Alphabeta Math
Pipeline-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.

Exponential and integrating factor integrators

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

For a semilinear system y′=Ay+g(t,y) with a fixed finite matrix A, these methods integrate the linear part exactly and approximate only the nonlinear forcing. Variation of constants supplies the step formulas, while the series definitions and integral representations of φ1 and φ2 remain valid when A is singular or zero. The selected explicit two-stage ETD2 formula uses an exponential-Euler predictor.

The local-defect and transformed-stability lemmas give global order one for exponential Euler and order two for ETD2 on a common compact tube. The global constants may depend on A, the time interval, and the tube. The certified-action procedure accounts for exponential and φ-function approximation, field evaluation, and arithmetic errors at each step, returns its measured work counters, and its global theorem propagates the sum of the action-error bounds.

The results are finite-dimensional and fixed-matrix statements. They do not establish stiffness-uniform bounds over changing matrices or a convergence theorem for unbounded operators or PDEs; those require additional domain and commutator hypotheses. See exponential-and-integrating-factor-integrators-examples for diagonal stiff, nonnormal, zero-matrix phi, imaginary-time decay, and real-time skew-Hermitian unitary examples. Prerequisite interfaces are global-ode-and-density-error and matrix-exponential-and-phi-function-actions.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedOpen item page →

Variation of constants for a finite-matrix semilinear system

Statement

Let d≥1, A∈Md(C), 0≤s≤t≤T, and let D⊆R×Cd be open after identifying Cd with R2d. Let g:D→Cd and let y:[s,t]→Cd be a continuously differentiable solution of the first-order system y′(r)=Ay(r)+g(r,y(r)), where r↦g(r,y(r)) is continuous. With the vector integral taken componentwise after identifying Cd with R2d, y(t)=e(t−s)Ay(s)+∫ste(t−r)Ag(r,y(r)) dr.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The finite matrix, interval, curve, and semilinear differential equation in the Statement.

[F1]

First-order systems, initial value problems, and solutions on intervals: a solution is differentiable and satisfies its differential equation at every time in its interval.

[F2]

A bounded linear operator between normed spaces, The operator norm is zero on the zero domain and otherwise is max_{||v||=1} ||Tv||, and Every finite-dimensional normed space is Banach: a finite matrix is a bounded operator on the complete finite-dimensional space Cd, so The exponential series of a bounded operator applies and gives (erA)′=AerA=erAA and erAeqA=e(r+q)A.

[F3]

The derivative and the Riemann integral of a vector-valued function: an intrinsic derivative and a componentwise integral: a curve in Cd and its integral are interpreted coordinatewise in the real vector space R2d; an integral with equal limits is zero.

[F4]

A continuous function on [a,b] is Riemann integrable, by Heine-Cantor and Riemann's criterion: every continuous real coordinate of a finite-dimensional vector curve on a closed bounded interval is integrable.

[F5]

If f:[a,b]→Rm is differentiable with integrable f′ then ∫abf′=f(b)−f(a); and a bounded derivative makes f Lipschitz: for s<t and a differentiable finite-dimensional real vector curve with integrable derivative, z(t)−z(s)=∫stz′(r) dr.

[F8]

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 y=(y0,…,yd−1), set Φd(y):=(Re⁡y0,Im⁡y0,…,Re⁡yd−1,Im⁡yd−1). Applying the scalar coordinate map componentwise identifies Cd real-linearly with R2d, and ∥Φd(y)∥R2d2=∑j<d((Re⁡yj)2+(Im⁡yj)2)=∑j<d∣yj∣2=∥y∥22. It carries each real-time difference quotient to the corresponding realified quotient and preserves its limit, while matrix-vector multiplication becomes the corresponding real coordinate arithmetic. Thus the real differentiation and integration suppliers apply without changing the norm.

Proof

1.1givenF1F2F3F6F8algebra

If s=t, then e(t−s)A=Id by [F2] and the integral is zero by [F3], proving the identity. Assume henceforth s<t. By [F8], the componentwise realification preserves the Euclidean norm, and the equation in the Statement is a real first-order system to which [F1] applies. Put z(r):=e−rAy(r). By the product rule [F6], [F1], and [F2], z′(r)=−Ae−rAy(r)+e−rA(Ay(r)+g(r,y(r)))=e−rAg(r,y(r)), since A commutes with every power in the series for e−rA.

2.1step 1.1F3F4F5

The derivative in step 1.1 is continuous because the exponential and g(r,y(r)) are continuous. Thus [F3]–[F4] make it integrable componentwise, and [F5] gives e−tAy(t)−e−sAy(s)=∫ste−rAg(r,y(r)) dr.

3.1step 2.1F2F7algebra∎

Multiply the last identity by etA. By [F7], this fixed linear map commutes with the componentwise integral, and [F2] gives etAe−sA=e(t−s)A and etAe−rA=e(t−r)A. Rearranging yields the claimed formula.

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

A skew-Hermitian matrix exponential is unitary

Statement

Let d≥1, A∈Md(C), and A∗=−A. Then for every t∈R, (etA)∗etA=Id. Thus etA is unitary and preserves the Euclidean norm.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite complex matrix A with A∗=−A and the matrix exponential U(t):=etA.

