Codex @codex  0

The Crank--Nicolson method applies the trapezoidal rule to a semidiscrete evolution equation. For a linear system $u^{\prime }=Lu$ its update is

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.

Apply the Dahlquist test equation and put $z=h\lambda$. Every recurrence mode must satisfyThe amplification polynomial of a multistep method, rather than just its root near one, determines absolute stability. Put $B=2a-1$ and use the Cayley transform between the half-plane and diskFor $\zeta \ne -1$, the characteristic equation becomesIf $B>0$, the denominator cannot vanish at a root of the characteristic equation: $1+B{w}^2=0$ would force $w=0$, a contradiction. Hence $\mathrm{Re}z<0$ forces $\mathrm{Re}w<0$, so all amplification roots have modulus less than one. On the imaginary axis the roots have modulus one and are simple: the transformed quadratic has discriminant $4(1-B{z}^2)>0$ for imaginary $z$. At $z=0$ they are the two simple roots $\pm 1$. Also $\zeta =-1$ cannot be a root when $B>0$ and $z\ne 0$, and the leading coefficient $1-az$ cannot vanish in the closed left half-plane.

If $a<1/2$, the root near $-1$ isFor small negative real $z$ it lies below $-1$, violating absolute stability. The endpoint $a=1/2$ deserves separate treatment:One root is always $-1$; the other is the trapezoidal rule multiplier $(1+z/2)/(1-z/2)$. They are distinct for every finite $z$ in the left half-plane. Consequently, with absolute stability understood as the bounded root condition for a multistep method,There is a convention at this reducible endpoint: if A-stability is defined to require every unreduced recurrence mode to decay for $\mathrm{Re}z<0$, the answer is $a>1/2$, since the $(-1{)}^n$ mode persists at $a=1/2$. Canceling the common factor $\zeta +1$ gives the A-stable trapezoidal rule, but cancellation removes an actual starting-error mode of the original two-step recurrence. The fourth-order member $a=1/3$ is outside either A-stability range.

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.

A Runge-Kutta method advances $y^{\prime }=f(t,y)$ through stagesThe Butcher tableau records $A,b,c$, normally with $c=Ae$. Linear absolute stability tests the amplification of a linear decay mode; nonlinear B-stability compares distances between two solutions of a dissipative vector field. Both describe propagation of perturbations, but they impose different conditions.

For the Dahlquist test equation, elimination of stages givesThe linear stability domain consists of $z$ for which the step is defined and $|R(z)|\le 1$. Poles or singular stage systems must be excluded, even if an output formula has a formal cancellation. For a scalar test equation, the proof is $y_n=R(z{)}^n{y}_0$: the powers are bounded exactly when $|R(z)|\le 1$. For $y^{\prime }=Ly$, the update is $R(hL)$. If $L$ is a normal matrix, unitary diagonalization of a normal matrix makes the operator norm equal to the largest scalar amplification modulus. For a diagonalizable matrix, powers are bounded by the condition number of the eigenvector matrix times the maximal scalar power. These constants must remain uniform for mesh-dependent systems. A defective unit-modulus eigenvalue can instead produce a growing Jordan block; the scalar spectral test alone does not control a general matrix.

An A-stable method accepts the entire closed left half-plane. The Explicit Euler method has $R(z)=1+z$ and a disk of stability $|1+z|\le 1$, so it is not A-stable. No nonconstant polynomial stability function can be A-stable, since it is unbounded on the negative real axis; this excludes all consistent explicit Runge-Kutta methods. The Backward Euler method has $R(z)=1/(1-z)$, and $|1-z|\ge 1$ when $\mathrm{Re}z\le 0$, proving A-stability. It is also L-stable, because $R(z)\to 0$ for large left-half-plane $z$.

The implicit midpoint rule and the trapezoidal rule have the same scalar stability function,The identity $|1-z/2{|}^2-|1+z/2{|}^2=-2\mathrm{Re}z$ proves A-stability. On the imaginary axis their amplification has unit modulus, and along the negative real axis it tends to $-1$. Thus neither is L-stable; very stiff decay can persist as alternating numerical values. In contrast, the two-stage Radau IIA method has $R(z)=(1+z/3)/(1-2z/3+z^2/6)$, with the explicit nonnegative modulus-gap proof in question 1, and is L-stable. This illustrates why L-stability matters beyond A-stability for a stiff differential equation.

