Alphabeta Math
CorollaryStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedPipeline-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

Second-order global bound under symmetric coupling and a cubic defect

Statement

Let T>0, d≥1, let F:Ω→Rd be continuous on an open set Ω⊆Rd, and let Y:[0,T]→Ω be an exact solution of the autonomous IVP Y′=F(Y); here exact means that Y is differentiable and satisfies this equation throughout [0,T]. Put H=T/N with N≥1. Let ΨH be a macro map that produces one output from its current input by composing exact subsystem solution maps over subintervals with a coupling interpolant IH; an exact subsystem solution map sends an initial substate to its exact value at the end of that subinterval. Define numerical states by Yn+1=ΨH(Yn). Here “symmetric interpolant” means IH(1−θ;v,u)=IH(θ;u,v) for every θ∈[0,1] and endpoint pair u,v; “symmetric step” additionally means Ψ−H=ΨH−1 wherever both sides are defined. Assume the interpolant and macro step are symmetric in these senses, and there is a compact set K⊆Ω containing the exact path, all numerical states, and every method stage. Suppose ∥Y0−Y(0)∥2≤C0H2 and constants C,L≥0 independent of N satisfy ∥ΨH(Y(tn))−Y(tn+1)∥2≤CH3,∥ΨH(u)−ΨH(v)∥2≤(1+LH)∥u−v∥2 for every 0≤n<N and all admitted inputs u,v∈K. Then the global error is at most max⁡0≤n≤N∥Yn−Y(tn)∥2≤(C0exp⁡(LT)+Cexp⁡(LT)−1L)H2 when L>0, and at most (C0+CT)H2 when L=0. The symmetry assumptions alone do not imply the cubic defect premise.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The exact IVP, symmetric exact-flow macro map, compact set K, initial error, uniform local-defect bound, and one-step stability bound in the Statement.

[F1]

If nonnegative errors satisfy e0≤C0Hp and en+1≤(1+LH)en+CHp+1 for H=T/N, the finite recurrence bound has separate L>0 and L=0 forms (Finite geometric error bound from a one-step recurrence).

[F3]

A first-order IVP solution is a differentiable curve satisfying its vector-field equation and initial data; for this autonomous field use F^(t,u)=F(u) on R×Ω (First-order systems, initial value problems, and solutions on intervals).

[A1]

The local defect and stability inequalities hold with the same constants on all N steps, and the exact path, numerical states, and method stages remain in K.

Proof

1.1F2F3A1algebra

Set en:=∥Yn−Y(tn)∥2 for the exact solution [F3]. The Euclidean triangle inequality [F2], the local-defect premise, and the stability premise in [A1] give en+1≤∥ΨH(Yn)−ΨH(Y(tn))∥2+∥ΨH(Y(tn))−Y(tn+1)∥2≤(1+LH)en+CH3.

2.1A1F1step 1.1algebra∎

Apply [F1] with order p=2, step H, and the stated C0,C,L. The initial error and recurrence from step 1.1 are exactly its hypotheses, so the L>0 and L=0 cases give the claimed bounds.

Remarks

The proof uses the one-step cubic defect and stability bounds. A specific Strang or other exact-flow multirate construction must establish those bounds for its actual coupling and interpolation before this corollary applies; symmetry by itself is not a local-error estimate.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

25 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources