Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge 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 Crank–Nicolson nodal error for exact initial data under H2 time regularity

Statement

Let Vh be a finite-dimensional conforming subspace of a real evolution triple. Assume a time-independent real bilinear form a is bounded by M and coercive by α>0, the load f∈L2(0,T;Vh∗), and the partition and data of Crank–Nicolson and cG(1) for an autonomous parabolic form. Every time step has a unique solution and, with Umid,j=(Uj+Uj−1)/2, max⁡0≤m≤N∥Um∥H2≤CU,α∑j=1Nτj∥Umid,j∥V2≤CU,CU:=∥U0∥H2+α−1∥f∥L2(0,T;Vh∗)2. If the exact semidiscrete solution uh from Finite-dimensional parabolic Galerkin ODEs with measurable coefficients satisfies uh∈H2(0,T;Vh), meaning uh,uh′,uh′′∈L2(0,T;Vh) with weak time derivatives. Under this regularity assumption, set ej=Uj−uh(tj), τmax⁡=max⁡jτj, and Ce:=∥e0∥H2+M216ατmax⁡4∥uh′′∥L2(0,T;Vh)2. Then the error satisfies the separate bounds max⁡0≤m≤N∥em∥H2≤Ce,α∑j=1Nτj∥ej+ej−12∥V2≤Ce. Thus exact initial projection U0=uh(0) gives second-order maximum nodal error. The regularity hypothesis is on the time-dependent semidiscrete solution and is not implied by the method definition.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite-dimensional real conforming subspace Vh, the autonomous bounded/coercive form, f∈L2(0,T;Vh∗), initial value U0, a finite time partition, and—only for the error estimate—an exact semidiscrete solution uh∈H2(0,T;Vh).

[F1]

Crank–Nicolson uses the average of the endpoint states in the time-independent form and the interval-average load (Crank–Nicolson and cG(1) for an autonomous parabolic form).

[F2]

The exact semidiscrete trajectory solves the Galerkin ODE and belongs to H1(0,T;Vh), the space of absolutely continuous coefficient functions with function and derivative in L2 (Finite-dimensional parabolic Galerkin ODEs with measurable coefficients).

[F3]

The difference quotient identity is 2(x−y,x)H=∥x∥H2−∥y∥H2+∥x−y∥H2 (The Hilbert-space discrete energy identity).

[F4]

The form is bounded by M and coercive by α (Bounded, coercive and symmetric sesquilinear forms).

Proof

1.1F1F4givenconstruct

Fix a finite basis of Vh and express one CN step as a square linear system. Its bilinear form is bj(x,v)=τj−1(x,v)H+12a(x,v). If the homogeneous system has solution x, testing with x gives τj−1∥x∥H2+12a(x,x)=0. Coercivity [F4] implies x=0; the square matrix is therefore invertible. Thus the step has exactly one solution by finite-dimensional linear algebra, without a choice axiom.

1.2F1F2givenalgebra

Integrating the semidiscrete equation from [F2] over Ij gives the exact step with uh replaced in the form by its time average uˉhj=τj−1∫Ijuh(t)dt. Subtract it from the CN equation. With ej=Uj−uh(tj) and rj=uˉhj−(uh(tj)+uh(tj−1))/2, the result is τj−1(ej−ej−1,vh)H+a ⁣(ej+ej−12,vh)=a(rj,vh).

2.1F1F3F4step 1.1algebra

Test the CN equation by Umid,j and multiply by 2τj. The midpoint identity follows from [F3], since 2(Uj−Uj−1,Umid,j)H=2(Uj−Uj−1,Uj)H−∥Uj−Uj−1∥H2. Coercivity and Young's inequality give ∥Uj∥H2−∥Uj−1∥H2+ατj∥Umid,j∥V2≤α−1τj∥fˉj∥Vh∗2. Sum through any m and apply Jensen to obtain ∥Um∥H2+α∑j=1mτj∥Umid,j∥V2≤CU. Taking the maximum of the endpoint term and setting m=N for the sum prove the separate stability bounds.

2.2step 1.2givenalgebra

On Ij=[a,b] of length τj, let Lj be the affine interpolant of uh(a),uh(b). Since rj=τj−1∫Ij(uh−Lj), solve w′′=uh′′ with w(a)=w(b)=0 by two integrations. The Green kernel for −d2/dt2 with zero endpoint values is Gj(t,s)=(min⁡(t,s)−a)(b−max⁡(t,s))τj. It has zero endpoint values and derivative jump −1 at t=s, so w(t)=−∫abGj(t,s)uh′′(s)ds; the difference between this w and uh−Lj has second derivative zero and zero endpoint values, hence is zero. Therefore uh(t)−Lj(t)=−∫abGj(t,s)uh′′(s) ds. The kernel satisfies 0≤Gj(t,s)≤τj/4. Therefore ∥rj∥V≤1τj∫ab∥uh′′(s)∥V(∫abGj(t,s) dt)ds≤τj4∫ab∥uh′′(s)∥Vds≤τj3/24∥uh′′∥L2(Ij;V) by Tonelli's theorem for the nonnegative integrand and Cauchy–Schwarz. Consequently ∑jτj∥rj∥V2≤τmax⁡416∥uh′′∥L2(0,T;V)2.

3.1F3F4step 1.2step 2.2algebra∎

Test the error equation from step 1.2 by emid,j=(ej+ej−1)/2, multiply by 2τj, and use the midpoint consequence of [F3]. Coercivity and Young's inequality give ∥ej∥H2−∥ej−1∥H2+ατj∥emid,j∥V2≤M2ατj∥rj∥V2. Sum through any m and apply step 2.2 to obtain ∥em∥H2+α∑j=1mτj∥emid,j∥V2≤Ce. Taking the maximum of the endpoint term and setting m=N for the sum prove the separate error bounds.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Cited to discharge well-definedness by Crank–Nicolson and cG(1) for an autonomous parabolic form.

Dependency tree · two levels

13 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