Picard-Lindelöf theorem ($y^{\prime }=f(t,y),y(t_0)=y_0$)

Let $U\subset \mathbb{R}\times {\mathbb{R}}^d$ be an open set and $f:U\to {\mathbb{R}}^d$ a continuous function. Suppose $f$ is locally Lipschitz in the state $y$, with a Lipschitz constant uniform on a sufficiently small time-state neighborhood of each point. Then each $(t_0,y_0)\in U$ determines a unique local solution of a differential equation to the displayed initial value problem, on an interval around $t_0$. This is the local theorem in Ordinary Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems by Gerald Teschl.

For example, $y^{\prime }=y$, $y(0)=1$, has the solution of a differential equation $y(t)=e^t$: its derivative is itself and its starting value is $1$. The Lipschitz constant is $L=1$, since $|u-v|=|f(t,u)-f(t,v)|$. Thus uniqueness follows even before computing $y(1)=e\approx 2.71828183$. Picard iteration below constructs this exponential function one polynomial at a time.

The Lipschitz condition has real content. For the continuous function involving a square root,each waiting time $c\ge 0$ gives a different forward solution of a differential equation:The constant solution of a differential equation $y(t)=0$ is another choice. At $t=2$, delays $c=0,1,2$ give $y=4,1,0$ respectively. Before the join, both sides of the ordinary differential equation are zero; afterwards, $y_c^{\prime }=2(t-c)=2\sqrt{y_c}$. Both one-sided derivatives at $c$ are zero, so the join is valid. All these trajectories can also be extended by zero to $t<0$. The failed Lipschitz condition is visible in the quotientFor $\epsilon =10^{-2},10^{-4},10^{-6}$ this quotient is $20,200,2000$. Continuity still allows local existence by the Peano existence theorem; it cannot choose a waiting time. MIT's 18.034 Lecture 2, Example 2.3 develops the same waiting-time mechanism for a different ordinary differential equation, $y^{\prime }=3y^{2/3}$.

The useful promise is that an initial condition and a sufficiently regular local rule select one trajectory. It justifies comparing models and following trajectories without an arbitrary choice at each instant. A locally Lipschitz continuous rule need not keep that trajectory bounded: $y^{\prime }=1+y^2$ meets the theorem's hypotheses everywhere but has finite-time blowup. Longer existence is governed by the finite-dimensional continuation criterion.

Picard iteration replaces a tentative trajectory by the accumulated integral of its proposed rate. For an initial value problem $y^{\prime }=f(t,y)$, $y(t_0)=y_0$, define the Picard map and its starting function byHere $y_0(t)$ is the constant starting trajectory; the same symbol without its argument denotes the initial state. A fixed point of $\mathcal{P}$ solves this integral equation, and the fundamental theorem of calculus gives the original ordinary differential equation.

For $y^{\prime }=y$, $y(0)=1$, successive integrals giveAt $t=1$, the first five values are $1,2,2.5,2.66666667,2.70833333$, while $e\approx 2.71828183$. The fourth polynomial misses by about $0.00994850$. On $0\le t\le 1$, every omitted term of the exponential series is nonnegative and increasing, so the largest error occurs at $t=1$. The tail tends to zero, giving uniform convergence to the exponential function on this interval.

The beauty of Picard iteration is that each proposed trajectory supplies a better rate history for the next one. For this example, one integration adds exactly the next term of the exponential series. In general, the integrals may be difficult to compute, but the construction still explains local existence and uniqueness.

The short contraction mapping argument needs two independent controls. Choose a time-state cylinder $[t_0-a,t_0+a]\times {\overline{B}}_r(y_0)\subset U$ on whichThe second bound is the uniform local Lipschitz condition. Set $J=[t_0-h,t_0+h]$ with $0<h\le a$, $Mh\le r$ and $Lh<1$. In the function space of continuous functions $J\to {\mathbb{R}}^d$, use the supremum norm $\Vert u{\Vert }_{\infty }={\sup }_{t\in J}\Vert u(t)\Vert$. On its closed ball $\Vert u-y_0{\Vert }_{\infty }\le r$, direct integral estimates giveThus the map preserves the closed ball and is a contraction mapping there. This closed ball is a complete metric space, so the contraction mapping theorem gives convergence to exactly one fixed point. Any other local solution of a differential equation stays in the same ball after shortening its interval, and hence agrees there.