[F1]

The exponential series of a bounded operator: U(0)=Id and U′(t)=AU(t).

[F6]

Rectangular matrix multiplication and the identity matrix In, including zero-sized shapes: matrix multiplication and Id have their standard coordinate meanings.

[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), the map 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 commutes with real-time difference quotients and preserves limits, so entrywise real differentiation and the zero-derivative argument apply.

Proof

1.1givenF1F2F3F7algebra

By [F1], U′(t)=AU(t). The coordinate identification [F7] makes entrywise real differentiation legitimate; taking conjugate transposes and using [F2], [F3], and A∗=−A gives (U(t)∗)′=U(t)∗A∗=−U(t)∗A.

2.1step 1.1F1F3algebra

Apply the product rule [F3] to U(t)∗U(t); its derivative is −U(t)∗AU(t)+U(t)∗AU(t)=0.

3.1step 2.1F1F4F5F6algebra∎

Each real and imaginary coordinate of U(t)∗U(t) has zero derivative, so [F4] makes every coordinate constant. Evaluating at t=0 with [F1] and [F6] gives U(t)∗U(t)=Id for all t. By [F5] and matrix multiplication, ∥U(t)v∥22=(U(t)v)∗U(t)v=v∗U(t)∗U(t)v=v∗v=∥v∥22.

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Integral representations of the first two phi functions

Statement

For every d≥1 and X∈Md(C), the series-defined functions The phi-function family by everywhere-convergent series satisfy φ1(X)=∫01e(1−θ)X dθ,φ2(X)=∫01θe(1−θ)X dθ. The integrals are componentwise. These formulas define the values at X=0 directly and do not use division by X.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: d≥1 and X∈Md(C).

[F1]

The phi-function family by everywhere-convergent series: φ1(X)=∑j≥0Xj/(j+1)! and φ2(X)=∑j≥0Xj/(j+2)!.

[F2]

The scalar and matrix phi series converge absolutely: these series converge absolutely in operator norm.

[F3]

A bounded linear operator between normed spaces, The operator norm as the least bound and as the unit-sphere or unit-ball supremum, Every finite-dimensional normed space is Banach, and The exponential series of a bounded operator: a finite matrix acts as a bounded operator on the complete finite-dimensional space, and its exponential series converges locally uniformly in operator norm.

[F5]

The operator norm is zero on the zero domain and otherwise is max_{||v||=1} ||Tv|| and The operator norm is submultiplicative and satisfies ||T^*T|| = ||T||^2: the matrix operator norm is the maximum over unit vectors and ∥Xjv∥2≤∥X∥2j∥v∥2.

[F6]

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), the componentwise map 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. Thus [F4] applies to these complex matrix-valued integrands with the stated Euclidean norm.

Proof

1.1F3F4F5F6algebra

By [F6], the componentwise complex integrals are the real vector integrals to which [F4] applies. For 0≤θ≤1, v a unit vector, and either weight w(θ)=1 or w(θ)=θ, [F5] bounds the exponential-series tail applied to v by ∑j>J∥X∥2j/j!, which tends to zero by [F3]. By [F4], the norm of the integral of the weighted tail applied to v is at most the same tail, uniformly in unit v. Taking the maximum over unit v by [F5] proves that the finite partial-sum integrals converge in operator norm to the corresponding matrix integral. The finite sums may be integrated term by term by componentwise linearity.

1.2algebra

Substituting u=1−θ gives ∫01θ(1−θ)j dθ=∫01(1−u)uj du=1/(j+1)−1/(j+2)=1/((j+1)(j+2)).

2.1F1F2step 1.1algebra

For each integer j≥0, ∫01(1−θ)j dθ=1/(j+1). Therefore the first integral equals ∑j≥0Xj/(j!(j+1))=∑j≥0Xj/(j+1)!=φ1(X) by [F1]; the equality is legitimate because the phi series converges absolutely by [F2].

3.1F1F2step 1.1step 1.2algebra∎

The second integral is consequently ∑j≥0Xj/(j!(j+1)(j+2))=∑j≥0Xj/(j+2)!=φ2(X) by [F1], with convergence justified by [F2]. At X=0 the same series gives Id and Id/2, respectively, so no quotient or invertibility assumption is involved.

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Exponential Euler and the two-stage ETD2 step maps

Definition

Let d≥1, A∈Md(C), g:[0,T]×U→Cd, and t≥0, h>0 with t+h≤T. The inputs y and all displayed stages must lie in U. The functions φk(hA) are the finite-matrix series of The phi-function family by everywhere-convergent series, whose convergence is supplied by The scalar and matrix phi series converge absolutely.

The exponential Euler map is ΨhE(t,y):=ehAy+hφ1(hA)g(t,y).

For the two-stage exponential time-differencing Runge–Kutta map ETD2, first form the exponential Euler predictor ah(t,y):=ehAy+hφ1(hA)g(t,y), and then set Ψh2(t,y):=ehAy+h(φ1(hA)−φ2(hA))g(t,y)+hφ2(hA)g(t+h,ah(t,y)). These are exact mathematical step maps; an implementation must separately account for every approximate matrix-function action and arithmetic error.

