Question 8
For , , let denote the Euler approximation at with equal step . Compare and . Assume exact arithmetic. For the extrapolation argument, suppose with a coefficient independent of as .
Tasks
Compute , , and .
Use the stated error expansion to explain why cancels the leading first-order error. Relate the difference between the two Euler values to an estimate of the finer-grid error.
Compare the actual errors of the two Euler values and with the exact endpoint. Is it a contradiction if lies outside the interval between the Euler values?
Test whether grid agreement certifies accuracy using a different IVP, , . Compute both Euler endpoints on the same grids and the exact value , and explain the failure of the grid-difference indicator.
Show solutionHide solution
Question 8 – Solution
Strategy. Separate asymptotic error cancellation from a rigorous certificate: two grids can share the same sampling blind spot.
Step 1: Compute the three approximations. For decay, . Hence
Step 2: Cancel the leading error term. The assumed expansions give Thus estimates the leading magnitude of the finer-grid error, while the extrapolated value removes that term. This argument is asymptotic; it supplies no explicit bound for the omitted terms on these particular grids.
Step 3: Compare actual errors. The exact endpoint is . Absolute errors are The finer-grid estimate is , not its exact error. Both Euler values are below the truth, while is above it. Extrapolation is not interpolation, so lying outside their interval is consistent with its construction and does not by itself invalidate it.
Step 4: Exhibit shared undersampling. At all left nodes of both specified grids, . Both Euler approximations for are therefore zero, and their difference is zero. But
See the diagram in the original worksheet below.
The nonnegative forcing is missed between the sample nodes. Agreement of two grids does not certify accuracy; an explicit error bound or further analysis of the resolved time scales is needed.