The exact region of stability for MacCormack scheme

Let the two dimensional scalar advection equation be given by $$\frac{{\partial u}}{{\partial t}} = \hat a\frac{{\partial u}}{{\partial x}} + \hat b\frac{{\partial u}}{{\partial y}}.$$ We prove that the stability region of the MacCormack scheme for this equation isexactly given by $$\left( {\hat a\frac{{\Delta _t }}{{\Delta _x }}} \right)^{2/3} + \left( {\hat b\frac{{\Delta _t }}{{\Delta _x }}} \right)^{2/3} \leqslant 1$$ where Δ _t , Δ _x and Δ _y are the grid distances. It is interesting to note that the stability region is identical to the one for Lax-Wendroff scheme proved by Turkel.     

On the convergence rate of SOR: A worst case estimate

LetA be any real symmetric positive definiten×n matrix, and κ(A) its spectral condition number. It is shown that the optimal convergence rate $$\rho _{SOR}^* = \mathop {\min }\limits_{0< \omega< 2} \rho (M_{SOR,\omega } )$$ of the successive overrelaxation (SOR) method satisfies $$\rho _{SOR}^* \leqslant 1 - \frac{1}{{\alpha _n \kappa (A)}}, \alpha _n \approx \log n.$$ This worst case estimate is asymptotically sharp asn→∞. The corresponding examples are given by certain Toeplitz matrices.     

The addition of bounded quantification and partial functions to a computational logic and its theorem prover

We describe an extension to our quantifier-free computational logic to provide the expressive power and convenience of bounded quantifiers and partial functions. By quantifier we mean a formal construct which introduces a bound or indicial variable whose scope is some subexpression of the quantifier expression. A familiar quantifier is the Σ operator which sums the values of an expression over some range of values on the bound variable. Our method is to represent expressions of the logic as objects in the logic, to define an interpreter for such expressions as a function in the logic, and then define quantifiers as ‘mapping functions’. The novelty of our approach lies in the formalization of the interpreter and its interaction with the underlying logic. Our method has several advantages over other formal systems that provide quantifiers and partial functions in a logical setting. The most important advantage is that proofs not involving quantification or partial recursive functions are not complicated by such notions as ‘capturing’, ‘bottom’, or ‘continuity’. Naturally enough, our formalization of the partial functions is nonconstructive. The theorem prover for the logic has been modified to support these new features. We describe the modifications. The system has proved many theorems that could not previously be stated in our logic. Among them are:

? classic quantifier manipulation theorems, such as $$\sum\limits_{{\text{l}} = 0}^{\text{n}} {{\text{g}}({\text{l}}) + {\text{h(l) = }}} \sum\limits_{{\text{l = }}0}^{\text{n}} {{\text{g}}({\text{l}})} + \sum\limits_{{\text{l = }}0}^{\text{n}} {{\text{h(l)}};} $$

? elementary theorems involving quantifiers, such as the Binomial Theorem: $$(a + b)^{\text{n}} = \sum\limits_{{\text{l = }}0}^{\text{n}} {\left( {_{\text{i}}^{\text{n}} } \right)} \user2{ }{\text{a}}^{\text{l}} {\text{b}}^{{\text{n - l}}} ;$$

? elementary theorems about ‘mapping functions’ such as: $$(FOLDR\user2{ }'PLUS\user2{ O L) = }\sum\limits_{{\text{i}} \in {\text{L}}}^{} {{\text{i}};} $$

? termination properties of many partial recursive functions such as the fact that an application of the partial function described by $$\begin{gathered} (LEN X) \hfill \\ \Leftarrow \hfill \\ ({\rm I}F ({\rm E}QUAL X NIL) \hfill \\ {\rm O} \hfill \\ (ADD1 (LEN (CDR X)))) \hfill \\ \end{gathered} $$ terminates if and only if the argument ends in NIL;