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedOpen item page →

One-step stability after removing the exact linear flow

Statement

Fix T>0, A∈Md(C), and define K+:=sup⁡0≤r≤T∥erA∥2,K−:=sup⁡0≤r≤T∥e−rA∥2,κ:=LK+K−. These constants are finite by continuity of the finite-matrix exponential. Let g be L-Lipschitz in its state variable on a common tube containing all states and stages below. For 0<h≤T and an admissible t, define the transformed maps ΘhE(t,z):=e−(t+h)AΨhE(t,etAz),Θh2(t,z):=e−(t+h)AΨh2(t,etAz). Then ∥ΘhE(t,z)−ΘhE(t,w)∥2≤(1+κh)∥z−w∥2, and ∥Θh2(t,z)−Θh2(t,w)∥2≤(1+h(κ+Tκ22))∥z−w∥2.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The finite matrix, interval, methods, Lipschitz constant, and tube in the Statement.

[F1]

Exponential Euler and the two-stage ETD2 step maps: ΨhE and Ψh2 have the displayed exponential Euler and ETD2 formulas, with the predictor ah(t,y)=ΨhE(t,y).

[F2]

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

[F5]

The operator norm is submultiplicative and satisfies ||T^*T|| = ||T||^2 and For a≤b and f:[a,b]→Rm integrable when a<b, ∥∫abf∥2≤∫ab∥f∥2; for a<b, ∥f∥2 is integrable: products obey ∥ST∥2≤∥S∥2∥T∥2, and vector integrals obey ∥∫v∥2≤∫∥v∥2.

[F6]

The exponential series of a bounded operator: for finite A on the finite-dimensional Banach space Cd, ∥e±rA∥2≤er∥A∥2 for 0≤r≤T. For 0≤r≤T, nonnegativity of ∥A∥2 gives r∥A∥2≤T∥A∥2, so scalar exponential monotonicity (The exponential function is strictly increasing) gives er∥A∥2≤eT∥A∥2. Both sets contain ∥Id∥2 at r=0 and are therefore bounded above by eT∥A∥2; Dedekind completeness: the least-upper-bound property supplies finite suprema.

[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. Thus the real vector-integral estimate [F5] applies to the complex-valued integrands with the same norms.

[A1]

On the stated tube, ∥g(r,u)−g(r,v)∥2≤L∥u−v∥2, and all transformed inputs and ETD2 predictor stages considered in the Statement remain admissible.

Proof

1.1givenF1F2F3F4F5F6F7A1algebra

By [F6], the defining sets are nonempty and bounded, so K+ and K− are finite. Substituting etAz into the exponential Euler formula and using [F2]–[F3] gives ΘhE(t,z)=z+∫0he−(t+s)Ag(t,etAz) ds. For z,w, [A1] and [F4] bound the integrand difference by K−LK+∥z−w∥2=κ∥z−w∥2; by [F7] the real integral norm inequality [F5] applies and integration over length h proves the first inequality.

2.1step 1.1F3algebra

Let at(z):=ah(t,etAz). The same identity as in step 1.1 gives e−(t+h)Aat(z)=ΘhE(t,z), hence [F3] and the first bound imply ∥at(z)−at(w)∥2≤K+(1+κh)∥z−w∥2.

3.1givenF1F2F4F5F7A1step 2.1algebra∎

Applying [F2] to both ETD2 coefficients gives Θh2(t,z)=z+∫0he−(t+s)A[(1−s/h)g(t,etAz)+(s/h)g(t+h,at(z))] ds. By [A1] and step 2.1, the bracket difference for z,w has norm at most LK+[(1−s/h)+(1+κh)s/h]∥z−w∥2. Multiplying by the kernel bound K− and applying [F7] to use the real integral norm bound [F5] gives coefficient 1+κh+κ2h2/2, since both weight integrals equal h/2. As h≤T, this is at most 1+h(κ+Tκ2/2).

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedOpen item page →

Exponential Euler has a second-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 solve y′=Ay+g(r,y(r)) on [t,t+h], with admissible states and stages. Put q(r):=g(r,y(r)). Suppose q is continuously differentiable with sup⁡t≤r≤t+h∥q′(r)∥2≤Q1, and let K+:=sup⁡0≤s≤T∥esA∥2. Then the exact-start local defect of the exponential Euler map satisfies ∥ΨhE(t,y(t))−y(t+h)∥2≤K+Q12h2.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The exact semilinear solution, its forcing curve q, the finite matrix, and the bounds in the Statement.

[F1]

Variation of constants for a finite-matrix semilinear system: y(t+h)=ehAy(t)+∫0he(h−s)Aq(t+s) ds.

[F2]

Exponential Euler and the two-stage ETD2 step maps: ΨhE(t,y(t))=ehAy(t)+hφ1(hA)q(t).

[F3]

Integral representations of the first two phi functions: hφ1(hA)q(t)=∫0he(h−s)Aq(t) ds.

[F4]

If f:[a,b]→Rm is differentiable with integrable f′ then ∫abf′=f(b)−f(a); and a bounded derivative makes f Lipschitz: a continuously differentiable vector curve with derivative norm bounded by Q1 is Q1-Lipschitz on its closed interval, including its endpoints.

