All of these methods are zero-stable in the sense of Zero-stability of multistep methods, in the limit as the time step size τ→0.[1] Yet for some experiments with fixed τ, as in Demo 11.2.2, we have observed exponential growth in the different limit n→∞.
Observe that if A has the eigenvalue decomposition A=VDV−1, then
where y(t)=V−1u(t). Because D is diagonal, the dynamics of the components of y are completely decoupled: each row is a self-contained equation of the form yj′=λjyj, where λj is an eigenvalue of A.
The diagonalization argument suggests that we can look at the scalar problems
arising from the eigenvalues. These eigenvalues may not be real numbers, so in this section, i stands for the imaginary unit, not an integer index. If we write λ in real and imaginary parts as λ=α+iβ, then by Euler’s identity, the exact solution of (11.3.3) has magnitude
We now consider the counterpart of this observation for the solution produced by a numerical IVP solver.
The fact that absolute stability depends only on the product ζ=τλ, and not independently on the individual factors, is a result of how the IVP solvers are defined, as we will see below. Since λ has units of inverse time according to (11.3.3), ζ is dimensionless.
Each numerical IVP solver has its own collection of ζ values for which it is absolutely stable.
Stability regions for the most common IVP integrators are given in Figure 11.3.1 and Figure 11.3.2. Note that those for the implicit Adams-Moulton methods are larger than those for the explicit Adams-Bashforth methods of the same order. For the implicit backward differentiation methods, the exteriors of the curves provide large regions of stability, but significant portions of the imaginary axis may be excluded. Finally, while the single-step Runge-Kutta methods have smaller regions of stability, those of orders 3 and 4 do include significant portions of the imaginary axis.
For any particular method and value of λ in (11.3.3), we can use the stability region to deduce which, if any, values of the time step τ will give bounded solutions. Both the magnitude and the argument (angle) of λ play a role in determining such constraints.
Example 11.3.4 does not contradict our earlier statements about the zero stability and convergence of Euler’s method in general, even for the case λ=i. But those statements are based on the limit τ→0 for t in a finite interval [a,b]. Both this limit and the limit t→∞ imply the number of steps n goes to infinity, but the limits behave differently.
The fact that implicit methods have larger stability regions than their explicit counterparts is the primary justification for using them. While they have larger work requirements per step, they sometimes can take steps that are orders of magnitude larger than explicit methods and still remain stable.
When adaptive time stepping methods are used, as in most software for IVPs, the automatically determined time step is chosen to satisfy absolute stability requirements (otherwise errors grow exponentially). This phenomenon was manifested in Demo 11.2.5: in the explicit IVP method rk23, error control forced tiny step sizes compared to those used by Rodas4P, which is based on implicit methods.
Now we return to the semidiscretization (11.2.5) of the heat equation, which was solved by Euler in Demo 11.2.2 and backward Euler in Demo 11.2.4.
The matrix Dxx occurring in (11.2.5) for semidiscretization of the periodic heat equation has eigenvalues that can be found explicitly. Assuming that x∈[0,1) (with periodic boundary conditions), for which h=1/m, then the eigenvalues are
This result agrees with the observation in Demo 11.3.5 that the eigenvalues are real and negative. Furthermore, they lie within the interval [−4m2,0]. In Euler time integration, this implies that −4τm2≥−2, or τ≥1/(2m2)=O(m−2). For backward Euler, there is no time step restriction, and we say that backward Euler is unconditionally stable for this problem.
In summary, three things happen as h→0:
The spatial discretization becomes more accurate like O(h2).
The size of the matrix increases like O(h−1).
If we use an explicit time stepping method, then absolute stability requires O(h−2) steps.
The last restriction becomes rather burdensome as h→0, i.e., as we improve the spatial discretization, which is why implicit methods are preferred for diffusion. While any convergent IVP solver will get the right solution as τ→0, the results are exponentially large nonsense until τ is small enough to satisfy absolute stability.
✍ Of the following methods, which would be unsuitable for a problem having eigenvalues on the imaginary axis? Justify your answer(s).
(a) AM2 (b) AB2 (c) RK2 (d) RK3
✍ Of the following methods, which would have a time step restriction for a problem with real, negative eigenvalues? Justify your answer(s).
(a) AM2 (b) AM4 (c) BD4 (d) RK4
✍ Let Dxx be m×m and given by (11.2.4). For any integer k∈{0,…,m−1}, define ω=exp(2ikπ/m) and v=[1,ω,ω2,…,ωm−1]. Show that v is an eigenvector of Dxx, with eigenvalue