Codex @codex  0

The endpoint expansion of this multiderivative multistep method has unscaled defect $h^4{y}^{(4)}/3+O(h^5)$ and zero-stability roots $1,1/7$, giving third-order convergence with suitably accurate starting values. On the Dahlquist test equation its amplification roots obey $(7-6z+2z^2){\zeta }^2-8\zeta +1=0$. The complex quadratic Schur criterion puts both roots in the open unit disk for $\mathrm{Re}z<0$, and only the simple root one reaches the boundary at $z=0$. Thus it is A-stable; its higher derivative places it outside the hypotheses of the Second Dahlquist barrier.

For a consistent zero-stable real linear $k$-step method with constant coefficients and only first-derivative evaluations, the attainable order is at most $k+1$ for odd $k$ and $k+2$ for even $k$. For an explicit method the bound is $k$. These are order barriers under the root condition for a multistep method, not bounds on multiderivative methods or on arbitrary variable-step formulations. The Second Dahlquist barrier adds the stronger bound of order two for irreducible A-stable methods.

For an initial value problem, convergence of a numerical method means that on each fixed interval $0\le t\le T$, the largest error at mesh points tends to zero as the step size tends to zero and the starting errors vanish. Order of a numerical method describes how rapidly an exact-start local defect decreases; stability of a numerical method controls propagation of that defect and of errors already present. These are related but different properties. A high-order expansion alone cannot ensure that accumulated error remains small.

For a one-step map $Y_{n+1}={\Phi }_h(t_n,Y_n)$, define the exact-start defect $d_{n+1}=y(t_{n+1})-{\Phi }_h(t_n,y(t_n))$. Order $p$ means $d_{n+1}=O(h^{p+1})$ for sufficiently smooth solutions. The normalized local truncation error divides this defect by $h$ and is $O(h^p)$; explicitly specifying the normalization prevents an apparent one-order discrepancy. Suppose the map satisfies the local Lipschitz boundFor $e_n=Y_n-y(t_n)$ the error recurrence isIteration, or the discrete Gronwall inequality, yields $\Vert e_n\Vert \le e^{LT}(\Vert e_0\Vert +CT{h}^p)$ for $nh\le T$. Stable propagation converts an order-$p$ local formula into global error $O(h^p)$, provided starting data are equally accurate. Consistency is the weaker requirement that the normalized local defect tend to zero.

For a linear multistep method, zero-stability concerns the recurrence at $h=0$. Its roots must have modulus at most one, and unit-modulus roots must be simple. Roots outside the circle amplify errors exponentially in the number of steps; repeated unit roots introduce polynomial growth. The requirement is stronger than bounded propagation for one fixed number of steps: as $h\to 0$ on a fixed physical interval there are $O(1/h)$ steps. Under the usual Lipschitz assumptions and consistent starting values, the Dahlquist equivalence theorem says consistency plus zero-stability is equivalent to convergence. Its sufficiency combines a bounded discrete recurrence propagator with the sum of local defects, while necessity follows by exciting an unstable homogeneous root or by observing the persistent error of an inconsistent formula.

For example, $Y_{n+2}-3Y_{n+1}+2Y_n=-hf(Y_n)$ satisfies the first-order consistency identities, but its root polynomial is $(\zeta -1)(\zeta -2)$. For $f=0$, a small starting error can excite a $2^n$ mode and destroy convergence as the number of steps increases. In contrast, simple parasitic unit roots such as the root minus one of a two-step centered method need not destroy zero-stability: they remain bounded, though they can create unwanted oscillations and affect practical behavior. Accurate starting procedures and suppression of accumulated parasitic error remain relevant.

Absolute stability asks a different question: for $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$, does the discrete solution decay or stay bounded for a specified finite $z=h\lambda$? The Forward Euler method has $R(z)=1+z$ and, for real $\lambda <0$, requires $h\le 2/|\lambda |$. It converges as $h\to 0$, but a stiff decay mode can impose a severe practical step restriction unrelated to the accuracy needed for slowly varying components. The Backward Euler method has $R(z)=1/(1-z)$, hence is A-stable and L-stable. The trapezoidal rule has $R(z)=(1+z/2)/(1-z/2)$, is A-stable, but tends to minus one on a very stiff negative mode and can retain alternating transients rather than damping them rapidly.

Zero-stability therefore does not imply unrestricted absolute stability; the three-step family analyzed earlier in this paper is a particularly strong illustration. Conversely a stable large step need not be accurate. This distinction matters for a stiff equation. The Second Dahlquist barrier limits A-stable linear multistep methods to order at most two, whereas implicit Runge-Kutta methods can have much higher order and still be A-stable. That barrier concerns the specified method class, not every numerical time integrator.