[A1]

The forcing derivative obeys the stated bound Q1, and ∥esA∥2≤K+ for 0≤s≤h.

[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 maps real-time difference quotients to realified difference quotients and preserves their limits, so q and its derivative are legitimate real vector data for [F4] with the same norm bound.

Proof

1.1F1F2F3F6algebra

By [F6], K+ is finite. Subtract [F1] from [F2] and replace the constant forcing term by its integral form [F3]. The local defect is ∫0he(h−s)A(q(t)−q(t+s)) ds.

2.1F4F5F7A1step 1.1algebra∎

By [F4], [F7], and [A1], ∥q(t+s)−q(t)∥2≤Q1s. The semigroup factor has norm at most K+; [F5] bounds the norm of step 1.1 by K+Q1∫0hs ds=K+Q1h2/2.

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedOpen item page →

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.

AlgorithmAlgorithm: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableOpen item page →

Certified-action implementation of exponential Euler and ETD2

Definition

Inputs: T>0, d≥1, A∈Md(C), a state y∈U⊆Cd, a step (t,h) with 0≤t<t+h≤T, a method choice E or 2, a field g:[0,T]×U→Cd, a nonnegative state-Lipschitz bound L on an admitted tube containing the input and, when method 2 is selected, the exact and computed ETD2 predictor stages, a certified semigroup bound ∥esA∥2≤Meωs for 0≤s≤h with M≥1 and ω∈R, finite Arnoldi budgets 1≤m0≤d, 1≤m1≤d+1, 1≤m2≤d+2, certified field-evaluation, membership, scalar-enclosure, and vector-arithmetic providers, and a finite integer cap Cmax⁡≥0 for all nested backend/provider calls in this step. Each service call must terminate for the supplied finite budgets, supply a finite pre-call upper bound for its total nested call count, and return its actual call count and work counters. The step is admissible only when the initial state and every evaluated stage have certified membership in U and, for method 2, the exact ETD2 predictor also has certified membership in U; every needed service-call bound must fit within the remaining Cmax⁡.

Arnoldi configuration inputs: a nonnegative breakdown threshold τbr, a choice of exact-arithmetic Arnoldi or a finite-precision Arnoldi backend, and a reduced-action configuration provider R for Arnoldi projection for exponential and phi-function actions. For each generated reduced request (Hj,βe1,τ), R supplies the exactly represented call time τ, a rational upper bound on ∣τ∣, rational upper bounds on ∥Hj∥2 and ∥βe1∥2, a positive rational tolerance, integer budgets smax⁡≥1 and pmax⁡≥0, and certified Taylor, scalar-scaling, and final-projection arithmetic providers. Here τ=h for the direct exponential request and τ=1 for an augmented request. These configuration services obey the same finite-termination and nested-count contracts as the other providers. If an exact call time or any required bound or configuration is unavailable, the action request returns inconclusive.

For each nonzero Arnoldi action request with matrix B, positive time τ, and input u, the backend must certify a relation BVj=VjHj+γvj+1ej∗+D+Ω with β,γ,ηi,ηorth,ηinit,νV,ϵred,ηproj≥0, ∥vj+1∥2=1 when γ>0, ∥di∥2≤ηi, ∥Ω∥2≤ηorth, ∥u−βVje1∥2≤ηinit, ∥Vj∥2≤νV, μ2(B)≤ρB with ρB≥0, and ∥Hj∥2≤ρH with ρH≥0. Its reduced-action certificate ϵred may be used only when the reduced scaled-Taylor call has success: Scaled Taylor action has a finite normwise truncation and roundoff certificate then bounds that call's error, and any subsequent scaling error is included. The backend also returns a final-projection error ηproj, an actual work record, and its total nested-call count. Missing or uncertified bounds, work counters, or call counts make that request inconclusive. In exact Arnoldi, the exact relation, initial representation, and orthonormal basis supply the corresponding relation bounds.

For each positive-time request, compute the full action-error bound from Arnoldi action error is the semigroup-weighted residual integral using ϵact:=eρBτηinit+βτeτmax⁡(ρB,ρH)(γ+∑i=1jηi2+ηorth)+νVϵred+ηproj. If any required quantity or its upward-rounded arithmetic enclosure is missing, return inconclusive. Define an action request Act⁡(k,v) for k=0,1,2 as follows. If v=0, return the exact zero vector with bound zero and zero action work before constructing any augmented matrix. For k=0 and v≠0, call Arnoldi projection for exponential and phi-function actions with matrix A, time h, input v, index 0, and budget m0. For k=1,2 and v≠0, use Phi recurrence and augmented-matrix action identities: let Jk have ones on its superdiagonal, let e1,ek be the first and last coordinate vectors in Ck, set Bk(hA,v):=[hAve1∗0Jk],wk:=[0ek], and call Arnoldi projection for exponential and phi-function actions with matrix Bk(hA,v), time 1, input wk, index 0, and budget mk. Every nonzero call also receives threshold τbr, the supplied Arnoldi mode/backend, and reduced-action configuration provider R; pass each generated (Hj,βe1,τ) to R for the index-zero reduced call. Here wk≠0; the zero-phi-input shortcut was applied to v before forming this augmented request. By Phi recurrence and augmented-matrix action identities, the top d coordinates of eBk(hA,v)wk equal φk(hA)v. In either nonzero case compute the full action-error bound using its certified Arnoldi relation and successful reduced-action certificate, then project to the requested vector; coordinate projection cannot increase the Euclidean error. Here φ0(hA)=ehA.