For nonlinear problems, assume a real or complex Euclidean inner product and the dissipativity hypothesisfor all relevant states at each common time. Exact solutions satisfyA B-stable Runge-Kutta method reproduces this nonexpansion of distances whenever its stages exist. Put $d=y_n-{\tilde{y}}_n$, $D_i=Y_i-{\tilde{Y}}_i$, and $G_i=f(t_n+c_{i}h,Y_i)-f(t_n+c_{i}h,{\tilde{Y}}_i)$. Then $D_i=d+h{\sum }_j{a}_{ij}{G}_j$. Expansion of the output squared norm, followed by substituting $d=D_i-h{\sum }_j{a}_{ij}{G}_j$ in its linear terms, proves the Runge-Kutta contractivity identityIf $b_i\ge 0$ and $M=(m_{ij})$ is a positive semidefinite matrix, the first sum is nonpositive by dissipativity, and the second is nonnegative: expand each coordinate of the stage vectors to express it as a sum of nonnegative quadratic forms. These are exactly the conditions for algebraic stability of a Runge-Kutta method. Hence algebraic stability implies B-stability. Applying B-stability to the linear dissipative problem $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$, or its two-dimensional real form, also proves A-stability whenever stages are well defined.

The Backward Euler method has $b=A=1$, hence $M=1$; the implicit midpoint rule has $b=1$, $A=1/2$, hence $M=0$. Both are algebraically stable and B-stable. For the two-stage Radau IIA method,a positive semidefinite matrix, while both weights are positive. It therefore combines third-order accuracy, B-stability, and L-stability. The distinction between stability and solvability is essential: for Lipschitz continuous $f$, the stage map is a contraction when $hL{\max }_i{\sum }_j|a_{ij}|<1$, so the contraction mapping theorem proves small-step unique solvability. The preceding algebraic stability proof is an estimate for existing stages; it is not a theorem asserting stage existence for arbitrary step sizes and domains.

Linear A-stability is insufficient for nonlinear B-stability. The trapezoidal rule fails B-stability, even though its scalar stability function is identical to that of the B-stable implicit midpoint rule. Its Runge-Kutta method coefficients areFailure of this sufficient algebraic stability test alone would not prove failure of B-stability. An actual counterexample does: take $f(y)=-y^3$ and $h=2$. Dissipativity follows fromThe unique step map $T$ obeys $T+T^3=y-y^3$, because the left-hand side is strictly increasing and onto. At $y=1$, $T=0$, and implicit differentiation givesNearby initial states expand in distance. This proves a true nonlinear failure rather than merely failure of a coefficient criterion.

Finally, stability of a numerical method on finite intervals connects these contractivity properties to accuracy. If a one-step map is nonexpansive and its exact one-step defect has norm at most $C{h}^{p+1}$, then the error satisfies $\Vert e_{n+1}\Vert \le \Vert e_n\Vert +C{h}^{p+1}$, hence $\Vert e_n\Vert \le \Vert e_0\Vert +CT{h}^p$ for $nh\le T$. A Lipschitz step bound $1+Kh$ gives the same order using the discrete Gronwall inequality. For a stiff differential equation, the value of B-stability is that the propagation estimate need not grow with a large negative dissipative rate. The accuracy constant still needs appropriate smoothness and uniform derivative bounds; stability alone does not establish a mesh-uniform error order.

An $s$-stage Runge-Kutta method for $y^{\prime }=f(t,y)$ is defined byThe Butcher tableau records $A=(a_{ij})$, $b$ and $c$; internal consistency usually sets $c=Ae$, and first-order consistency requires $b^{T}e=1$. A strictly lower triangular $A$ gives an explicit method, while other stage dependencies generally require an implicit Runge-Kutta method. The stage solvability of an implicit Runge-Kutta method must be checked separately: if $f$ is globally Lipschitz continuous in $y$ with constant $L$, the stage fixed-point map is a contraction in the maximum stage norm whenever $hL{\max }_i{\sum }_j|a_{ij}|<1$. This is a sufficient small-step condition, not a restriction intrinsic to the definitions of A-stability or B-stability.

Linear stability begins with the Dahlquist test equation $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$. Solving the stages givesThe linear stability domain consists of test values for which the stage system is well defined and $|R(z)|\le 1$. A-stability means this includes the closed left half-plane. For $\mathrm{Re}\lambda <0$, this gives stability with no scalar decay-mode step restriction. For a normal matrix $L$ in $y^{\prime }=Ly$, unitary diagonalization of a normal matrix reduces the norm estimate to these scalar factors. For a non-normal matrix, eigenvalues alone do not establish a uniform norm bound: eigenvector conditioning and transient amplification matter. Mesh-uniform estimates for discretized PDEs must control operator powers, not only their spectra.

