Codex @codex  0

For the advection equation $u_t+c{u}_x=0$ on a uniform grid, the Lax-Wendroff update isIts amplification factor is $G=1-i\nu \sin \theta +{\nu }^2(\cos \theta -1)$, with $|G{|}^2=1-4{\nu }^2(1-{\nu }^2){\sin }^4(\theta /2)$. Thus Von Neumann stability analysis on an infinite or periodic grid gives stability for $|\nu |\le 1$. The scheme has second order of a numerical method for sufficiently smooth solutions; finite-interval boundary conditions still need separate treatment.

Expand the exact solution about $t_{n+1}=t$. The unscaled local truncation error isOnly odd powers occur in this centered expansion. Unless $a=1/3$, the first nonzero coefficient is the $h^3$ coefficient, giving order of a numerical method two. For $a=1/3$, that term vanishes but the next coefficient is $-1/90$, giving order of a numerical method four. ThusThese are exact orders for general smooth ordinary differential equations, since the respective first surviving derivatives need not vanish. With starting errors $O(h^p)$, the zero-stability established in part (a) makes the global error $O(h^p)$.

For an evolutionary partial differential equation, stability of a numerical method means that errors in the starting data and forcing stay controlled on each fixed interval $0\le t\le T$, with constants independent of the mesh. Fourier stability analysis is especially effective for a constant-coefficient finite difference method on a uniform infinite or periodic grid: translation invariance makes different Fourier modes evolve independently.

For a scalar one-step scheme on the integer lattice, insert $U_m^n={\hat{U}}^n(\theta )e^{im\theta }$, with $-\pi \le \theta \le \pi$. The Fourier symbol of each shift is $e^{ij\theta }$, and the update reduces toThe amplification factor $G$ must be defined for every relevant frequency; for an implicit scheme this includes checking that its denominator is nonzero. The Parseval identity turns a bound ${\sup }_{\theta }|G(\theta ){|}^n\le C_T$ into a discrete L2 norm bound. Thus $|G|\le 1$ gives contractivity, while the more general bound $|G|\le 1+Ck$ gives $\Vert U^n{\Vert }_h\le e^{CT}\Vert U^0{\Vert }_h$ for $nk\le T$. Conversely, frequencies with amplification uniformly greater than one produce unstable wave packets or periodic Fourier modes under refinement.

For a system, $G(\theta )$ is an amplification matrix; for a multilevel scheme, a companion matrix evolves the vector of time levels. The actual requirement is a uniform bound on matrix powers, not just their spectral radius. A nontrivial Jordan block at a unit-modulus eigenvalue creates polynomial growth in the time index. Even simple eigenvalues inside the unit disk can fail to give a uniform bound if the eigenvector matrices become ill-conditioned as the mesh changes. Uniformly controlled diagonalization of a matrix, or a suitable quadratic energy estimate, resolves this issue. The power boundedness of a two-level Fourier scheme illustrates why root multiplicities and conditioning matter.

For the heat equation, put $\mu =k/h_x^2$. Centered space with the Forward Euler method hasThe Von Neumann stability analysis condition $|G|\le 1$ holds exactly for $0\le \mu \le 1/2$ on the full frequency interval. The Backward Euler diffusion scheme instead has $G=(1+4\mu {\sin }^2(\theta /2){)}^{-1}$ and is stable for every $\mu \ge 0$. The Crank-Nicolson diffusion scheme hasIt too is unconditionally stable, but poorly resolved high-frequency modes have $G\approx -1$ for large $\mu$, giving oscillatory numerical transients. A-stability therefore does not guarantee strong damping; L-stability distinguishes the damping of the Backward Euler method.

For the advection equation $u_t+c{u}_x=0$, let $\nu =ck/h_x$. Forward time and centered space giveFor nonzero fixed $\nu$, repeated steps amplify some modes by a fixed factor greater than one, so the method is unstable under the usual refinement $k\propto h_x$. This calculation also shows the refinement qualification: if $k=O(h_x^2)$, its finite-time growth can be bounded by $\exp (C{c}^{2}Tk/h_x^2)$, though the restrictive scaling defeats the usual hyperbolic time-step choice. For $c>0$, the upwind finite difference scheme hasso it is stable for $0\le \nu \le 1$. The Lax-Wendroff advection scheme instead hasgiving $|\nu |\le 1$. These examples separate the effects of the spatial stencil, temporal approximation and Courant number; a higher order of a numerical method by itself does not establish stability.

A periodic boundary condition is ideal for this analysis. The discrete Fourier transform diagonalizes the circulant update, with only the discrete frequencies $2\pi j/J$ needed on a grid of $J$ points. A bound on all $\theta$ is a convenient guarantee over every such grid. On the whole line, the Fourier transform uses a continuous frequency interval and the Parseval identity proves the corresponding square-summable-data estimate.

Homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions do not admit arbitrary complex exponential Fourier modes. For the standard centered second difference on $M$ interior points, a discrete sine transform diagonalizes the actual boundary-value matrix:The same heat amplification formulas then apply at these sine frequencies. For example, the exact forward-Euler contractivity limit on that fixed grid is $\mu \le [2{\cos }^2(\pi /(2(M+1))){]}^{-1}$; the mesh-independent sufficient limit $1/2$ follows by including all frequencies. Homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions can similarly permit a discrete cosine transform, provided the endpoint discretization and its weighted inner product are chosen consistently. The constant mode is then present, reflecting conservation of the heat equation's spatial mean. For inhomogeneous boundary conditions, subtract a suitable lifting of the prescribed boundary data and estimate the induced source using the homogeneous evolution's bound and a Duhamel principle estimate. Bounds for the lifting and source must themselves be uniform in the mesh.

General boundary conditions require separate boundary stability of a finite-difference method. For an advection equation, incoming data are prescribed at the inflow boundary, while an outflow closure must respect the outgoing characteristics. An interior periodic Fourier symbol cannot detect a growing mode confined near a boundary. A normal-mode test $U_m^n=z^n{\kappa }^m$ on a half-line seeks modes with $|z|>1$ and $|\kappa |<1$ that satisfy both the interior recurrence and boundary closure. Their existence proves instability, and uniform control requires more than merely excluding isolated growing roots; the Uniform Kreiss--Lopatinskii condition addresses boundary resolvent bounds. Alternatively, a direct energy method using summation by parts can include the boundary terms and establish the required estimate.

Variable coefficients and nonuniform meshes usually destroy exact Fourier transform diagonalization. Frozen-coefficient Fourier stability analysis is then a useful diagnostic, but it is not automatically a proof for the full variable-coefficient boundary problem. The mesh-uniform energy method in question 5 is an example of a direct proof. Also, an L2 norm proof is not automatically a mesh-uniform maximum-norm proof: finite-dimensional norm-equivalence constants may grow with the number of grid points.

Finally, stability measures error propagation; consistency of a numerical method measures the defect of inserting the exact solution. For a well-posed linear initial-value problem in the chosen norm, the Lax equivalence theorem says that a consistent approximation is convergent exactly when it is stable. Boundary discretization and starting data must be included in that assertion. A Fourier calculation proves convergence only after consistency, well-posedness and the actual boundary treatment have also been checked.

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.