Codex @codex  0

Apply the exponential-symbol order criterion for a multistep method. The exact-solution residual of the linear multistep method is encoded by $E(z)=\rho (e^z)-z\sigma (e^z)$; vanishing through degree $p$ is equivalent to the order conditions for a linear multistep method through order $p$. Here $\rho (1)=0$, ${\rho }^{\prime }(1)=\sigma (1)=1-\alpha$, and direct Taylor expansion givesFor example, for $n\ge 2$ the coefficient of $z^n$ can be calculated asFor $n=2,3$ this is zero, verifying the lower conditions explicitly. The constant and linear coefficients also vanish for every $\alpha$. Therefore the formal order is at least three for every $\alpha$.

The fourth-degree term vanishes exactly when $\alpha =-1$. For that value the fifth-degree coefficient is $-1/90\ne 0$, soAt $\alpha =1$ these are formal residual conditions only: the characteristic polynomial has a double root at one, so the method is not convergent. Canceling its common polynomial factor would change the recurrence and give a different order calculation. This distinction is relevant to part (b).

For this two-step family with a third-order member, use the exponential-symbol order criterion for a multistep method. Expanding the exact-solution residual symbol givesThe constant, linear and quadratic coefficients vanish for every parameter. ThusAt the exceptional value the fourth-degree coefficient is $-1/30$, so there is no further increase. This means an unscaled exact-solution residual of order $h^{p+1}$, or a residual divided by the step of order $h^p$.

The first characteristic polynomial factors as $\rho (w)=(w-1)(w-a)$. The root condition for a multistep method requires every root to have modulus at most one and each unit-modulus root to be simple. The root $a=-1$ is allowed because it is distinct from the simple root one; $a=1$ is not, since it makes one a double root. Hence zero-stability holds exactly forOn this interval, $\rho (1)=0$ and ${\rho }^{\prime }(1)=\sigma (1)=1-a\ne 0$ establish consistency of a numerical method. The Dahlquist equivalence theorem, for a fixed-step consistent linear multistep method applied to an ordinary differential equation with a Lipschitz continuous right-hand side with convergent starting values and well-defined small-step updates, says that convergence of a numerical method is equivalent to zero-stability. Therefore the same interval is exactly the convergence of a numerical method range. With sufficiently accurate starting values the convergent members have the orders just computed.

At $a=1$ the Taylor expansion still gives a formal order-two residual, but ${\rho }^{\prime }(1)=\sigma (1)=0$ and the double root prevents a convergent method. Canceling the common factor $w-1$ produces the common-factor cancellation defect in a multistep recurrence and changes the starting relations and cannot repair convergence of a numerical method of the original recurrence. At $a=0$, cancellation of a zero root instead reveals the ordinary trapezoidal rule; it is consistent with the order-two result.

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.

Yes: this is an A-stable third-order method. Its second derivative is essential; the Second Dahlquist barrier applies to ordinary first-derivative linear multistep methods, not this multiderivative multistep method.

Apply the Dahlquist test equation $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$ and put $z=h\lambda$. The amplification polynomial isWe verify the root condition for a multistep method throughout $\mathrm{Re}z\le 0$. For a quadratic $a{\zeta }^2+b\zeta +c$ with $|a|>|c|$, the complex quadratic Schur criterion isfor both roots to be strictly inside the unit disk. Here is a brief justification of the criterion rather than just a root plot. Set $P^{\#}(\zeta )={\zeta }^2\overline{P(1/\overline{\zeta })}$. The polynomial $\overline{a}P-c{P}^{\#}$ is $\zeta (D\zeta +E)$, where $D=|a{|}^2-|c{|}^2$ and $E=\overline{a}b-c\overline{b}$. Its two roots are inside precisely when $|E|<D$. On the unit circle $|P^{\#}|=|P|$, and $|c|<|a|$, so the Rouche theorem equates its interior root count with that of $P$. A boundary zero of $P$ would also be a boundary zero of the transformed polynomial, which the strict inequality excludes. This proves the strict criterion; the non-strict form follows by continuity, with any unit root simple because $|c/a|<1$.

