrically, a tangent line somewhere in the interior is horizontal, like the secant line joining the endpoints. ^[ref]

For the polynomial $f(x)=x(x-2)$ on $[0,2]$, both endpoint values are zero and the derivative is $f^{\prime }(x)=2x-2$. Thus $c=1$, where $f(1)=-1$, and the horizontal tangent line is $y=-1$. The horizontal secant line is $y=0$: equal endpoint values do not force the interior tangent line to pass through those endpoints.

The absolute value function $f(x)=|x|$ on $[-1,1]$ exposes the importance of differentiability. It is continuous and $f(-1)=f(1)=1$, so the secant line has slope zero. However,and the derivative does not exist at zero because the one-sided derivatives disagree. Every existing derivative in the interior is nonzero. The corner fails a hypothesis of both Rolle's theorem and the mean value theorem, so neither conclusion is guaranteed.

For a short proof, the extreme value theorem supplies a greatest and a least value on $[a,b]$. If $f$ is a constant function, every interior point works. Otherwise at least one of these values differs from the common endpoint value, so it is attained at an interior extremum. At an interior local maximum or local minimum, differentiability forces the derivative to be zero: the difference quotients from the two sides have opposite weak signs and the same limit.

This turns repeated values into information about derivatives. Two distinct roots of a polynomial force a root of its derivative between them; iterating this idea gives the Rolle root count with multiplicities. More generally, a differentiable function with nonzero derivative throughout a real interval cannot repeat a value there, hence is injective. The beauty is that knowing only two equal values guarantees an exact local feature somewhere between them.

The infinitesimal rotation $R_{ij}=x_i{\partial }_j-x_j{\partial }_i$ commutes with the Laplacian: the extra terms $2{\partial }_i{\partial }_j$ cancel. It is tangent to every sphere, so it preserves zero Dirichlet traces on spherical shells. If $\Delta u=f$ and $f$ is radial, uniqueness applied to $R_{ij}u$ forces all these rotation derivatives to vanish, hence $u$ is radial.

A Runge-Kutta method advances an initial value problem $y^{\prime }=f(t,y)$, $y(t_0)=y_0$, by sampling its vector field at several trial states within one time step. These samples are Runge-Kutta stages; a weighted combination of their slopes produces the next state. The construction improves on the single tangent line used by the Euler method while requiring evaluations of $f$, rather than explicit higher derivatives of the solution. It applies to scalar equations and systems of ordinary differential equations alike. The coefficient choices distinguish methods such as Heun's method, the classical fourth-order Runge-Kutta method and implicit Runge-Kutta methods.

For $s$ stages, write $A=(a_{ij})$ for the stage matrix, $c_i$ for relative time nodes and $b_i$ for output weights. A time step of length $h$ computesHere $k_i$ is a slope, with units of state per time; $h{k}_i$ is a state increment. Another common convention writes $K_i=h{k}_i$, so its stage states are $Y_i=y_n+{\sum }_j{a}_{ij}{K}_j$ and its output is $y_n+{\sum }_i{b}_i{K}_i$. These are equivalent conventions: including $h$ both inside $K_i$ and again in the output would count the time step twice. The textbook formulation uses the increment convention.^[ref]

Usually the Butcher tableau obeys $c_i={\sum }_j{a}_{ij}$, called internal consistency. Stage $i$ then combines slopes over an effective time $c_{i}h$. The second-order conditions with independent Runge-Kutta abscissae explain what changes when time nodes are specified independently. A Runge-Kutta stage is generally an auxiliary approximation, not a separate accepted solution value at its node. Several stages can even have the same time node but different state arguments, as in the classical fourth-order Runge-Kutta method.

The useful idea is to approximate the integral $y(t_n+h)-y(t_n)={\int }_{t_n}^{t_n+h}f(t,y(t))dt$ without knowing the intermediate exact trajectory. Trial states provide places to sample $f$, and Butcher order conditions make the resulting combination agree with the exact Taylor expansion. More stages alone do not guarantee a higher order of a numerical method: their coefficients must satisfy the appropriate conditions. Embedded Runge-Kutta pairs reuse these same samples for a second output and a practical local error estimator.