? theorems about functions satisfying unusual recurrence equations such as the 91-function and the following list reverse function: $$\begin{gathered} (RV X) \hfill \\ \Leftarrow \hfill \\ ({\rm I}F (AND (LISTP X) (LISTP (CDR X))) \hfill \\ (CONS (CAR (RV (CDR X))) \hfill \\ (RV (CONS (CAR X) \hfill \\ (RV (CDR (RV (CDR X))))))) \hfill \\ X). \hfill \\ \end{gathered} $$

     

Sulle formule di quadratura di Tschebyscheff

For the Tschebyscheff quadrature formula: $$\int\limits_{ - 1}^1 {\left( {1 - x^2 } \right)^{\lambda - 1/2} f(x) dx} = K_n \sum\limits_{k = 1}^n {f(x_{n,k} )} + R_n (f), \lambda > 0$$ it is shown that the degre,N, of exactness is bounded by: $$N \leqslant C(\lambda )n^{1/(2\lambda + 1)} $$ whereC(λ) is a convenient function of λ. For λ=1 the complete solution of Tschebyscheff's problem is given.     

Zur Charakterisierung und Berechnung von symmetrischen Kubaturformeln

The paper is concerned with the characterization and calculation of symmetric cubature formulae of degree 2k?1 for two-dimensional product-functionals. The number of knots of the cubature formulae satisfies the following relation: $$\frac{{k(k + 1)}}{2} + \left[ {\frac{k}{2}} \right] \leqslant r \leqslant \frac{{k(k + 1)}}{2} + \left[ {\frac{k}{2}} \right] + 1.$$ The systems of non-linear equations involved are either solved exactly or all solutions are computed with any precision using a program-package for symbolic and algebraic calculations.     

Numerical evaluation of a solution of a special mixed-type differential-difference equation

The function * $$f(t) = \frac{{e^{ - \alpha \gamma } }}{\pi }\int\limits_0^\infty {\cos t \xi e^{\alpha Ci(\xi )} \frac{{d\xi }}{{\xi ^\alpha }},t \in R,\alpha > 0} $$ [Ci(x)=cosine integral, γ=Euler's constant] is studied and numerically evaluated;f is a solution to the following mixed type differential-difference equation arising in applied probability: ** $$tf'(t) = (\alpha - 1)f(t) - \frac{\alpha }{2}[f(t - 1) + f(t + 1)]$$ satisfying the conditions: i) $$f(t) \geqslant 0,t \in R$$ , ii) $$f(t) = f( - t),t \in R$$ , iii) $$\int\limits_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty } {f(\xi )d\xi = 1} $$ . Besides the direct numerical evaluation of (*) and the derivation of the asymptotic behaviour off(t) fort→0 andt→∞, two different iterative procedures for the solution of (**) under the conditions (i) to (iii) are considered and their results are compared with the corresponding values in (*). Finally a Monte Carlo method to evaluatef(t) is considered.     

Un metodo del terzo ordine per l'integrazione numerica dell'equazione differenziale ordinaria

For the numerical integration of the ordinary differential equation $$\frac{{dy}}{{dx}} = F(x,y) y(x_0 ) = y_0 \begin{array}{*{20}c} x \\ {x_0 } \\ \end{array} \varepsilon [a,b]$$ a third method utilizing only two points for every step, is determined different from the analogous Runge-Kutta method employing three points; it is useless take the first step as the «pseudo Runge-Kutta method». The truncation error is given, the convergence is proved and finally a numerical exercise is given.     

Modifikationen des Pollard-Algorithmus

The factorization algorithm of Pollard generates a sequence in ? _n by $$x_0 : = 2;x_{i + 1} : = x_i^2 - 1(\bmod n),i = 1,2,3,...$$ wheren denotes the integer to be factored. The algorithm finds an factorp ofn within \(0\left( {\sqrt p } \right)\) macrosteps (=multiplications/divisions in ? _n ) on average. An empirical analysis of the Pollard algorithm using modified sequences $$x_{i + 1} = b \cdot x_i^\alpha + c(\bmod n),i = 1,2,...$$ withx ₀,b,c,α∈? and α≥2 shows, that a factorp ofn under the assumption gcd (α,p-1)≠1 now is found within $$0\left( {\sqrt {\frac{p}{{ged(\alpha ,p - 1}}} } \right)$$ macrosteps on average.     