For the present polynomial it is enough to show $8|Q-1|<|Q{|}^2-1$, except at $z=0$. Write $z=-r+iy$, $r\ge 0$, and put $k=r^2+3r$, $s=y^2$. ThenDirect expansion gives the nonnegative factorizationEvery term is nonnegative, and the sum is strictly positive unless $r=y=0$. Also $|Q{|}^2=X+1>1$, so the criterion applies. For every nonzero $z$ in the closed left half-plane both amplification roots are strictly inside the unit disk. At $z=0$ they are $1$ and $1/7$, and the unit root is simple. ThereforeThis proof establishes stability of both the principal and parasitic modes, including on the imaginary axis.

A-stability removes the scalar linear decay restriction on the step size; it does not replace accuracy, nonlinear solvability or a suitable system norm. Its importance is clearest for a stiff differential equation, where rapidly decaying modes coexist with slowly varying quantities of interest. On the Dahlquist test equation $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$, the exact solution decays for $\mathrm{Re}\lambda <0$. A stable time integrator should not turn that decay into numerical growth.

For a one-step method write $y_{n+1}=R(z)y_n$, where $z=h\lambda$ and $R$ is its stability function. Its linear stability domain consists of parameters with $|R(z)|\le 1$ and a well-defined update. The method is A-stable when this domain contains the closed left half-plane. A consistent order-$p$ one-step method has $R(z)=e^z+O(z^{p+1})$ near zero, but that local agreement alone says nothing about stability at large negative $z$.

For a Runge-Kutta method with stage matrix $A$, weights $b$ and $1=(1,\dots ,1{)}^T$, eliminating the stages on the test equation givesAn explicit finite-stage method has a polynomial $R$. A nonconstant polynomial is unbounded along the negative real axis, so no consistent explicit Runge-Kutta method is A-stable. The explicit Euler method, with $R(z)=1+z$, is stable in the disk $|1+z|\le 1$ and on the negative real axis only for $-2\le z\le 0$. A stiff mode with a large negative eigenvalue therefore forces an unnecessarily small step even after its exact contribution has almost disappeared.

The Backward Euler method has $R(z)=1/(1-z)$. For $\mathrm{Re}z\le 0$, $|1-z{|}^2=1-2\mathrm{Re}z+|z{|}^2\ge 1$, so it is A-stable. The trapezoidal rule hasand is also A-stable. The implicit midpoint method has the same scalar stability function, although its nonlinear update differs from the trapezoidal rule. The first method has order one and the latter two order two. Their implicit solves trade greater work per step for freedom from the scalar stiff stability restriction.

Damping of very stiff modes separates A-stability from L-stability. For a one-step method, the latter additionally requires $R(z)\to 0$ as $z$ tends to infinity in the left half-plane. Backward Euler method satisfies this. The trapezoidal and midpoint rules instead have $R(z)\to -1$ along the negative real axis: a very stiff mode can alternate in sign with little damping even though its amplitude remains bounded. L-stability is often preferable for diffusion and rapid relaxation, while retaining oscillatory modes can be desirable in conservative dynamics.

For a linear multistep method, writeIts test-equation amplification roots satisfy $\rho (\zeta )-z\sigma (\zeta )=0$. Absolute stability requires every root to lie in the unit disk or on its boundary with all unit-modulus roots simple; all parasitic modes matter. At $z=0$ this is the zero-stability root condition. Consistency requires $\rho (1)=0$ and ${\rho }^{\prime }(1)=\sigma (1)$, and the Dahlquist equivalence theorem combines consistency and zero-stability to characterize convergence. Thus a claim of stability obtained by canceling a common factor is not a proof about the original recurrence and its arbitrary consistent starting data.

Explicit linear multistep methods cannot be A-stable either. If ${\beta }_k=0$ and ${\alpha }_k\ne 0$, some lower coefficient of $\rho -z\sigma$ becomes unbounded as $z\to -\infty$, while the leading coefficient stays fixed. If all roots remained in the unit disk, every coefficient-to-leading-coefficient ratio, an elementary symmetric function of those roots, would remain bounded. This contradiction forces an unstable root.

An important implicit example is BDF2 method, whose characteristic equation is $(3-2z){\zeta }^2-4\zeta +1=0$. A unit root $\zeta =e^{i\theta }$ givesThe leading coefficient vanishes only at $z=3/2$, outside the left half-plane. Near a small negative $z$, both roots are inside the disk; no unit-circle crossing can occur in the connected open left half-plane. On the imaginary axis the boundary equality can occur only at $z=0$, where the roots are $1,1/3$. Hence BDF2 is A-stable and its two roots tend to zero for very large negative $z$, giving strong stiff-mode damping. This is a complete boundary-locus argument, not just a boundary plot.

The Second Dahlquist barrier says that a convergent A-stable ordinary linear multistep method has order at most two. This theorem does not limit implicit Runge-Kutta methods or multiderivative multistep methods. In particular the A-stable third-order two-step multiderivative method in question 1 uses $y^{\prime \prime }$ and satisfies different order conditions. Among collocation Runge-Kutta methods, the standard family results give Gauss collocation methods order $2s$ with diagonal $[s/s]$ Padé approximants to $e^z$ as stability functions, and Radau IIA methods order $2s-1$ with subdiagonal $[s-1/s]$ approximants. Both families are A-stable; the Gauss functions have a nonzero limit at infinity, whereas Radau IIA is L-stable. The corrected two-stage right-Radau method, for example, haswhich matches the exponential through cubic order and tends to zero at infinity. Its poles $2\pm i\sqrt{2}$ lie in the right half-plane. For $z=-r+iy$, $r\ge 0$, direct subtraction givesproving its A-stability directly.

Sectorial A-alpha stability relaxes the requirement to a sector around the negative real axis, useful when the spectrum of a stiff problem remains in that sector; higher-order backward differentiation formulas illustrate the usefulness of this weaker requirement. For a normal linear system $y^{\prime }=Ly$, unitary diagonalization reduces the numerical update to its scalar factors $R(h{\lambda }_j)$. For a nonnormal system, a scalar eigenvalue test alone does not give a uniform bound in the chosen norm. Nonlinear stability is different again: B-stability asks for contractivity when $\mathrm{Re}⟨f(u)-f(v),u-v⟩\le 0$, and algebraic stability of a Runge-Kutta method is a standard sufficient criterion. Thus A-stability addresses a precise and valuable linear test, while step selection still has to meet accuracy requirements and the actual implicit equations must be solved on the relevant branch.

Eigenvalue analysis proves mesh-uniform stability when it is accompanied by control of eigenvectors or an energy norm; the signs of eigenvalues alone are insufficient. For an evolution equation, the method of lines first produces $u_h^{\prime }=L_h{u}_h$. A time integrator then gives an amplification matrix $S_{h,\delta }$, for example $S_{h,\delta }=R(\delta L_h)$ for a Runge-Kutta method. The useful stability requirement on a fixed physical time interval iswhere $C_T$ is independent of the refining spatial and temporal meshes. The semidiscrete analogue is $\Vert e^{t{L}_h}{\Vert }_h\le C_T$ for $0\le t\le T$. These are bounds on propagation of initial errors and residuals, not merely statements that each finite matrix has a bounded solution over its own finite time interval.

If $L_h$ is a normal matrix in the chosen discrete inner product, it has a unitary eigenbasis. ThenFor dissipative problems it is sufficient that every $\delta {\lambda }_j$ lie in the integrator's linear stability domain. A diagonalizable family also suffices if its eigenvector matrices have uniformly bounded condition numbers: the same maximum is multiplied by $\Vert V_h\Vert \Vert V_h^{-1}\Vert$. Without that uniform bound the argument does not establish mesh stability. For finite-time estimates, an amplification modulus $1+O(\delta )$ can also be acceptable; strict contraction at every step is a stronger property.

For a constant-coefficient stencil on the full lattice or a periodic grid, von Neumann stability analysis provides the eigenvectors explicitly. A Fourier mode diagonalizes each translation-invariant spatial difference, giving a scalar symbol ${\lambda }_h(\theta )$ or a small matrix symbol for a system. The discrete Fourier transform and Parseval identity turn a uniform modal bound into an actual discrete L2 norm bound. The two-dimensional stencil in question 3 has $\mathrm{Re}{\lambda }_h=-(1-\cos \eta {)}^2/h\le 0$, so its continuous-time amplification is contractive; a later time integrator must still be checked. With boundaries one must analyze the boundary rows as well: a whole-line Fourier symbol cannot detect an unstable boundary closure.

