Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedPipeline-generated
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.

The two-stage ETD2 method has a third-order local defect

Statement

In the finite-matrix setting of Exponential Euler and the two-stage ETD2 step maps, let 0≤t<t+h≤T and let y′=Ay+g(r,y(r)) on [t,t+h], with admissible states and stages. Let q(r):=g(r,y(r)). Suppose q∈C2, sup⁡∥q′(r)∥2≤Q1, sup⁡∥q′′(r)∥2≤Q2, g is L-Lipschitz in its state variable on a tube containing the exact path and predictor, and K+:=sup⁡0≤s≤T∥esA∥2. Set CE:=K+Q1/2. Then the exact-start defect of Ψh2 satisfies ∥Ψh2(t,y(t))−y(t+h)∥2≤K+(Q2+LCE2)h3.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The exact solution, forcing curve, Lipschitz tube, and bounds in the Statement.

[F1]

Variation of constants for a finite-matrix semilinear system: the exact endpoint is the exponential-linear term plus ∫0he(h−s)Aq(t+s) ds.

[F2]

Exponential Euler and the two-stage ETD2 step maps: the ETD2 predictor is ah(t,y)=ΨhE(t,y) and its correction uses φ1−φ2 at q(t) and φ2 at g(t+h,ah).

[F3]

Integral representations of the first two phi functions: φ1(X)=∫01e(1−θ)Xdθ and φ2(X)=∫01θe(1−θ)Xdθ.

[L1]

Exponential Euler has a second-order local defect: the exact-start predictor obeys ∥ah(t,y(t))−y(t+h)∥2≤CEh2.

[A1]

The second derivative bound Q2, state Lipschitz bound L, and semigroup bound K+ hold on the complete path and predictor tube.

[F6]

A bounded linear operator between normed spaces, The operator norm is zero on the zero domain and otherwise is max_{||v||=1} ||Tv||, Every finite-dimensional normed space is Banach, and The exponential series of a bounded operator: for finite A on Cd, ∥esA∥2≤e∣s∣∥A∥2. For 0≤s≤T, nonnegativity of ∥A∥2 gives s∥A∥2≤T∥A∥2, so scalar exponential monotonicity (The exponential function is strictly increasing) gives es∥A∥2≤eT∥A∥2. The set defining K+ contains ∥Id∥2 at s=0 and is therefore bounded above by eT∥A∥2; completeness of R (Dedekind completeness: the least-upper-bound property) supplies its finite supremum.

[F7]

C is the real coordinate plane, with coordinate arithmetic, The standard formulas ⟨x,y⟩=∑k<nxkyk on Rn and ∑k<nxkyk‾ on Cn are inner products, and The norm ∥v∥=⟨v,v⟩ induced by a real or complex inner product: for v=(v0,…,vd−1), Φd(v):=(Re⁡v0,Im⁡v0,…,Re⁡vd−1,Im⁡vd−1) is real-linear and satisfies ∥Φd(v)∥R2d2=∑j<d∣vj∣2=∥v∥22. It preserves real-time difference quotients and their limits, so the real vector-valued FTC and integral norm bound in [F4] apply to the complex forcing curve with the same norms.

Proof

1.1givenF4F5F7A1algebra

By [F7], the real vector-valued FTC in [F4] applies to the complex curve q and preserves its norm. Write ℓh(s):=(1−s/h)q(t)+(s/h)q(t+h). Twice integrating the bound on q′′ from [F4] gives q(t+s)=q(t)+sq′(t)+rs and q(t+h)=q(t)+hq′(t)+rh, with ∥rs∥2≤Q2s2/2 and ∥rh∥2≤Q2h2/2. Therefore ∥q(t+s)−ℓh(s)∥2≤Q2s2/2+(s/h)Q2h2/2≤Q2h2.

1.2L1A1algebra

By [L1] and [A1], the endpoint forcing difference satisfies ∥q(t+h)−g(t+h,ah(t,y(t)))∥2≤LCEh2.

2.1F1F2F3step 1.1step 1.2algebra

Substituting [F3] into [F2] shows the ETD2 correction equals ∫0he(h−s)A[(1−s/h)q(t)+(s/h)g(t+h,ah(t,y(t)))] ds. Subtracting this from [F1] gives ∫0he(h−s)A(q(t+s)−ℓh(s)) ds+∫0he(h−s)A(s/h)(q(t+h)−g(t+h,ah(t,y(t)))) ds.

3.1A1F4F5F6F7step 2.1algebra∎

By [F6], K+ is finite. By [A1], [F4]–[F5], [F7], and step 1.1, the interpolation contribution in step 2.1 is at most K+Q2h3. Its stage contribution is at most K+LCEh2∫0h(s/h) ds=K+LCEh3/2. Adding these bounds proves the claimed estimate.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

94 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