The calling implementation instruments each Arnoldi projection for exponential and phi-function actions request and its nested providers, then returns the actual work counters and total nested-call count with that action result. The work record is W=(NA,Nother,Wdense): NA counts actual products with A, including the upper-left hA multiplication inside each augmented Bk product; Nother counts products with every other matrix, including augmented and reduced matrices and final projection matrices; Wdense records the backend's declared matrix-function work for dense implementations. These are type-specific counters rather than a sum. The algorithm sums each field across every service call and returns the totals. Each backend/provider call contributes its actual nested-call count to C; a call may begin only when its certified pre-call upper count fits in Cmax⁡−C. If a count is missing, inconsistent, or exceeds its pre-call bound, return inconclusive with the accrued counters. Set Bh:=Memax⁡(ω,0)h; Use Bh and Bh/2 as the respective operator-norm bounds for φ1(hA) and φ2(hA). Their validity, and termination and work-counter accounting under the stated service contracts, are proved separately in Certified action bounds control one exponential-integrator step ↗.

Outputs: a candidate next state when available, a nonnegative one-step action-error bound δn only with certified status, the actual work counters described above, total nested-call count C, and status certified, inconclusive, or invalid-input.

Procedure:

  1. Initialize all work counters and C to zero. Reject malformed dimensions, budgets, method choice, time step, Arnoldi threshold/mode/reduced-action configuration, semigroup/evaluation/arithmetic configuration, or a certified-false membership check for the input state or, when method 2 is selected, the exact ETD2 predictor with invalid-input. If any needed membership check or service-call upper bound cannot be certified, or the global call budget cannot fit a required service call, return inconclusive. A failed provider response with no sound bound is inconclusive.
  2. Evaluate g(t,y) as q~0 with a certified error η0, reserving its pre-call upper count first and then adding its actual count to C. Request Act⁡(0,y) and Act⁡(1,q~0), reserving and accumulating their call/work counters. A zero phi input is handled by Act⁡ before any Arnoldi call. If a request is inconclusive, return inconclusive without accepting a step. Denote the candidates by E^y and P^1 and their bounds by ϵ0,ϵ1.
  3. For method E, form y~+=E^y+hP^1. If αE bounds the scalar/vector arithmetic error in this combination and its provider call fits the remaining call cap, accumulate its counters and set δn=ϵ0+h(ϵ1+Bhη0)+αE.
  4. For method 2, first form the predictor candidate a~=E^y+hP^1 using a certified arithmetic provider and accumulate its work/call counters. Check (t+h,a~) for certified membership in the domain and admitted tube before evaluating g(t+h,a~). A certified-false membership result returns invalid-input; an inconclusive membership result returns inconclusive. If αa bounds the predictor arithmetic error, set ηa:=ϵ0+h(ϵ1+Bhη0)+αa. Evaluate g(t+h,a~) as q~a with a certified error ηag, reserving and accumulating its service counters. Request Act⁡(2,q~0) and Act⁡(2,q~a); if either request is inconclusive, return inconclusive without accepting a step. With their action-error bounds ϵ20,ϵ2a, form y~+=E^y+h(P^1−P^20+P^2a), where P^20 and P^2a are the two φ2 candidates. If α2 bounds the final combination arithmetic error and its provider call fits the remaining call cap, accumulate its counters and set δn=ϵ0+h(ϵ1+Bhη0+ϵ20+Bh2η0+ϵ2a+Bh2(Lηa+ηag))+α2.
  5. Before returning certified, verify all action calls have certified Arnoldi relations, reduced-action status success, and certified final projections; all field-evaluation and arithmetic bounds are finite; all returned work/call counters are present and within their pre-call bounds; and the displayed scalar calculations have certified upward enclosures. If any check fails, return inconclusive and do not accept the step. Return the accrued work record and C with every status.

Every scalar bound computation, including ϵact, Bh, and δn, is rounded upward with a certified enclosure; if its enclosure is missing or fails to dominate the exact expression, return inconclusive. The returned work record is the sum of the actual counts supplied by the services for the action requests and arithmetic/evaluation operations. The finite call cap and each finite nested-action budget are checked before calls; the exact mathematical map is not a zero-cost oracle.

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedOpen item page →

Certified action bounds control one exponential-integrator step

Statement

Suppose Certified-action implementation of exponential Euler and ETD2 returns certified status with per-action, field-evaluation, arithmetic, and semigroup bounds as in its Definition. Let ΨhE or Ψh2 be the corresponding exact map of Exponential Euler and the two-stage ETD2 step maps, and let Ψ~h be the returned candidate map. Then the algorithm's reported value satisfies ∥Ψ~h(y)−Ψh(y)∥2≤δn.