For the heat equation $u_t=\kappa u_{xx}$ on a unit interval with zero Dirichlet data, the centred second difference has a sine eigenbasis and eigenvaluesExplicit Euler method multiplies mode $j$ by $1+\delta {\lambda }_j$. Requiring all factors to have modulus at most one yields $\kappa \delta /h^2\le 1/[2{\sin }^2((N-1)\pi /(2N))]$ on a given grid, and the sharp grid-independent sufficient limit isThese parabolic time-step restrictions express the growth of the largest-magnitude diffusion eigenvalue like $h^{-2}$. Backward Euler method instead has factor $(1-\delta {\lambda }_j{)}^{-1}$ and the Crank-Nicolson method factor $(1+\delta {\lambda }_j/2)/(1-\delta {\lambda }_j/2)$, both bounded by one for every $\delta \ge 0$. Their unconditional stability follows from A-stability, with much stronger damping of the shortest scales for backward Euler.

For $u_t=-a{u}_x$, $a>0$, explicit time stepping with a backward spatial difference givesThus the upwind finite difference scheme is contractive exactly for $0\le \nu \le 1$, a Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy condition matching the direction and speed of information propagation. A centred spatial difference has purely imaginary eigenvalues, and forward Euler gives $|S{|}^2=1+{\nu }^2{\sin }^2\theta >1$. Under a fixed positive hyperbolic Courant number, high-frequency data grow by a fixed factor in each of $O(1/h)$ steps, proving instability as the mesh is refined. This is not a claim that no exceptionally small coupled step can ever give a finite-time bound: if $\delta =O(h^2)$, the excess per step is only $O(\delta )$, but the usual hyperbolic scaling is unstable. Higher-order explicit integrators can possess nontrivial imaginary-axis stability intervals and are then suitable for skew-adjoint advection or the energy-form first-order wave equation.

Variable coefficients usually prevent Fourier diagonalization, but may preserve a self-adjoint spatial operator. The positive-face diffusion discretization in question 5 is an example. Its discrete energy identity makes $A+B$ symmetric negative definite, so a unitary eigenbasis still exists even without a closed eigenvalue formula. More generally, a dissipative operator $L_h$ in a discrete energy inner product obeyswhich directly proves a uniform semigroup estimate. The dissipative Cayley-transform contraction also follows without normality: for $\alpha \ge 0$,Taking $v=(I-\alpha L_h{)}^{-1}u$ proves contraction of the Crank–Nicolson factor. The contractivity of split Crank-Nicolson diffusion then follows from multiplying two contraction bounds; simultaneous eigenvectors of the two directional matrices are unnecessary.

The negative spectra do not imply uniform semidiscrete stability example shows what can go wrong. LetBoth eigenvalues are $-1$ for every mesh, but applying the propagator to the second unit vector at $t=1$ gives norm at least $1/(eh)$. The evolution is therefore not mesh-uniformly stable. For a discrete matrix, a unit-modulus eigenvalue with a nontrivial Jordan block gives powers growing polynomially in the step number. Even strictly interior eigenvalues can allow large transient growth when eigenvectors are badly conditioned. A pseudospectrum or numerical range of an operator, and especially a direct energy estimate, can reveal behavior missed by eigenvalues.

A resolvent estimate provides another way to see the needed uniformity. If $\Vert S_h^n\Vert \le C$ for every $n$, then for $|z|>1$,This shows directly that a uniform power estimate imposes more than the location of the spectrum. Conversely, resolvent-to-power estimates in varying dimension must themselves be uniform; a bound with constants depending on the number of grid points is not enough.

For a linear multistep method, each spatial eigenvalue gives an amplification polynomial, and all roots must satisfy the root condition for a multistep method, including simplicity of any unit-modulus root. Merely following the root approximating $e^{\delta \lambda }$ misses parasitic modes. The temporal and spatial analyses must therefore be combined with the appropriate zero-stability and uniform modal bounds.