The Runge phenomenon is the failure of increasing-degree polynomial interpolation at equally spaced interpolation nodes to converge to some smooth target functions, with large oscillations near the ends of the interval. It is a property of the approximation problem, and can occur even with exact arithmetic. A numerically stable evaluation method cannot remove it. Endpoint clustering, as in Chebyshev-Lobatto nodes, changes the approximation problem and can greatly improve it.^[ref]

Take $f(x)=1/(1+25x^2)$ on $[-1,1]$ and polynomial degree at most $10$. Use either $x_k=-1+k/5$ or $x_k=\cos (k\pi /10)$ for $k=0,\dots ,10$. Each interpolation polynomial passes through all eleven of its own samples, yet the first has severe endpoint oscillations and the second stays much closer to the target function. Evaluating both by the barycentric interpolation formula on $20,001$ equally spaced points, including the endpoints, gives sampled maximum absolute errors of approximately $1.915659$ and $0.132197$, respectively: about a $14.49$-fold reduction. These are maxima over the stated grid, not certified maxima over the continuous interval. The generator separately checks exact reproduction of all stored nodal values.

The polynomial interpolation error formula explains why interpolation nodes enter the analysis. If $f$ has $n+1$ continuous derivatives on an interval containing $x$ and all the interpolation nodes, then for a suitable ${\xi }_x$ in that interval,At an interpolation node the error is zero directly. Away from the interpolation nodes, both the product and the high-order derivative matter. A short proof applies Rolle's theorem repeatedly to $f(t)-p_n(t)-[f(x)-p_n(x)]{\prod }_i(t-x_i)/{\prod }_i(x-x_i)$, which vanishes at $n+2$ distinct points.^[ref]

The successful comparison here does not assert that Chebyshev-Lobatto nodes solve every approximation problem for every function. The derivatives, the polynomial degree, and measurement errors still matter. The Lebesgue constant of interpolation measures worst-case amplification of nodal errors, while the polynomial reproduction error bound relates interpolation to the best uniform approximation available at that polynomial degree.

Saturating positive feedback limits the reinforcing rate as activity increases. Here is an explicitly synthetic ordinary differential equation for normalized nonnegative input $u$, response $x$, and return strength $\beta$:The return is an increasing, nonproportional function of $x$, while removal is proportional to $x$. Time and activities are dimensionless variables. At $x=0$ the vector field points into the nonnegative domain, and $dx/dt\le u+\beta -x$ prevents unbounded growth there. This makes the toy useful for asking about a bounded switch; it supplies no molecular mechanism for the chosen rate law.

At an equilibrium point, $f=0$. For a simple equilibrium point, the sign of the derivativedetermines local asymptotic stability. If $\beta =1$, the maximum reinforcing slope is $3\sqrt{3}/8<1$, so $f$ decreases strictly: every $u\ge 0$ has one asymptotically stable equilibrium point despite positive feedback.

Three equilibrium points become possible only if the reinforcing slope exceeds removal's slope somewhere. Its maximum is $3\sqrt{3}\beta /8$, at $x=1/\sqrt{3}$. Consequently this toy requiresfor two distinct folds. This is a necessary threshold for a bistability interval in this toy, not a universal biochemical number. At a fold, both $f=0$ and $f_x=0$, givingFor $\beta =1.8$, the folds are at $(x,u)\simeq (0.350003,0.153563)$ and $(0.887240,0.094405)$. Between these input values there are two asymptotically stable equilibrium points separated by an unstable one. At $u=0.12$, the three activities are approximately $0.171331$, $0.621230$ and $1.127439$; the low and high ones are stable.

A sufficiently slow increasing sweep follows the low branch to $u_{\mathrm{on}}\simeq 0.153563$ and then jumps upward. A decreasing sweep follows the high branch to $u_{\mathrm{off}}\simeq 0.094405$ and then jumps downward: hysteresis. These are limiting quasistatic thresholds, with relaxation between input changes and negligible perturbations that could cause earlier switching. Finite sweep rates and fluctuations can alter observed thresholds. A switchlike response with only one stable equilibrium point does not have this equilibrium hysteresis mechanism.

For uniformly bounded values, an $L^p$ gradient bound with $p>1$, and bounded $(n-1)$-dimensional jump measure, a sequence in the SBV space admits an $L^1$-convergent subsequence whose limit remains special. Gradients converge weakly in $L^p$, and jump measure is lower semicontinuous. These hypotheses prevent diffuse singular derivatives from replacing the controlled interfaces in a minimizing limit.

These seminorms measure all polynomially weighted derivatives and generate the Fréchet topology of the Schwartz space. Finitely many such bounds control each weighted derivative's integrable norm by adding a spatial decay factor stronger than $⟨x{⟩}^{-n}$. Continuity of the Fourier transform follows by applying those bounds after differentiation and integration by parts. Equivalent families use powers of $⟨x⟩$ instead of individual monomials.