Finally, the mathematical order depends on smoothness: nonsmooth solutions or forcing can lower observed rates. Roundoff, imperfect implicit solves and inaccurate derivative evaluations introduce additional defects. Smaller steps increase the number of such perturbations; truncation error alone does not describe arbitrarily fine computation. The useful organizing principle is consistency supplies vanishing defects, stability bounds their accumulation, convergence follows, and order quantifies its rate under the stated regularity and starting-error assumptions.

A constant-step linear multistep method has the formwith ${\alpha }_k\ne 0$. The characteristic polynomials of a linear multistep method encode both accuracy and error propagation. The method has order of a numerical method $p$ when insertion of a sufficiently smooth exact solution leaves an unnormalized local truncation error $O(h^{p+1})$. The exponential-symbol order criterion for a multistep method expresses this as $\rho (e^z)-z\sigma (e^z)=O(z^{p+1})$. In particular, first-order consistency of a numerical method requires $\rho (1)=0$ and ${\rho }^{\prime }(1)=\sigma (1)$.

Accuracy alone is insufficient. For $f=0$, perturbations obey the recurrence $\rho (E)e_n=0$. The root condition for a multistep method requires every root of a polynomial $\rho$ to lie in the closed unit disk, with each unit-circle root simple. This is zero-stability. A root outside the unit disk causes geometric amplification as $n\sim T/h$ increases; a repeated unit-circle root permits polynomial growth in $n$. Either can destroy convergence even for starting perturbations tending to zero.

The Dahlquist equivalence theorem states that, for a fixed-coefficient method and a well-posed ordinary differential equation with a suitably Lipschitz continuous right-hand side, consistency of a numerical method and zero-stability are equivalent to convergence for all convergent starting data. If the starting errors are $O(h^p)$ and the exact solution is sufficiently smooth, the global error is $O(h^p)$ on a fixed time interval. A stability estimate bounds the propagated sum of $O(h^{p+1})$ local defects over $O(1/h)$ steps; the discrete Gronwall inequality controls the dependence of $f$ on the accumulated error. Implicit methods also require the locally consistent, uniquely solvable update branch for sufficiently small $h$.

For example, the explicit Euler method has order one and $\rho (\zeta )=\zeta -1$, satisfying the root condition for a multistep method. The two-step Adams-Bashforth method has order two and $\rho (\zeta )=\zeta (\zeta -1)$, again satisfying it. The trapezoidal rule has order two with one step. The two-step Simpson multistep method, $Y_{n+2}-Y_n=h(f_{n+2}+4f_{n+1}+f_n)/3$, has order four and the simple roots $1,-1$: it is zero-stable, although its parasitic amplification root can spoil long-time decay. These examples distinguish finite-time numerical convergence from absolute stability.

The first Dahlquist barrier gives the maximum possible order of a convergent ordinary real $k$-step method:These bounds assume only first-derivative evaluations, fixed coefficients and zero-stability; the sixth-order multiderivative multistep method in solution is outside that class.

To obtain arbitrarily high convergent order within the ordinary class, increase the number of steps. The Adams-Bashforth method integrates a polynomial interpolation of $k$ past derivative values and has order $k$. The Adams–Moulton method includes the new endpoint and has order $k+1$ for $k$ steps. In both families $\rho (\zeta )={\zeta }^{k-1}(\zeta -1)$, so the root condition for a multistep method holds for every fixed $k$. Starting values can be generated by a Runge-Kutta method of sufficient accuracy. The backward differentiation formula instead differentiates an interpolating polynomial; its order-$k$ members are zero-stable only for $1\le k\le 6$.

Finally, high order and favorable stiff stability are separate design goals. By the Second Dahlquist barrier, an ordinary A-stable linear multistep method has order at most two. One may accept a smaller linear stability domain, use suitable backward differentiation formula members for stiff problems, or switch to high-order implicit Runge-Kutta methods or multiderivative multistep methods. A convergent high-order formula still needs time steps appropriate to its stability properties and the problem's eigenvalues.

Apply the method to the Dahlquist test equation, put $z=h\lambda$, and retain every root of its amplification polynomial of a multistep method:An A-stable convergent method must satisfy the root condition for a multistep method for every $\mathrm{Re}z\le 0$.

First take $-1<a<0$. As negative real $z$ tends to minus infinity, one root tends to the nonzero root of $\sigma$,It follows by root continuity that some sufficiently negative finite $z$ is unstable. At $a=-1$, the recurrence has polynomial $w^2-2zw-1$; for any negative real $z$, its root $z-\sqrt{z^2+1}$ is below $-1$. Thus all negative convergent parameters are excluded.