Finally stability connects to convergence. If the exact grid samples have normalized residual ${\tau }^n$ and the error obeys $e^{n+1}=S_h{e}^n+\delta {\tau }^n$, iteration givesA residual tending uniformly to zero then gives convergence on $[0,T]$. For a well-posed linear initial-value problem and a consistent linear finite-difference approximation, this is the forward implication of the Lax equivalence theorem. The practical conclusion is to analyze the full operator including boundaries, select a time method whose stability region contains the relevant scaled spectrum, and verify that eigenvectors or an energy estimate make the resulting bounds uniform as the grid is refined.

Insert an exact smooth solution into the linear multistep method and define its unscaled local truncation error byIts Taylor expansion has coefficientsThe method has order at least $p$ exactly when $c_0=\cdots =c_p=0$, since then ${\mathcal{R}}_h[y]=O(h^{p+1})$ for every sufficiently smooth $y$. Necessity can be checked by inserting polynomials of successive degrees. This also corresponds to the usual truncation error ${\mathcal{R}}_h/h=O(h^p)$.

On the other hand, expansion of the characteristic polynomials of a linear multistep method givesThus the exponential-symbol order criterion for a multistep method isIf “order $p$” is meant to be the exact rather than guaranteed order, one additionally requires $c_{p+1}\ne 0$. The first two vanishing conditions are the usual consistency of a numerical method relations $\rho (1)=0$, ${\rho }^{\prime }(1)=\sigma (1)$.

The Dahlquist equivalence theorem states that a consistent linear multistep method is convergent for suitably consistent starting values exactly when it is zero-stable. The root condition for a multistep method requires every root of $\rho$ to lie in the closed unit disk, with every unit-modulus root simple.

The roots are $1$ and $a$. Thus $|a|\le 1$ is necessary; $a=1$ is excluded because it gives a double root at one. At $a=-1$, the two unit roots are distinct, so the endpoint is allowed. Combined with part (a), this provesAssume a locally Lipschitz vector field, a smooth solution on the fixed time interval, a nearby solvable implicit branch and starting errors of the required order. The global order is three at $a=-1/5$ and two at the other convergent parameter values. Outside this interval, zero-step perturbations already grow through either an exterior root or a unit-root polynomial factor.

A stiff differential equation can contain rapidly decaying modes as well as a slowly changing solution of interest. An explicit scheme may need a very small step solely to keep those already small fast modes from numerical growth. A-stability addresses this restriction through the Dahlquist test equation $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$, whose exact solution decays when $\mathrm{Re}\lambda <0$.

For a one-step method, write $y_{n+1}=R(z)y_n$, $z=h\lambda$. Its linear stability domain consists of the points where the update is defined and $|R(z)|\le 1$. A-stability means that this domain contains the closed left half-plane. This is a scalar linear stability property, not an order condition, an existence theorem for an implicit solve, or a general nonlinear contractivity assertion.

For a rational approximation to the exponential, consistency requires $R(z)=1+z+O(z^2)$, and order $p$ requires $R(z)-e^z=O(z^{p+1})$. Poles must be absent from the relevant half-plane. The Forward Euler method has $R=1+z$ and the disk $|1+z|\le 1$, so negative real modes require $h|\lambda |\le 2$; it is not A-stable. The Backward Euler method has $R=(1-z{)}^{-1}$, and $|1-z|\ge 1$ on the left half-plane, so it is A-stable. The trapezoidal rule and the implicit midpoint rule both have, on the scalar linear problem,They are second-order and A-stable despite being different nonlinear methods. No nonconstant polynomial approximation is A-stable, because its modulus grows without bound on the negative real axis. In particular every nontrivial explicit Runge-Kutta method has a bounded-step stability restriction.

A-stability prevents growth but need not eliminate extremely stiff modes: the trapezoidal factor tends to minus one as $z\to -\infty$. L-stability additionally requires $R(z)\to 0$ within the left half-plane. Backward Euler is L-stable; trapezoidal and implicit midpoint are not. The distinction explains persistent alternating transients in otherwise stable Crank-Nicolson calculations. Accuracy still constrains useful step sizes even for an A-stable method.

A linear multistep method is characterized by polynomials $\rho ,\sigma$, and its scalar modes satisfy $\rho (\zeta )-z\sigma (\zeta )=0$. There is generally no single scalar amplification factor: every root must lie in the closed unit disk and unit roots must be simple. At $z=0$, this is the zero-stability root condition. Consistency plus zero-stability gives convergence by the Dahlquist equivalence theorem, with suitable starting values. A-stability demands the amplification root condition throughout the left half-plane, including the zero-step condition. The Second Dahlquist barrier says that an irreducible A-stable linear multistep method has order at most two, and an explicit linear multistep method cannot be A-stable.