For the algorithm's semigroup data, Bh:=Memax⁡(ω,0)h satisfies ∥φ1(hA)∥2≤Bh,∥φ2(hA)∥2≤Bh/2. For every admissible input whose services obey the declared finite-termination, pre-call upper-count, and valid returned-count/work-record contracts, the algorithm terminates with one of its stated statuses. It returns a total nested-call count 0≤C≤Cmax⁡, and each component of its work record is the sum of the actual corresponding service counters accrued before return. These are counts of the declared work, without a wall-clock bound.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A certified algorithm run and the exact method map with the same input data. For the termination and accounting clause, take any admissible input with the finite-service, pre-call upper-count, and valid returned-count/work-record contracts in the Statement.

[F1]

Phi recurrence and augmented-matrix action identities: for k=1,2, the top block of eBk(hA,v)wk is exactly φk(hA)v.

[F2]

Arnoldi action error is the semigroup-weighted residual integral: for positive action time τ, a certified relation bounds the action error by an initial-mismatch term, the residual integral, the reduced-action error multiplied by ∥V∥2, and the final-projection error.

[F3]

Certified-action implementation of exponential Euler and ETD2, The Euclidean logarithmic norm of a complex matrix: each nonzero action request supplies ρB≥max⁡(0,μ2(B)), ρH≥∥H∥2, ηinit, νV≥∥V∥2, and certified Arnoldi/reduced/projection data; its action bound is eρBτηinit+βτeτmax⁡(ρB,ρH)(γ+∑iηi2+ηorth)+νVϵred+ηproj. Here μ2 is the logarithmic norm. For k≥1, the candidate’s top d coordinates approximate φk(hA)v and coordinate projection cannot increase Euclidean error.

[F4]

Exponential Euler and the two-stage ETD2 step maps: the exact maps are ΨhE=ehAy+hφ1(hA)g(t,y) and Ψh2=ehAy+h[(φ1−φ2)g(t,y)+φ2g(t+h,ah)].

[F5]

Integral representations of the first two phi functions: φ1(hA)=∫01e(1−θ)hAdθ and φ2(hA)=∫01θe(1−θ)hAdθ, with componentwise matrix integrals.

[F8]

The exponential series of a bounded operator: ∥esH∥2≤es∥H∥2 for s≥0.

[F9]

The exponential function is strictly increasing: the scalar exponential is increasing, so certified upper bounds on exponents give upper bounds on their exponentials.

[F10]

Cauchy–Schwarz: ∣⟨u,v⟩∣≤∥u∥∥v∥, with equality exactly for linearly dependent vectors: coordinate functionals satisfy ∣ej∗w∣≤∥w∥2 for unit coordinate vectors.

[F11]

Scaled Taylor action has a finite normwise truncation and roundoff certificate and Arnoldi projection for exponential and phi-function actions: reduced_action_status=success requires a successful scaled-Taylor call; its returned error bound is valid by the theorem, and for k≥1 the certified scaling error is added to form ϵred. Thus the reduced-action premise required by [F2] is met whenever the outer algorithm accepts a request.

[F12]

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: the componentwise map 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. Thus For a≤b and f:[a,b]→Rm integrable when a<b, ∥∫abf∥2≤∫ab∥f∥2; for a<b, ∥f∥2 is integrable applies to continuous complex-vector curves through this norm-preserving realification. Componentwise linearity (Integrable functions on [a,b] form a set closed under sums and scalar multiples, and ∫ab(λf+μg)=λ∫abf+μ∫abg) permits a fixed matrix/vector action to pass through these integrals. The exponential curves are continuous by The exponential series of a bounded operator.

[F13]

Certified-action implementation of exponential Euler and ETD2: the procedure has a finite sequence of method branches, initializes its work record and nested-call counter to zero, starts each service only when its pre-call upper count fits the remaining cap, adds each returned actual count and work record, and returns the accrued counters with every status.

[A1]

The field-evaluation errors, Lipschitz constant, semigroup bound, and arithmetic errors used by the algorithm are valid upper bounds; for ETD2, the exact and computed predictors lie in the common admitted tube where the Lipschitz bound applies.

Proof

1.1A1F2F3F7F8F9F10F11algebra

For a nonzero action request, [F11] makes the scaled-Taylor output certificate a valid ϵred; put c(s)=esHβe1 in [F2]. By [F8] and ρH≥∥H∥2, ∥c(s)∥2≤βesρH; [F10] gives ∣ej∗c(s)∣≤∥c(s)∥2. Since ρB≥μ2(B), [F9] bounds the initial term in [F2] by eρBτηinit and its integral by βτeτmax⁡(ρB,ρH)(γ+∑iηi2+ηorth). The reduced and final projection terms are at most νVϵred+ηproj by [F7]. Thus [F3]'s ϵact bounds the full exponential-action error. For a zero input, the algorithm returns the exact zero action with bound zero.

1.2A1F5F7F9F12algebra

For 0≤θ≤1, put s=(1−θ)h. Then 0≤s≤h and ωs≤max⁡(ω,0)h: for ω≥0 this follows from s≤h, and for ω<0 it follows from s≥0. The semigroup bound in [A1] and scalar monotonicity [F9] therefore give ∥e(1−θ)hA∥2≤Meωs≤Bh. For each unit vector v∈Cd, [F5] and componentwise linearity in [F12] yield φ1(hA)v=∫01e(1−θ)hAv dθ and the analogous identity with weight θ for φ2. These curves are continuous by [F12]. Apply the norm inequality in [F12] and the matrix-action inequality in [F7]: the two norms are at most Bh∫01dθ=Bh and Bh∫01θdθ=Bh/2. Taking the operator-norm maximum over unit vectors in [F7], valid since d≥1 is an input condition, proves both asserted phi bounds.