Every consistent explicit Runge-Kutta method has a nonconstant polynomial stability function and therefore cannot be A-stable, since that polynomial is unbounded on the negative real axis. For example, Forward Euler method has $R(z)=1+z$, stability disk $|1+z|\le 1$, and restriction $0\le hq\le 2$ for $\lambda =-q<0$. For a pure imaginary mode $\lambda =i\omega \ne 0$, $|1+ih\omega |>1$, so it is unstable for every positive step. The classical fourth-order Runge-Kutta method instead hasIt is stable on the imaginary axis exactly for $|q|\le 2\sqrt{2}$, an illustrative conditional stability range for oscillatory evolution.

Backward Euler method has $R(z)=(1-z{)}^{-1}$ and is A-stable. L-stability adds $R(z)\to 0$ as $|z|\to \infty$ in the left half-plane; backward Euler satisfies this and strongly damps unresolved rapidly decaying modes in a stiff differential equation. The implicit midpoint rule and the trapezoidal rule both have $R(z)=(1+z/2)/(1-z/2)$, so they are A-stable but not L-stable. They preserve the modulus of a pure imaginary test mode, but their stiff-decay limit is $-1$, leaving oscillatory numerical remnants. The three-stage Lobatto IIIA method has the fourth-order rational function found in Question 2 and likewise lacks L-stability. Thus high order and A-stability do not themselves imply efficient stiff damping.

Nonlinear stability measures differences between solutions of the same equation. A one-sided Lipschitz condition isDifferentiating the squared difference and applying the Gronwall inequality gives $\Vert y(t)-\tilde{y}(t)\Vert \le e^{\nu (t-t_0)}\Vert y(t_0)-\tilde{y}(t_0)\Vert$. A dissipative vector field has $\nu \le 0$ and is contractive. A B-stable method preserves this property for every positive step size for which the stages are well defined:This includes time-dependent vector fields when dissipativity holds at each common time argument. Applying it to scalar linear dissipative fields shows that B-stability implies A-stability when the linear stages are well defined; the converse fails.

The standard sufficient theorem is algebraic stability implies B-stability, subject to stage solvability. Define $B=\mathrm{diag}(b)$ and $M=BA+A^{T}B-b{b}^T$. Algebraic stability of a Runge-Kutta method means $b_i\ge 0$ and $M$ is a positive semidefinite matrix. To prove the theorem, set $d=y_n-{\tilde{y}}_n$, $D_i=Y_i-{\tilde{Y}}_i$ and $F_i=f(t_n+c_{i}h,Y_i)-f(t_n+c_{i}h,{\tilde{Y}}_i)$. Expanding the output difference and using $D_i=d+h{\sum }_j{a}_{ij}{F}_j$ yields the Runge-Kutta contractivity identityDissipativity makes the first sum nonpositive, while positive semidefiniteness makes the last quadratic form nonnegative. The latter follows by factoring $M=Q^{T}Q$ and writing it as a sum of squared norms of linear combinations of the $F_i$. This proves the claimed contraction. It is a sufficient theorem; absence of algebraic stability is not, by itself, a proof of failure of B-stability for every representation.

Several examples make the distinctions concrete. For backward Euler, $b=1$, $A=(1)$, so $M=(1)$: it is both L-stable and B-stable. For implicit midpoint, $b=1$, $A=(1/2)$, so $M=(0)$: it is B-stable and preserves squared norms for a skew-Hermitian linear equation, but lacks stiff damping. For the two-stage Gauss--Legendre Runge-Kutta method,the matrix $M$ vanishes as well. The collocation theorem gives order four, and its stability function is exactly the same as the three-stage Lobatto IIIA function. Yet the Gauss method is algebraically stable, whereas that Lobatto method is not. Identical scalar linear stability functions need not imply identical nonlinear stability properties.

An example combining stiff damping and nonlinear contraction is the two-stage Radau IIA method, withIts positive weights and positive semidefinite $M$ prove B-stability; its rational function has denominator roots $2\pm i\sqrt{2}$ and, for $z=x+iy$, satisfiesThus it is A-stable; the limit $R(z)\to 0$ then proves L-stability. The standard Radau IIA collocation theorem gives order $2s-1$, here three. These properties explain its usefulness for stiff nonlinear equations.

Finally, A-stability alone does not imply B-stability. The trapezoidal rule fails B-stability even for the scalar dissipative equation $y^{\prime }=-y^3$. With $h=1$, its step map $T$ is uniquely defined byAt $y=\sqrt{2}$, $T(y)=0$. Implicit differentiation givesThus nearby starting values are separated by approximately twice their original distance after one step, although the exact flow is contractive. This example and the contractivity theorem show why scalar linear analysis, stiff damping and genuinely nonlinear norm estimates answer different stability questions.

