Proof of convergence

Regarding accuracy, the finite difference approximations for the radial derivatives converge O(Ar ). The approximation for the axial derivative converges 0(Az), but the stability criterion forces Az to decrease at least as fast as Ar. Thus, the entire computation should converge O(Ar ). The proof of convergence requires that the computations be repeated for a series of successively smaller grid sizes. 

The proof of convergence of scheme (19) reduces to the estimation of a solution of problem (21) in terms of the approximation error. In the sequel we obtain such estimates using the maximum principle for domains of arbitrary shape and dimension. In an attempt to fill that gap, a non-equidistant grid... 

Alore a detailed proof of convergence of this scheme is concerned with the form (74) and a priori estimates obtained in Chapter 6, Section 2 and so it is omitted here. As a final result we deduce that scheme (70) converges uniformly with the rate 0(r -f lE). 

We now turn to methods for first-order saddle points. As already noted, saddle points present no problems in the local region provided the exact Hessian is calculated at each step. The problem with saddle point optimizations is that in the global region of the search, there are no simple criteria that allow us to select the step unambiguously. Thus, whereas for minimization methods it is often possible to give a proof of convergence with no significant restrictions on the function to be minimized, no such proofs are known for saddle-point methods, except, of course, for quadratic surfaces. Nevertheless, over the years several useful techniques have been developed for the determination of saddle points. We here discuss some of these techniques with no pretence at completeness. 

Such questions may seem abstract, but they are in fact very important in practice. Above, our proof of convergence of Jacobi s method is based upon the assumed existence of a complete eigenvector basis for — A). 

Consider an approximate description of the nonpenetration condition between the crack faces which can be obtained by putting c = 0 in (3.45). Similar to the case c > 0, we can analyse the equilibrium problem of the plates and prove the solution existence of the optimal control problem of the plates with the same cost functional. We aim at the convergence proof of solutions of the optimal control problem as —> 0. In this subsection we assume that T, is a segment of a straight line parallel to the axis x. 

The proof of this formula is omitted here. It should be noted that from such reasoning it seems clear that due to the summarized approximation in the space Hg-i the convergence occurs in the space Hb- That is to say, the conditions... 

Actually a theoretical proof of whether a given DE is stiff or not is rather complicated if not impossible for most DE problems. Therefore it is best to use numerical codes that switch internally to backward integration if forward integration encounters troubles with numerical convergence and vice versa, giving us the best method for either situation. 

The solution is related to the observation that the sum of an infinite series can converge to a finite solution. An example that effectively demonstrates the solution here is the geometric series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +. .. ad infinitum. That is, the series starts with 1/2, and every subsequent term is one half of the previous term. Given this, the terms of the series never vanish to zero. However, the sum of them is precisely 1. The proof of this is as follows, where the series is represented as 5 ... 

The sum over partial waves in Eq. (13) should be convergent in principle. The general explicit proof of this convergence is absent, but it can be justified in every particular case by observing the convergence in numerical calculations. 

The proof of the existence results is based on the study of a linearized system and on the application of the Schauder fixed point theorem. The convergence to the steady incompressible limit is obtained by proving that the solution is bounded independently of 0 large. (See [27,28].)... 

Figure 4.1. The attracting hypercube O is shaded. Each axis represents a copy of IR . The monotone trajectory emanating from near E and converging to and a similar one emanating from near 2 converging to are described in the proof of Theorem 4.4.

---