2.1F1F3F4A1step 1.2algebra

For exponential Euler, the exact formula [F4] applies ehA to y and hφ1(hA) to g(t,y). [F3] supplies action-error bounds for ehAy and the full augmented action whose top block is φ1(hA)q~0 by [F1]; coordinate projection cannot increase its error. Replacing g(t,y) by q~0 changes the phi action by at most Bhη0 by step 1.2 and [A1]. Multiplication by h and the certified combination error αE give the exponential-Euler δn.

3.1A1F3F4step 2.1algebra

For ETD2, the predictor's difference from the exact predictor ah(t,y) is at most ϵ0+h(ϵ1+Bhη0)+αa=ηa by the triangle inequality, using the exponential-Euler estimate from step 2.1. Therefore the exact stage forcing differs from the evaluated q~a by at most Lηa+ηag, using [A1].

4.1F1F3F4A1step 1.2step 3.1algebra

Using the phi bounds proved in step 1.2, in the final ETD2 update, the φ1 action at g(t,y) contributes at most ϵ1+Bhη0; the φ2 action at g(t,y) contributes at most ϵ20+(Bh/2)η0; and the stage φ2 action contributes at most ϵ2a+(Bh/2)(Lηa+ηag). Each phi action certificate follows from [F1] and step 1.1. The exponential action contributes ϵ0. Multiplying the three phi terms by h, adding the certified final arithmetic error α2, and applying the triangle inequality gives exactly the ETD2 δn in [F3].

5.1givenF13inductionalgebra∎

Under the stated service contracts, each started backend/provider call terminates, including every call nested inside an Arnoldi or reduced-action request. Outside these services the procedure has a fixed finite sequence of branches: at most two action requests for method E and four for method 2, together with finitely many field, membership, enclosure, and vector-arithmetic requests. A missing certificate or insufficient pre-call allowance returns immediately, and every started service returns in finite time by its contract, so the entire algorithm terminates. For the counters, begin with C=0 and W=0. Before a service starts, its certified upper count b satisfies b≤Cmax⁡−C; its valid returned actual count c obeys 0≤c≤b, so the update gives 0≤C+c≤Cmax⁡. Induction over the finitely many completed top-level services proves the count bound, with their nested work already included in their returned records. At each such update, the algorithm also adds the actual service work record componentwise to W. The same finite induction makes each component exactly the sum of its accrued actual counters; an early return retains these accrued totals. Zero-input action shortcuts contribute zero action work. This proves termination and the advertised accounting without adding calls or presuming that a missing mathematical certificate succeeds.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedOpen item page →

Fixed-matrix global orders and certified-action error propagation

Statement

Let T>0, N≥1, h=T/N, tn=nh, A∈Md(C), and let D⊆R×Cd be open after realification, with g:D→Cd. Let y:[0,T]→Cd solve y′(t)=Ay(t)+g(t,y(t)) Suppose the exact path, every numerical state, and every ETD2 predictor lie in a common compact time-state tube T⊂D with positive margin. Also assume the hypotheses of One-step stability after removing the exact linear flow hold on this tube: compared inputs in each time fiber and both associated ETD2 predictor states are admissible, and g is Lg-Lipschitz between the states and stages used there. Finally, let q(t):=g(t,y(t)) be C2 with ∥q′∥2≤Q1 and ∥q′′∥2≤Q2. Assume ∥esA∥2≤Meωs(0≤s≤T),M≥1,ω∈R, and put K+:=sup⁡0≤s≤T∥esA∥2,K−:=sup⁡0≤s≤T∥e−sA∥2,κ:=LgK+K−. These finite-matrix suprema are finite; in particular K+≤Memax⁡(ω,0)T. Define CE:=K+Q12,C2:=K+(Q2+LgCE2),LE:=κ,L2:=κ+Tκ22. For an exact-action exponential-Euler run use p=1,Cp=CE,Lp=LE; for exact-action ETD2 use p=2,Cp=C2,Lp=L2. If Γ(L,T):=(eLT−1)/L for L>0 and Γ(0,T):=T, then exact initial data give max⁡0≤n≤N∥yn−y(tn)∥2≤K+K−CpΓ(Lp,T)hp.

Now let a certified-action implementation return candidates y~n+1 and certified one-step action-error bounds δn as in Certified action bounds control one exponential-integrator step. Starting from y~0=y(0), its error obeys max⁡0≤n≤N∥y~n−y(tn)∥2≤K+K−eLpT(CpThp+∑j=0N−1δj). Thus local orders one and two imply fixed-A, finite-dimensional global orders one and two when exact actions are used or when ∑jδj=O(hp). The constants may depend on A, T, the tube, and the derivative bounds. The bounds are not asserted uniformly over varying matrices or growing dimensions; no unbounded-operator/PDE convergence theorem follows without the additional domain and commutator hypotheses such a theorem requires.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The matrix, grid, solution, tube, regularity, Lipschitz and semigroup bounds, and numerical action certificates in the Statement.