Examples include backward Euler, trapezoidal, and the second-order backward differentiation formulaIts zero-step roots are $1,1/3$. Its unit-circle boundary quotient has real part $(1-\cos \theta {)}^2\ge 0$, and the leading coefficient is nonzero on the left half-plane, giving A-stability by the same continuation argument as in Question 2. Conversely the third-order member of that question fails A-stability. A formal high order without zero-stability, or after silently cancelling a problematic unit factor, does not evade the barrier.

For an implicit Runge-Kutta method, the stages on the test equation satisfy $Y=e{y}_n+zAY$. Whenever these stages are solvable, its stability function isThis rational function is used to test scalar A-stability; the Butcher order conditions separately establish nonlinear order. The Lobatto IIIA method in Question 3 is an A-stable fourth-order example with $R$ the diagonal degree-two Padé approximant. More generally the $s$-stage Gauss--Legendre Runge-Kutta method has order $2s$ and is A-stable, with the diagonal Padé approximation to $e^z$; its stiff-limit factor is nonzero. The $s$-stage Radau IIA method has order $2s-1$ and is L-stable. Thus Runge-Kutta stages permit arbitrarily high A-stable order, unlike irreducible linear multistep formulas.

For a normal matrix, scalar amplification bounds transfer through unitary diagonalization. For a non-normal matrix, eigenvalue information alone does not assert Euclidean contraction: transient growth and eigenvector conditioning can matter. Direct energy method arguments, such as the dissipative Cayley-transform proof in Question 1, use the symmetric part and are more informative in that setting.

For nonlinear dissipative vector fields, the stronger B-stability property asks that distances between two numerical solutions not increase. A standard sufficient condition for Runge-Kutta methods is algebraic stability: $b_i\ge 0$ andis positive semidefinite. It follows from the Runge-Kutta contractivity identity when the implicit stages exist. The three-stage Lobatto IIIA method is A-stable but has the first diagonal entry of that matrix equal to $-1/36$, so scalar A-stability should not be confused with that sufficient nonlinear condition. Stage solvability of an implicit Runge-Kutta method remains a separate issue and computational cost of the implicit equations must be considered. A-stability removes a scalar decay-mode stability restriction; order, stiff damping, nonlinear stability and solvability remain distinct properties.

Consider an initial value problem $y^{\prime }=f(t,y)$ on $[0,T]$, with a Lipschitz continuous vector field in the solution variable and enough smoothness for the stated error expansions. Convergence of a numerical method meanswith consistent starting values. An order of a numerical method $p$ quantifies this approximation: with sufficiently accurate starting data and the required stability, the global error is $O(h^p)$. Stability of a numerical method controls the amplification and accumulation of perturbations; it is the link between a small local defect and small global error.

For a one-step formula $Y_{n+1}={\Phi }_h(t_n,Y_n)$, define the unscaled local truncation errorThe method has local order $p$ if $\Vert d_{n+1}\Vert \le C{h}^{p+1}$ uniformly along sufficiently smooth solutions. If the defect is divided by $h$, its order is instead $O(h^p)$; the convention must be specified. Assume also the perturbation estimateThe global error $e_n=Y_n-y(t_n)$ then satisfiesIterating, or applying the discrete Gronwall inequality, givesThere are $O(1/h)$ steps on a fixed interval, so stable propagation turns $O(h^{p+1})$ local defects into $O(h^p)$ accumulated error. Starting error $O(h^p)$ is needed to retain order $p$. This explains why matching an exact Taylor expansion is insufficient unless errors are controlled during repeated steps.

For a fixed-coefficient linear multistep method, writeThe consistency of a numerical method conditions are $\rho (1)=0$ and ${\rho }^{\prime }(1)=\sigma (1)$. The higher order conditions for a linear multistep method arewith right side zero for $q=0$; exact order $p$ means first failure at $q=p+1$. They come from inserting the exact solution and comparing its Taylor expansion.