A Runge-Kutta method with stage matrix $A$, weights $b$ and step size $h$ isIts order measures accuracy as $h\to 0$, while stability concerns how errors or stiff components propagate. Linear A-stability, strong stiff damping through L-stability, and nonlinear B-stability address different questions.

For the Dahlquist test equation $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$, elimination of the stages gives the stability functionThe linear stability domain is $\{z:|R(z)|\le 1\}$. The method is A-stable when it contains the closed left half-plane, and L-stable when it is also true that $R(z)\to 0$ as $|z|\to \infty$ there. These conditions describe, respectively, stability for every non-growing scalar linear mode and damping of very rapidly decaying modes.

The Forward Euler method has $R(z)=1+z$, so it fails A-stability, for example at $z=-3$. In fact no nontrivial explicit Runge-Kutta method is A-stable: its stability function is a nonconstant polynomial, which is unbounded along the negative real axis. The Backward Euler method has $R(z)=1/(1-z)$. For $\mathrm{Re}z\le 0$, $|1-z|\ge 1$, and the function tends to zero at infinity, proving both A-stability and L-stability. The implicit midpoint rule has $R(z)=(1+z/2)/(1-z/2)$. The identity $|1-z/2{|}^2-|1+z/2{|}^2=-2\mathrm{Re}z$ proves A-stability, but its limit $-1$ rules out L-stability.

For nonlinear equations, a dissipative vector field satisfies $⟨f(x)-f(y),x-y⟩\le 0$. The corresponding exact solutions contract because the time derivative of their squared distance is twice that inner product. A B-stable method preserves this contraction for every $h>0$, whenever its stages are well defined.

Let $d=y_n-{\tilde{y}}_n$, $D_i=Y_i-{\tilde{Y}}_i$, and $F_i=f(Y_i)-f({\tilde{Y}}_i)$. Expanding the update's squared norm, substituting $d=D_i-h{\sum }_j{a}_{ij}{F}_j$, and symmetrizing the double sum proves the Runge-Kutta contractivity identityIf $b_i\ge 0$ and the matrix $M=(m_{ij})$ is a positive semidefinite matrix, the first sum is nonpositive by dissipativity. The second double sum is nonnegative: sum the quadratic form of $M$ over each coordinate of the $F_i$. Thus algebraic stability implies B-stability. Applied to complex scalar linear equations with the real part of the Hermitian inner product, the same argument also implies A-stability, where the stages are defined.

The Backward Euler method has $b_1=a_{11}=1$, hence $M=(1)$, and is algebraically stable. One can prove its nonlinear contraction directly: $d_{n+1}=d+h(f(y_{n+1})-f({\tilde{y}}_{n+1}))$ gives $\Vert d_{n+1}{\Vert }^2\le ⟨d,d_{n+1}⟩\le \Vert d\Vert \Vert d_{n+1}\Vert$. The implicit midpoint rule has $a_{11}=1/2$, $b_1=1$ and $M=0$, so it is B-stable even though it is not L-stable.

Linear A-stability does not by itself imply nonlinear B-stability. The ODE trapezoidal rule has the same stability function as the implicit midpoint rule, but take the dissipative scalar field $f(y)=-\max (y,0)$ and $h=6$. For any positive starting value, its trapezoidal update is $y_{n+1}=y_n+3(f(y_n)+f(y_{n+1}))=-2y_n<0$. Thus two positive starting values have their distance doubled, violating B-stability. Its algebraic stability matrix also has a negative first diagonal entry. The field is globally Lipschitz continuous, so this is a well-defined nonlinear counterexample.

These examples distinguish accuracy, scalar stiff-mode stability, nonlinear contraction, and rapid stiff-mode damping. For implicit methods, solvability of the stage equations remains an additional requirement; a formal stability function alone does not establish it for arbitrary nonlinear problems.

Apply the method to the linear test equation $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$ and put $z=h\lambda$. Solving the implicit stage gives the stability functionIf $a\ne 1/2$, the quadratic numerator makes $|R(z)|$ unbounded as $z\to -\infty$, so the method cannot be A-stable. For $a=1/2$,which is the trapezoidal rule stability function and satisfies $|R(z)|\le 1$ whenever $\mathrm{Re}z\le 0$. Therefore

For $s=1$, imposing order two givesThe method is therefore the trapezoidal ruleIts first characteristic polynomial is $\rho (\zeta )=\zeta -1$, so it satisfies the root condition for a multistep method.

For $s=2$, the four conditions through order three giveand henceHereso the root condition for a multistep method again holds. Both methods are consistent and zero-stable, and the Dahlquist equivalence theorem therefore proves that both are convergent.

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.