[F1]

First-order systems, initial value problems, and solutions on intervals: the exact solution is differentiable and satisfies y′(t)=Ay(t)+g(t,y(t)).

[F2]

Exponential Euler has a second-order local defect: the exact-start exponential-Euler defect is at most CEh2.

[F3]

The two-stage ETD2 method has a third-order local defect: the exact-start ETD2 defect is at most C2h3.

[F4]

One-step stability after removing the exact linear flow: after the change z(t)=e−tAy(t), the exponential-Euler and ETD2 one-step maps have stability constants LE and L2 in the form 1+Lph.

[F5]

Certified action bounds control one exponential-integrator step: when the action algorithm is certified, ∥Ψ~h,n(v)−Ψh,n(v)∥2≤δn.

[F11]

A compact set and a disjoint closed set have a positive norm-distance gap: a compact subset of an open subset of a finite-dimensional normed space has positive distance from its closed complement when that complement is nonempty; if it is empty, every positive radius is a margin.

[F12]

Metric continuity characterisations, with countable choice for the sequential converse: a continuous map between metric spaces has open preimages of open sets.

[F13]

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), the componentwise map Φd(v):=(Re⁡v0,Im⁡v0,…,Re⁡vd−1,Im⁡vd−1) is real-linear, with ∥Φd(v)∥R2d2=∑j<d∣vj∣2=∥v∥22. It preserves real-time difference quotients and their limits, so the real one-step theorem applies to the realified system and its transformed state without changing the error norm.

[F14]

The exponential series of a bounded operator gives ∥e−sA∥2≤es∥A∥2 for 0≤s≤T. Since s∥A∥2≤T∥A∥2, scalar monotonicity (The exponential function is strictly increasing) gives es∥A∥2≤eT∥A∥2. Thus the set defining K− contains ∥Id∥2 at s=0 and has that finite upper bound; Dedekind completeness: the least-upper-bound property supplies its finite supremum. Likewise ωs≤max⁡(ω,0)T, so the assumed semigroup bound and the same scalar monotonicity give K+≤Memax⁡(ω,0)T and a finite supremum for its nonempty defining set.

[L1]

Global error from uniform one-step defect and stability: on a common compact tube, exact-start local defect Chp+1, one-step stability 1+Lh, and exact initial values imply the fixed-time global bound CΓ(L,T)hp.

[A1]

The transformed open domain and compact tube satisfy the hypotheses stated above; the realified norm and coordinate calculus are as in [F13].

Proof

1.1givenF1F2F3F6F9F13A1algebra

By [F13], the complex state equation and the transformed equation are real finite-dimensional systems with the same Euclidean error norm. Set z(t):=e−tAy(t). The product rule and [F1], [F6] give z′(t)=e−tAg(t,y(t))=e−tAg(t,etAz(t)). Conjugating the exact numerical map and exact endpoint by e−(t+h)A cancels their common ehA linear term and multiplies their difference by e−(t+h)A. Hence [F2], [F3], and [F9] give transformed exact-start defects at most K−CEh2 and K−C2h3.

2.1givenF4F6F9F10F11F12F14L1step 1.1algebra

By [F14], both amplification suprema used here are finite. Set Dz:={(t,z):(t,etAz)∈D}, open as the preimage of D under the continuous map (t,z)↦(t,etAz) by [F6], [F9], [F10], and [F12]. The map (t,u)↦(t,e−tAu) continuously sends T to a compact tube in Dz containing the transformed exact path, states, and stages; [F10]–[F11] give positive margin. Its stability is 1+Lph by [F4], and its local constant is K−Cp by step 1.1. Thus [L1] applies with exact initial data.

2.2givenF2F3F4F5F6F9step 1.1algebra

For certified actions, put z~n:=e−tnAy~n and rn:=∥z~n−z(tn)∥2. Stability [F4], local defect [F2] or [F3] transformed by [F6] and step 1.1, and perturbation bound [F5] transformed using [F9] by e−(tn+1)A give by the triangle inequality rn+1≤(1+Lph)rn+K−Cphp+1+K−δn, with r0=0.

3.1givenF4F9L1step 2.1algebra

Applying [L1] as in step 2.1 yields max⁡n∥zn−z(tn)∥2≤K−CpΓ(Lp,T)hp. Since y(tn)=etnAz(tn) and [F9] with the definition of K+ bounds multiplication by etnA, this gives the first displayed bound.

3.2step 2.2inductionalgebra

Induction in step 2.2 gives rn≤K−∑j=0n−1(1+Lph)n−1−j(Cphp+1+δj): the base case is the empty sum, and multiplying the bound for rn by 1+Lph and adding the j=n defect and action terms gives the formula for rn+1.

4.1givenF7F8F9step 3.2algebra∎

Since 1+Lph≤eLph by [F7], each power in step 3.2 is at most eLpT by [F8] and nh≤T. Also Nh=T, so NCphp+1=CpThp. Thus rn≤K−eLpT(CpThp+∑j=0N−1δj). Multiplication by etnA and [F9] with the bound K+ give the certified-action estimate for every n, hence for their maximum.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

None yet.

Sources