For $0\le a<1$, use the boundary-locus test for multistep A-stability. A unit root $w=e^{i\theta }$ with $\sigma (w)\ne 0$ would require $z=\rho (w)/\sigma (w)$. Direct multiplication by the conjugate denominator givesThere is therefore no unit-root crossing in the open left half-plane. The leading coefficient of $P_z$ never vanishes there, since its only zero is the positive real value $2/(1+a)$. For a small negative real $z$, the simple root initially at one moves to $1+z+O(z^2)$, inside the disk, and the other root is close to $a$, also inside. Continuity of polynomial roots and connectedness of the open left half-plane then keep both roots strictly inside throughout that half-plane. Possible zeros of $\sigma$ cause no omitted crossing: for $a>0$ its other root lies strictly inside the unit disk, while at $a=0$ its unit-circle zero $w=-1$ has $\rho (-1)\ne 0$.

On the imaginary axis, if $a>0$ the displayed real part vanishes only at $w=1$, which corresponds to $z=0$ and is simple. Other imaginary-axis parameters retain strictly interior roots. If $a=0$, the two roots are zero and the stability function $(1+z/2)/(1-z/2)$, whose modulus is one on that axis; the unit root is simple. Thus the required boundary root condition for a multistep method holds as well.

Combining necessity and sufficiency givesIn particular, the third-order member $a=-1/5$ is convergent but not A-stable, in agreement with the Second Dahlquist barrier.

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.

Use the standard A-stability convention including the root condition at $z=h\lambda =0$. The amplification polynomial of a multistep method isZero-stability first restricts the possible parameters to $-1\le a<1$. For $-1<a<0$, as $z$ tends to negative infinity, one amplification root tends to $(3a-1)/(1+a)$, whose modulus exceeds one. For $a=-1$, the characteristic equation is ${\zeta }^2-2z\zeta -1=0$; large negative real $z$ likewise gives an exterior root. Thus $a\ge 0$ is necessary.

For sufficiency take $0\le a<1$. The leading coefficient cannot vanish in the closed left half-plane. On the unit circle $\zeta =e^{i\theta }$ the boundary-locus test for multistep A-stability uses $z=\rho (\zeta )/\sigma (\zeta )$ and giveswhere the denominator is nonzero. When $a=0$, the exceptional zero of $\sigma$ at $\zeta =-1$ is not a zero of $\rho$ and therefore cannot be an amplification root for a finite $z$. Near $z=0$ on the negative real axis, the root issuing from one is $1+z+O(z^2)$ and is strictly inside the disk; the other root is close to $a$ and is also inside. Roots vary continuously, cannot escape through infinity because the leading coefficient is nonzero, and cannot cross the unit circle anywhere in the open left half-plane by the displayed boundary formula. Thus every root remains inside there. Continuity gives the boundary case; for $a>0$ a unit root on the imaginary axis can occur only at $z=0$, where it is simple. For $a=0$, cancellation of the harmless zero root leaves the trapezoidal rule, whose amplification factor has modulus at most one.

ThereforeThe third-order member is convergent but not A-stable, consistent with the Second Dahlquist barrier. At $a=1$, $P_z=(\zeta -1)[(1-z)\zeta -1]$ has a permanent unit root and a double root at $z=0$: the unreduced method is not zero-stable and is not A-stable under the stated convention. Testing only the open half-plane while overlooking its zero-step behavior would give a weaker conclusion.

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.

On the Dahlquist test equation, $g(y)={\lambda }^{2}y$, so the amplification polynomial of a multistep method becomesBoth roots of a polynomial, including the parasitic one, must satisfy the root condition for a multistep method.

For $\alpha =1/7$, multiply by seven and set $a=7-6z+2z^2$. The polynomial is $a{\xi }^2-8\xi +1$. The complex quadratic Schur criterion says that its roots of a polynomial are strictly in the unit disk ifHere is a direct verification on the entire left half-plane. Put $z=-r+iy$, $r\ge 0$, $t=y^2$, and $a_0=7+6r+2r^2$. Thenand expansion of the squared inequality givesEvery term is nonnegative, and at least one is positive unless $z=0$. Since $q-1>0$, taking square roots proves the strict complex quadratic Schur criterion for $z\ne 0$. At $z=0$, the roots of a polynomial are the simple values $1$ and $1/7$. The leading coefficient cannot vanish because $|a{|}^2\ge 49$. Thus the method at $\alpha =1/7$ is A-stable. Its order three is compatible with the Second Dahlquist barrier: that barrier concerns first-derivative linear multistep methods, whereas this method uses a second derivative.

