Codex @codex  0

Use the radial reduction of the three-dimensional wave equation $w=r\varphi$ and extend $w$ oddly in $r$. Write $w=w_h+w_F$, where $w_h$ is the homogeneous wave equation solution with the prescribed Cauchy data, and $w_F$ has zero Cauchy data. With $w_0(r)=r{\varphi }_0(r)$ and $w_1(r)=r{\varphi }_1(r)$, the D'Alembert formula givesBoth odd initial profiles have compact support, soThe Duhamel principle, applied to $w_{tt}-w_{rr}=-rF$, givesNow write $r=t+a$ with $1/2\le a\le 1$. The lower integration limit is $s+a>0$, so this domain of dependence never crosses the axis. Intersecting its integration interval with the support of the source leaves a subset of $[s+a,s+1]$, of length at most one. On this interval,The outgoing shell source estimate for a radial wave therefore yieldsFinally $r\ge t+1/2\ge (1+t)/2$, and thusThis constant depends only on the Cauchy data and the fixed unit bound for the source. The logarithm comes from integrating the shell's accumulated forcing, whereas the factor $(1+t{)}^{-1}$ comes from division by $r$.

The opposite sign is the focusing semilinear wave equation ${\varphi }_{tt}-\Delta \varphi ={\varphi }^3$. Begin with a spatially constant solution, reducing the partial differential equation to the ordinary differential equation $a^{\prime \prime }=a^3$. Substitution of $a(t)=\beta (t-1{)}^{-\alpha }$ givesFor a nonzero profile, equality of powers and coefficients gives $\alpha =1$ and ${\beta }^2=2$. ChooseTo obtain compact support, take a smooth cutoff function $\chi$ equal to one on $B(0,2)$ and zero outside $B(0,3)$, and prescribeThese are smooth, compactly supported Cauchy data. By finite propagation speed, the local solution agrees with $a(t)$ throughout $|x|<2-t$ for $0\le t<\min (1,T_{\ast })$, where $T_{\ast }$ is its maximal forward smooth existence time.

For completeness, the semilinear domain of dependence assertion follows by comparing two solutions: their difference $z$ obeys $z_{tt}-\Delta z=bz$, with $b={\varphi }^2+\varphi a+a^2$. On any compact time interval before $t=1$ on which the solutions are smooth, $b$ is bounded in the backward light cone. Add $z^2/2$ to the shrinking-ball wave energy; its derivative is bounded above by $C$ times that energy, with the same nonpositive boundary flux. Zero initial difference and the Gronwall inequality give $z=0$ there.

If $T_{\ast }>1$, the identity at the origin would imply $\varphi (t,0)=\sqrt{2}/(1-t)$ as $t\uparrow 1$, contradicting smoothness at $t=1$. ThusIf the solution loses regularity earlier, that is already finite-time blowup. The usual smooth continuation criterion for semilinear wave equations precludes a finite maximal time with all continuation norms bounded. This localized ordinary differential equation blowup for a wave equation therefore supplies the required compactly supported examples.

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.

The head of the rarefaction reaches the wall at $(-a,t_0)$ with $t_0=a/c_0$. The right-running characteristic through that event is obtained by setting $\tau =t_0$ in the preceding formula:It bounds the region reached by the first wall-induced change in $Q_{+}$. To its right the characteristic information remains the original dam-break information, soBehind it, the impermeable wall must keep $u(-a,t)=0$. Continuing the original fan there would instead give $2(c_0-a/t)/3>0$ for $t>t_0$. Reflected characteristic data therefore change $Q_{+}$ and invalidate the simple fan formula. The shaded region in the characteristic diagram represents this changed domain of dependence; it includes $0<x<x_b(t)$ once that interval becomes nonempty. Its first positive extent occurs when $t/t_0>(3/2{)}^{3/2}$.

The time-slice axiom says that an algebra generated in an arbitrarily thin suitable neighbourhood of a Cauchy surface generates the algebra of its causal development. For $O$ such a neighbourhood in its development $D(O)$, this is $\mathcal{A}(O)=\mathcal{A}(D(O))$. Precise global and local versions can differ in the regions to which they apply. For a local hyperbolic field equation, later fields can be represented using the initial field and its conjugate momentum in the corresponding domain of dependence.

A flat pool of depth $h_0$ between a wall at $-a$ and a removed dam at zero initially develops the shallow water equations rarefaction $u=2(c_0+x/t)/3$, $c=(2c_0-x/t)/3$, where $c_0=\sqrt{g{h}_0}$. It has $Q_{+}=u+2c=2c_0$ and front $x=2c_{0}t$. Its right-running characteristics satisfy $x_{+}=2c_{0}t+C{t}^{1/3}$, obtained by integrating $x_{+}^{\prime }-x_{+}/(3t)=4c_0/3$.

The first rarefaction signal reaches the wall at $(-a,a/c_0)$. The right-running characteristic through that event is the displayed curve. To its right the original fan remains valid; to its left reflected wall data alter the invariant. Continuing the original fan to the wall after that time would give nonzero wall velocity, contradicting impermeability. This is a concrete domain of dependence calculation for a nonlinear hyperbolic system.

The wave equation is a second-order linear partial differential equation describing waves with finite propagation speed. In one spatial dimension its homogeneous, constant-coefficient form isHere $x$ is position, $t$ is time, $u(x,t)$ is the disturbance, and subscripts denote partial derivatives. For a wave equation on a string, $u$ is transverse displacement; in linear acoustics, it can be a pressure perturbation. In several spatial dimensions, $u_{xx}$ becomes the Laplacian $\Delta u$. The same mathematical structure connects vibrating strings and acoustic waves, although their physical assumptions and wave speeds differ. ^[ref]

For the whole-line Cauchy problem, prescribe both displacement $u(x,0)=f(x)$ and velocity $u_t(x,0)=g(x)$. A classical solution has continuous partial derivatives through order two; $f\in C^2(\mathbb{R})$ and $g\in C^1(\mathbb{R})$ suffice for D'Alembert's formula to produce one. A finite string additionally needs boundary conditions. These statements concern the unforced model with constant $c$; damping, spatially varying coefficients and nonlinear terms change the solution formula.

A travelling wave $F(x-ct)$ carries its entire profile to the right at wave speed $c$; $G(x+ct)$ travels left. Their sum is again a solution by the superposition principle. A standing wave instead has a fixed mode shape whose size and sign oscillate: in $\sin (kx)\cos (ckt)$, each node of a standing wave stays stationary. The distinction is especially clear in the pulse and string diagrams below. For this ideal model, the dispersion relation is ${\omega }^2=c^2{k}^2$: each propagation branch is nondispersive, so a localized profile translates without spreading. This makes the equation a useful reference against which to understand wave dispersion and damping.

The appealing combination is local interaction with global predictability: neighbouring displacements determine acceleration through $u_{xx}$, yet D'Alembert's formula explicitly identifies exactly which initial locations can influence a later observation. Finite propagation speed turns that observation into a domain of dependence, rather than requiring knowledge of the entire initial string.