Errors at $h=0$ follow the homogeneous recurrence determined by $\rho$. Zero-stability is equivalent to the root condition for a multistep method: all roots of a polynomial have modulus at most one, and every unit-modulus root is simple. Roots outside the disk give exponential growth in the number of steps; repeated unit roots give polynomial growth in that number. Repeated interior roots are harmless because their polynomial factors are dominated by decay. Under the usual Lipschitz continuity and initialization assumptions, the Dahlquist equivalence theorem givesFor a zero-stable order-$p$ linear multistep method, local defects and starting errors of the stated orders yield global error $O(h^p)$ by a recurrence bound and the discrete Gronwall inequality. Every required starting value matters.

A concrete failure of “consistency implies convergence” isHere $\rho =(\zeta -1)(\zeta -2)$ and $\sigma =-1$, so $\rho (1)=0$ and ${\rho }^{\prime }(1)=\sigma (1)=-1$: the method is consistent, of order one. But its root $2$ violates zero-stability. For $y^{\prime }=0$ with exact solution zero and starting values $Y_0=0$, $Y_1=h^2$, the computed solution is $Y_n=h^2(2^n-1)$. These starting errors vanish, yet at $n\approx T/h$ the error diverges. Local accuracy cannot compensate for an unstable recurrence.

A different meaning of stability concerns a fixed step on decaying equations. The Dahlquist test equation $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$ introduces $z=h\lambda$. A one-step method gives $Y_{n+1}=R(z)Y_n$ and is absolutely stable when $|R(z)|\le 1$. For a linear multistep method, the corresponding amplification polynomial of a multistep method is $\rho (\zeta )-z\sigma (\zeta )$, and every root must satisfy the bounded root condition, not just the root approximating $e^z$. Strict asymptotic decay requires the roots to have modulus less than one for $\mathrm{Re}z<0$. This distinction matters at reducible methods with an undamped parasitic mode, as in question 1(c).

The Forward Euler method has order one and $R(z)=1+z$, so its linear stability domain is $|1+z|\le 1$. For $y^{\prime }=-\kappa y$, with $\kappa >0$, it requires $0\le h\kappa \le 2$. It converges as $h\to 0$, yet an excessively large step can produce growing oscillations on an exactly decaying problem. The Backward Euler method has the same order, but $R(z)=(1-z{)}^{-1}$ makes it A-stable and L-stable. For a stiff differential equation, fast decay can impose a severe explicit time-step restriction even when accuracy of the slow dynamics would permit a much larger step.

The trapezoidal rule has order two and is A-stable, but is not L-stable, since its stability function tends to $-1$ along the negative real axis. The Second Dahlquist barrier limits an irreducible A-stable linear multistep method to order at most two. This does not limit implicit Runge-Kutta methods: question 4's Lobatto IIIA method is fourth-order and A-stable. Conversely, question 1's fourth-order member is convergent but not A-stable. These examples show that order of a numerical method, zero-stability and A-stability answer different questions.

For nonlinear dissipative problems, B-stability controls distances between numerical solutions; algebraic stability of a Runge-Kutta method is a sufficient coefficient criterion. Question 4 shows that A-stability alone does not imply that coefficient criterion. Variable time steps require additional analysis of step ratios and error propagation, and stiff problems may require uniform-in-stiffness error estimates beyond the fixed-problem convergence result. The useful chain is local accuracy plus the appropriate perturbation bound, giving global accuracy; absolute and nonlinear stability then determine which practical time steps preserve the intended dynamics.

Convergence of a numerical method on a fixed interval $[0,T]$ means that, as the step size tends to zero and the starting approximations tend to the exact initial values,For a vector-valued ordinary differential equation, replace the absolute value by a norm. The interval remains fixed as $h\to 0$; a small error at only one step is insufficient.

The order of a numerical method is measured by its defect on a smooth exact solution. With the unscaled residual convention for a linear multistep method, order at least $p$ means local residual $O(h^{p+1})$; equivalently, the residual divided by $h$ is $O(h^p)$. Order exactly $p$ means the next coefficient does not vanish in general. For a zero-stable method, under the usual smoothness and Lipschitz continuity assumptions and with starting errors $O(h^p)$, this yields global error $O(h^p)$ on the fixed interval. Local order by itself does not imply convergence without stability.