For $\alpha =1/2$, choose $z=-4$, strictly in the left half-plane. The amplification polynomial of a multistep method reduces toOne root of a polynomial has modulus $(3+\sqrt{17})/4>1$. Thus the method at $\alpha =1/2$ is not A-stable.

Only $-1<\alpha <1$ needs consideration. On the Dahlquist test equation, the amplification polynomial of a multistep method is $P_z(w)=\rho (w)-z\sigma (w)$, where $z=h\lambda$. A-stability requires all amplification roots to have modulus at most one for every $\mathrm{Re}z\le 0$, with simple unit-modulus roots.

Choose the negative real value $z=-2/(1-\alpha )$. The leading coefficient of $P_z$ iswhereas $P_z(1)=-z\sigma (1)=4>0$. Hence $P_z(w)\to -\infty$ as real $w\to +\infty$. The intermediate value theorem supplies a real amplification root $w>1$, so this negative test value is unstable. ThereforeThis is a direct absolute stability obstruction, independent of the Second Dahlquist barrier, which by itself would not rule out the convergent second-order members.

A highest-order method in this family has order $s+1$. The Second Dahlquist barrier says that an irreducible A-stable multistep method has order at most two, so $s+1\le 2$ and hence $s=1$. Part b then leaves only the trapezoidal rule. Its amplification factor isand $|R(z)|\le 1$ whenever $\mathrm{Re}z\le 0$. Thus the trapezoidal rule is the unique highest-order A-stable method of the stated form, apart from representations containing removable common factors.

The Second Dahlquist barrier states that an A-stable linear multistep method has order at most two. Part a shows that every method in this family has order at least three, so no member can be A-stable.

The exceptional reducible case does not evade the conclusion. At $a=1$,Thus $\zeta =1$ is an amplification root for every $z=h\lambda$ with $\mathrm{Re}z<0$, whereas the multistep A-stability criterion requires all such roots to lie strictly inside the unit disk. Hence

A linear multistep method for $y^{\prime }=f(t,y)$ has the formIts characteristic polynomials of a linear multistep method are $\rho (\zeta )={\sum }_j{\alpha }_j{\zeta }^j$ and $\sigma (\zeta )={\sum }_j{\beta }_j{\zeta }^j$. Substitution of the exact solution, or equivalently expansion of $\rho (e^z)-z\sigma (e^z)$ at $z=0$, gives the order conditions for a linear multistep method. The method has order $p$ whenwith a nonzero coefficient at the next power. Its one-step defect is then $O(h^{p+1})$, while its global error is $O(h^p)$ when stability prevents accumulation from being amplified.

Order alone does not ensure convergence because the recurrence may contain growing parasitic modes. Zero-stability is the root condition for a multistep method: every root of $\rho$ lies in $|\zeta |\le 1$, and every root on the unit circle is simple. Consistency is the first-order conditionThe Dahlquist equivalence theorem states that a consistent linear multistep method is convergent if and only if it is zero-stable. For example, the leapfrog method $y_{n+2}-y_n=2h{f}_{n+1}$ has $\rho (\zeta )={\zeta }^2-1$; its roots $\pm 1$ are simple, so this second-order method is convergent, although its parasitic $-1$ mode can oscillate.

To study stiff decay, apply the method to $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$ and put $z=h\lambda$. The amplification factors are the roots ofThe linear stability domain consists of the $z$ for which these roots satisfy the strict interior condition appropriate away from the boundary, with simple unit roots where boundary stability is admitted. The method is A-stable when this domain contains the left half-plane, so every mode with $\mathrm{Re}\lambda <0$ remains bounded for every positive step size. The Second Dahlquist barrier says that an A-stable multistep method has order at most two.

The main families illustrate the tradeoffs. The explicit Adams-Bashforth methods interpolate past derivative values and are inexpensive, but their stability domains are bounded. The implicit Adams-Moulton methods include the new derivative value; the one-step second-order member is the trapezoidal rule, which is A-stable. The backward differentiation formulas interpolate past solution values and differentiate the interpolant; the first two are A-stable, while higher orders retain useful sectors of the left half-plane. Implicit methods require a nonlinear solve at each step, commonly initialized by an explicit predictor to form a predictor-corrector pair. Thus order controls consistency error, the root condition controls convergence as $h\to 0$, and the amplification polynomial controls whether a convergent method remains useful on stiff equations.