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.
Finite recursion and work accounting for multilevel MGRIT
Statement
For one top-level call of Recursive multilevel MGRIT cycles on a finite admissible hierarchy with terminating primitive operations, the recursion terminates. Its visit counts satisfy and for .
Suppose every visit to noncoarsest level has the same local call counts , excluding its recursive children. In an additive accounting model with nonnegative call costs , remaining local work , and work per coarsest solve, its modeled work is Each local F-, C- or FCF-relaxation has the literal fine-call counts , or respectively. Residual formation, repeated coarse residuals, restriction, interpolation and correction contribute all their actual calls and overhead; caching incurs no new call. If counts or costs vary by visit, replace each product by the sum of the corresponding visit charges. Outer stopping checks have additional costs.
Parallel execution must respect the order within each F-interval, between the successive recursive visits that update the same correction, and within each exact coarse forward solve, including communication and synchronization. The accounting model implies no measured speedup or multilevel contraction.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite admissible hierarchy, finite positive integer visit counts, terminating primitives and the accounting model in the Statement.
Recursive multilevel MGRIT cycles solves exactly on level ; on level it invokes the level cycle exactly times in sequence, recomputing each residual from the updated correction.
Propagator call counts for the two-level MGRIT cycle gives the literal F, C and FCF call counts for a grid whose initial state is absorbed into its first right-hand-side block.
Proof
A call on level terminates by the stipulated finite exact forward solve. If calls on level terminate, [F1] makes a finite number of them and otherwise executes only finite local operations, so a level call terminates. Downward induction proves termination on level . There is one root call and every level visit has exactly children, giving the stated visit recurrence.
Each noncoarsest visit has its stated local work charge, and every coarsest visit costs . Partition all operations by their unique executing visit and sum the charges to obtain . At level the inherited relaxation has and , so [F2] supplies its three call counts, including the boundary assignment without a call. The data dependencies in [F1] and in each relaxation/forward solve require the stated scheduling order. Summing actual visit charges also covers unequal costs, and outer checks are outside the recursive call.
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Cited to discharge well-definedness by Recursive multilevel MGRIT cycles.
Dependency tree · two levels
6 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
- R. D. Falgout et al., Parallel Time Integration with Multigrid (standard reference, not scraped)