Rounding error of trapezoidal method

I'm working with the Modified Euler method sometimes called Heun's method or explicit trapezoidal method. I have a book on ordinary differential equations numerical analysis that claims:

The effect of rounding error on the accuracy of the numerical solution is very similar to the error of the numerical differentiation formulas: the truncation error decreases with h but the rounding error increases and there exist an optimal value for which the sum of both errors is minimum.

This optimal value for $$h$$ is very little (for example for Euler's method is $$\sqrt\mu$$ where $$\mu$$ is the accuracy of the machine) and so it's computationally expensive.

I have an example of what he is talking about with numerical differentiation formulas so for example take the differentiation formula:

$$f'(x_0) \simeq \frac{f(x_0+h)-f(x_0)}{h}~\text{ with error }~-h \frac{f''(\theta)}{2}$$

then I write $$e(x)$$ the rounding error on point $$x$$ and so the total error made while aproximating $$f'(x_0)$$ is $$\frac{e(x_0+h)-e(x_0)}{h} - h \frac{f''(\theta)}{2}.$$ Assuming that rounding errors are bounded by $$\epsilon$$ and that $$f''$$ is bounded by M in $$[x_0,x_0+h]$$ then the total error verifies: $$\left|f'(x_0)-\frac{f_1(x_0+h)-f_1(x_0)}{h}\right| \leq 2 \frac{\epsilon}{h} + \frac{h}{2}M$$ where $$f_1$$ is the approximation of $$f$$ with rounding error. So, when $$h$$ decreases the error of the formula (truncation error) decreases but rounding error increases.

My question is very simple, how can I get a similar situation for the trapezoidal method?

In the same way. If $h=1/N$, then each of the $N$ steps contributes some numerical error $ϵ$ additional to the local truncation error $C·h^3$. In the global error this sums, simplified, to $$N·(ϵ+C·h^3)=\frac{ϵ}h+C·h^2$$ Under favorable conditions, $ϵ\sim\mu$ and $C\sim L^3$ (of the same scale), $L$ the Lipschitz constant, so that the optimal step size is found around $Lh=\sqrt\mu$.

See https://math.stackexchange.com/a/1239002/115115 for a practical example that shows that these scale considerations have a good practical relevance. With modified step sizes this gives

Euler: h=1.00e-06, N=1.00e+06;  y[N]=9.33199380, y[N]-y(1)=-7.430e-06, N^1*(y[N]-y(1))=-7.430
Euler: h=1.00e-07, N=1.00e+07;  y[N]=9.33200049, y[N]-y(1)=-7.430e-07, N^1*(y[N]-y(1))=-7.430
Euler: h=1.00e-08, N=1.00e+08;  y[N]=9.33200116, y[N]-y(1)=-7.430e-08, N^1*(y[N]-y(1))=-7.430
Euler: h=1.00e-09, N=1.00e+09;  y[N]=9.33200123, y[N]-y(1)=-7.436e-09, N^1*(y[N]-y(1))=-7.436

----

Heun:  h=1.00e-04, N=1.00e+04;  y[N]=9.33200120, y[N]-y(1)=-3.207e-08, N^2*(y[N]-y(1))=-3.207
Heun:  h=1.00e-05, N=1.00e+05;  y[N]=9.33200123, y[N]-y(1)=-3.207e-10, N^2*(y[N]-y(1))=-3.207
Heun:  h=1.00e-06, N=1.00e+06;  y[N]=9.33200123, y[N]-y(1)=-4.126e-12, N^2*(y[N]-y(1))=-4.126
Heun:  h=1.00e-07, N=1.00e+07;  y[N]=9.33200123, y[N]-y(1)= 1.080e-12, N^2*(y[N]-y(1))=108.002
----;
RK4:   h=1.00e-02, N=1.00e+02;  y[N]=9.33200123, y[N]-y(1)=-8.486e-09, N^4*(y[N]-y(1))=-0.849
RK4:   h=1.00e-03, N=1.00e+03;  y[N]=9.33200123, y[N]-y(1)=-8.313e-13, N^4*(y[N]-y(1))=-0.831
RK4:   h=1.00e-04, N=1.00e+04;  y[N]=9.33200123, y[N]-y(1)=-1.066e-14, N^4*(y[N]-y(1))=-106.581
RK4:   h=1.00e-05, N=1.00e+05;  y[N]=9.33200123, y[N]-y(1)=-1.990e-13, N^4*(y[N]-y(1))=-19895196.601

where the tables for Heun and RK4 clearly show the crossover to the dominance of the floating point errors at the expected step sizes $\sqrt\mu\approx 10^{-5}$ and $\sqrt\mu\approx 10^{-3}$ (the last Euler instance ran 30min, I did not want to wait 5h for the next instance with $10^{10}$ steps).

• The bound $\epsilon$ for the rounding error does not depend on the step, right? Also, can you elaborate on what kind of favorable conditions $ϵ\sim\mu$ and $C\sim L^3$? – Javier May 16 '16 at 12:25
• $ϵ$ should in most cases be a small multiple of $μ$, it depends on the evaluation complexity of the function $f$. And this is in general independent of the evaluation point. $L$ resp. $1/L$ is something like a time scale for the problem, $C\sim L^3$ resp $C\sim L^2M$ with $M$ a bound for $f$ can be assumed for non-stiff problems. Or the other way around, if this relation fails, the problem can be considered as stiff. – LutzL May 16 '16 at 12:55