I am trying to understand the stability of the forward Euler method. I read there's a model problem to see the stability.

$$y'(t) = \lambda y(t) \qquad t \in (0, \infty)$$ $$y(0) = 1$$

then the book shows this:

$$u_0 = 1 \qquad \text{does this come from the initial condition?}$$


$$u_{n+1}=u_n(1+\lambda h) = (1+\lambda h)^{n+1}, \qquad n ≥ 0$$

I cannot understand how $(1+\lambda h)^{n+1}$ appeared

then the book concludes $ -1 < h\lambda < 1 \quad \text{iff} \quad h < 2/|\lambda|$

for the inequallity the thing I get is $\frac{-2}{\lambda} < h$ but still don't know how they get the absolute value of $\lambda$.

how does the book arrive to this conclusion? I don't expect a very complex answer (which is appreciated) but a simple way to understand the intermediate steps not shown.


You are right with your remark, that $u_0=1$ comes from the initial condition. Apperently, the numerical solution is donated by $u$, whereas the analytical solution is $y$.

The forward Euler method for $y'(t) = f(t,y(t)) $ reads $$ u_{n+1} = u_n + h\cdot f(t_n,u_n)$$ You have $y'(t) =\lambda y(t)$, so $f(t_n,u_n)= \lambda u_n$. Now we plug this into the equation above and obtain

$$u_{n+1} = u_n + h\cdot f(t_n,u_n) = u_n+ h\lambda u_n = u_n\cdot (1+h\lambda)$$ But we can furthermore express $u_n$ in terms of $u_{n-1}$ and so on, up to $u_0$

\begin{align}u_{n+1} &= u_n\cdot (1+h\lambda) \\ &=u_{n-1}\cdot (1+h\lambda)\cdot (1+h\lambda) \\ &= ... \\ &=u_0\cdot (1+h\lambda)\cdot (1+h\lambda) \cdot ...\cdot (1+h\lambda) \\ &=u_0 (1+h\lambda)^n = (1+h\lambda)^n\end{align} Since $u_0=1$.

Now assuming you mean $\lambda <0$ which makes sense, because otherwise your solution would diverge and that would be a bad model problem.

Furthermore I assume you mean $ -1<(1+\lambda h) <1 $ iff $ h < 2/|\lambda|$ and not $ -1<(\lambda h) <1 $ iff $ h < 2/|\lambda|$ as you want to show that your solution reaches zero if $n\rightarrow \infty$.

So to get $1+h\lambda<1$ you get $h\lambda < 0 \Rightarrow h>0$ as $\lambda <0$.

For $-1<1+h\lambda$ you now have $-2<h \lambda \Rightarrow -2/\lambda > h$. With $\lambda<0$ you get $-2/\lambda = 2/|\lambda|$ So finally you have $0<h<2/|\lambda|$.

Please let me know, if my assumptions ($\lambda<0$ and the different inequality) were correct.

  • $\begingroup$ Yes, your assumptions are right. I mean, I am no mathematician so sorry for the lack of precision in all that kind of stuff. I really understood your answer, now it makes sense. $\endgroup$ – BRabbit27 Jan 23 '13 at 19:27
  • $\begingroup$ Now problem. I didn't want to sound like I was complaining, I just wanted to know whether I really got your question $\endgroup$ – k1next Jan 24 '13 at 14:27
  • $\begingroup$ No, I didn't think like that but I know mathematicians like (have to) to have things clearly stated because many approaches can be followed depending on the problem. I really appreciate your help. $\endgroup$ – BRabbit27 Jan 24 '13 at 16:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.