For $y^{\prime }=y$, take $r=1$, so $|y|\le 2$ in the state ball and $M=2$, $L=1$. Choosing $h=1/2$ gives $Mh=1$ and $Lh=1/2$, with the actual solution satisfying $|e^{1/2}-1|\approx 0.64872127<1$. The plotted interval $[0,1]$ is longer than this simple guarantee: the explicitly computed exponential series converges there anyway. The condition $Lh<1$ is sufficient for this one-step contraction mapping argument, rather than a necessary lifespan bound.

Under the Picard-Lindelöf theorem's hypotheses on $U\subset \mathbb{R}\times {\mathbb{R}}^d$, extend a solution of a differential equation as far as possible, to a maximal interval $(T_{-},T_{+})$. If $T_{+}<\infty$, the time-state trajectory $(t,y(t))$ must eventually leave every compact subset of $U$. Equivalently, confinement near $T_{+}$ to one compact subset of $U$ permits continuation past $T_{+}$. See Teschl, Section 2.6, Lemma 2.14 and Corollaries 2.15–2.16, pp. 52–53.

The domain restriction matters even for a bounded trajectory. Restrict $y^{\prime }=1$, $y(0)=0$, to $U=\mathbb{R}\times (-1,1)$. Then $y(t)=t$ exists in this domain only for $-1<t<1$; at $t=1/2,3/4,9/10$ its values are $1/2,3/4,9/10$. As $t\uparrow 1$, it approaches the excluded boundary point $(1,1)$ while remaining bounded. Its trajectory cannot fit into any compact subset of $U$ near that endpoint. This is escape from a finite domain, without finite-time blowup in norm. Enlarging the domain to $\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}$ gives the same formula $y(t)=t$ for every real $t$.

Conversely, $y^{\prime }=y$, $y(0)=1$, stays in the compact set $[0,T]\times [1,e^T]$ for every fixed $T>0$. Its growing exponential function is unbounded over the entire future, but has no finite-time blowup. At $T=2$, its largest value on $[0,2]$ is only $e^2\approx 7.38905610$. The relevant question is boundedness before each finite endpoint, rather than one bound valid forever. The tangent function in the diagram under the Picard-Lindelöf theorem illustrates the other possibility: its norm escapes every bound before $T=\pi /2$.

This criterion is useful because an estimate can secure continuation without an explicit formula. In a finite-dimensional vector space, a bounded closed ball is compact; a bounded state trajectory therefore supplies the needed compact set when its time-state closure is inside the domain. That final proviso prevents mistaking a domain boundary for finite-time blowup.

A common sufficient estimate comes from global Lipschitz continuity in the state. Assume $U=I\times {\mathbb{R}}^d$ for an open time interval $I$, with $f$ continuous and a Lipschitz constant $L\ge 0$ valid for all states on each compact time interval under consideration. For $[t_0,T]\subset I$, let $B={\sup }_{t_0\le s\le T}\Vert f(s,0)\Vert$, finite by continuity. Then $\Vert f(t,y)\Vert \le B+L\Vert y\Vert$, and the Gronwall inequality gives, for $t_0\le t\le T$ wherever the solution already exists,For instance, $y^{\prime }=y+1$, $y(0)=0$, has $L=B=1$ and the exact solution $y(t)=e^t-1$, attaining this estimate; at $t=1$ the value is $e-1\approx 1.71828183$. Finite bounds of this kind give continuation throughout $I$, with the analogous estimate backwards in time. When $I=\mathbb{R}$, this gives existence for all real times. If $I$ has a finite endpoint, it gives no continuation beyond that prescribed domain. The underlying linear-growth criterion is ^[ref].

A brief explanation of the continuation mechanism suffices: within the protecting compact set, the continuous function $f$ is bounded, say by $M$. The integral equation yields $\Vert y(t)-y(s)\Vert \le M|t-s|$ near the finite endpoint, so $y(t)$ has a limit $y_{\ast }$. The protecting compact set puts $(T_{+},y_{\ast })$ inside $U$. Restarting the initial value problem there and using local uniqueness joins the trajectories.

On $C([a,b],X)$, an exponentially or polynomially weighted sup norm can make a Volterra integral operator contractive even when the ordinary sup norm does not. For integration from $1$ to $t$, the weight $t^{-c}$ gives contraction factor at most $Mb/(c+1)$ for an $M$-Lipschitz vector field.