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.

✓ 2 results · all verified · 2 also independently AI-judged
Every result on this page is machine-checked by a proof checker and read in full and owner-audited; the judge is an additional, independent cross-model AI review of the proofs; all 2 also cleared it.

One-step ODE Consistency and Local Error — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

Summary

Compute Euler's local defect exactly on y′=y and verify its order-one behavior. A separate explicit-midpoint calculation on y′=∣t∣ shows why a nonsmooth field can destroy the smooth-field order-two local error bound.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Forward Euler on the scalar linear equation y′=y

Example

For the IVP y′=y, y(0)=1, the exact solution is y(t)=et. The forward Euler map is Ψh(t,z)=z+hz. Its local defect from the exact value is

δh(t;y)=et(1+h−eh).

For every fixed finite interval [0,T] with T>0, this defect is Θ(h2) uniformly in t∈[0,T−h] as h↓0, so the local order is exactly one. The one-step stability factor is 1+h.

Verification

Given: h>0, y(t)=et, and the Euler map Ψh(t,z)=z+hz. Verify the defect and its order.

[F1] One-step ODE methods, local defect, uniform order, and step stability: the local defect is Ψh(t,y(t))−y(t+h), and order one requires a uniform O(h2) bound.

[F2] Forward Euler has uniform local order one and a one-step Lipschitz bound: under its continuous-partial-derivative and uniform-bound hypotheses, Euler has a componentwise O(h2) local defect and one-step bound 1+Lh.

[F3] Multivariable Taylor formula with a Lagrange remainder along a line segment: for a C2 scalar function, Taylor's formula through degree one has a second-derivative Lagrange remainder at an interior point of the segment.

1.1givenF1F2algebra

Fix T>0, let R:=eT(1+T)+1, and take V=(−1,T+1)×(−R,R) and K=[0,T]×[−R+1,R−1]. These are an open domain with convex state fibers and a compact subset K⊂V. For f(t,z)=z, the bounds in [F2] hold throughout V with F1=R, Mt,1=0, M11=1, and L=1. The function y(t)=et solves the IVP, its graph on [0,T] lies in K, and for every 0<h≤T−t the Euler output state et(1+h) lies between 0 and eT(1+T)=R−1, so its input and output pairs lie in K. Starting from et, Euler returns et(1+h) and the exact endpoint is et+h=eteh. Therefore [F1] gives δh(t;y)=et(1+h−eh).

2.1givenF3step 1.1algebra

Apply [F3] to s↦es at 0 with increment h: there is θh∈(0,h) with eh=1+h+12eθhh2. Thus ∣δh(t;y)∣=12et+θhh2.

3.1F1step 2.1algebra

Since 0<θh<h, for 0≤t≤T−h we have 12h2≤∣δh(t;y)∣≤12eTh2. The lower and upper bounds establish uniform Θ(h2) error, hence order exactly one under [F1].

4.1F2algebra∎

For any scalar inputs u,v, ∣Ψh(t,u)−Ψh(t,v)∣=∣(1+h)(u−v)∣=(1+h)∣u−v∣. This verifies the stated stability factor; it also agrees with [F2] for f(t,z)=z and L=1.

Remarks

The exact calculation is local: it does not turn a local defect estimate into a global trajectory bound. The Taylor formula here is used only for this smooth scalar example.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

A time kink reduces the explicit midpoint local order

Example

On the domain D=R2, consider y′=∣t∣ with exact solution y(t)=12t∣t∣ and the explicit midpoint step

Mh(t,z):=z+hf(t+h2,z+h2f(t,z)).

For 0<h≤1, use the fixed compact time-state rectangle K=[−1,1]×[−1,1]. On the step starting at th=−h/2, the exact solution segment, the method input, midpoint stage, and method output all lie in K. This step has local defect −h2/4. As h↓0 these admitted starting times stay in [−1,1] and the defect is Θ(h2), so the uniform local order-two bound O(h3) fails at the time kink.

Verification

Given: 0<h≤1, f(t,z)=∣t∣, y(t)=12t∣t∣, and the displayed explicit midpoint map. Compute its local defect on [−h/2,h/2].

[F1] One-step ODE methods, local defect, uniform order, and step stability: the local defect is method output from an exact starting value minus the exact endpoint; uniform local order two requires a uniform O(h3) bound.

1.1givenalgebra

For t<0, y(t)=−t2/2 and y′(t)=−t=∣t∣; for t>0, y(t)=t2/2 and y′(t)=t=∣t∣. At t=0, lim⁡s→0(y(s)−y(0))/s=lim⁡s→0∣s∣/2=0=∣0∣. Hence y is the exact solution through y(0)=0.

2.1givenF1step 1.1algebra

At th=−h/2, the exact value is y(th)=−h2/8 and the explicit midpoint stage time is 0, where f(0,z)=0 for every stage value z. Thus Mh(th,y(th))=y(th)=−h2/8, while y(th+h)=y(h/2)=h2/8.

3.1F1step 2.1algebra

Therefore δh(th;y)=−h2/4. The exact segment has ∣t∣≤h/2≤1/2 and ∣y(t)∣≤1/8; the input and output states are −h2/8, and the midpoint stage state is h2/8, all in [−1,1]. Their time coordinates also lie in [−1,1], so the definition applies on the fixed compact set K. If a uniform order-two bound held, h2/4≤Ch3 for every 0<h≤1, forcing C≥1/(4h) as h↓0, which is impossible.

4.1F1givenstep 1.1algebra∎

For an arbitrary t∈R and h>0, the method increment from the exact state is h∣t+h/2∣. If [t,t+h] lies on either side of 0, then y is quadratic there and this increment equals y(t+h)−y(t), so the defect is zero. If t<0<t+h, put r=−t/h∈(0,1). Using y(t)=−t2/2 and y(t+h)=(t+h)2/2 gives δh(t;y)=−h2r2 for 0<r≤1/2 and δh(t;y)=−h2(1−r)2 for 1/2≤r<1. Thus every crossing step has ∣δh(t;y)∣≤h2/4, and the same bound holds for every step. In particular, it holds uniformly for all admitted starts and steps in K; together with step 3.1, the uniform local order is exactly one.

Remarks

Hairer–Nørsett–Wanner's midpoint construction and its order discussion assume sufficient smoothness; this verification does not import a smooth-field order theorem. It directly disproves an O(h3) local bound at the nonsmooth time kink.

Sources