Some orbital test problems

Problems with periodic solutions are convenient as test problems for differential equation software because of the ease with which the accuracy of computed results can be assessed. Even the motion of a single planet around a heavy sun is useful as a test problem because orbits of varying eccentricity make varying demands on numerical software. The orbits discussed here are based on this same simple problem but with the essential difference that the distance from the planet to the sun is based on the norm ‖ . ‖_∞ rather than the usual Euclidean norm ‖ . ‖₂. Specifically, we explore orbits based on each of the differential equation systems $$X = \nabla \left( {\frac{1}{{\left\| X \right\|}}} \right)$$ and $$X = - \frac{1}{{\left\| X \right\|^3 }}.$$ A feature of both these systems, when the ‖ . ‖_∞ norm is used, is the occurrence of discontinuities in the higher derivatives of the solution. This is why they have a potential value as difficult test problems. With this application in mind, some periodic solutions are identified. For an arbitrary choice of norm, the second of the two differential equation systems considered in this paper is shown to possess periodic orbits.     

One-step splitting methods for semi-discrete parabolic equations

The main purpose of the paper is to discuss splitting methods for parabolic equations via the method of lines. Firstly, we deal with the formulation of these methods for autonomous semi-discrete equations $$\frac{{dy}}{{dt}} = f(y),{\rm E}f{\rm E}non - linear,$$ f satisfying a linear splitting relation \(f(y) = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^k {f_i (y)} \) . A class of one-step integration formulas is defined, which is shown to contain all known splitting methods, provided the functionsf _i are defined appropriately. For a number of methods stability results are given. Secondly, attention is paid to alternating direction methods for problems with an arbitrary non-linear coupling between space derivatives.     

Successive overrelaxation method with projection for finite element solutions applied to the Dirichlet problem of the nonlinear elliptic equation Δu-bu2

this study is a continuation of a previous paper [Computing 38 (1987), pp.117–132]. In this paper, we consider the successive overrelaxation method with projection for obtaining finite element solutions applied to the Dirichlet problem of the nonlinear elliptic equation $$\begin{gathered} \Delta u = bu^2 in\Omega , \hfill \\ u = g(x)on\Gamma . \hfill \\ \end{gathered} $$ . Some numerical examples are given to illustrate the effectiveness.     

Effective Randomness of Unions and Intersections

We investigate the ??-randomness of unions and intersections of random sets under various notions of randomness corresponding to different probability measures. For example, the union of two relatively Martin-Löf random sets is not Martin-Löf random but is random with respect to the Bernoulli measure $\lambda_{\frac{3}{4}}$ under which any number belongs to the set with probability $\frac{3}{4}$ . Conversely, any $\lambda_{\frac{3}{4}}$ random set is the union of two Martin-Löf random sets. Unions and intersections of random closed sets are also studied.     

Alcuni problemi relativi alle formule di quadratura del tipo di tchebycheff

In this paper we study quadrature formulas of the form $$\int\limits_{ - 1}^1 {(1 - x)^a (1 + x)^\beta f(x)dx = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^{r - 1} {[A_i f^{(i)} ( - 1) + B_i f^{(i)} (1)] + K_n (\alpha ,\beta ;r)\sum\limits_{i = 1}^n {f(x_{n,i} ),} } } $$ (α>?1, β>?1), with realA _i ,B _i ,K _n and real nodesx _n,i in (?1,1), valid for prolynomials of degree ≤2n+2r?1. In the first part we prove that there is validity for polynomials exactly of degree2n+2r?1 if and only if α=β=?1/2 andr=0 orr=1. In the second part we consider the problem of the existence of the formula $$\int\limits_{ - 1}^1 {(1 - x^2 )^{\lambda - {1 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {1 2}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2}} f(x)dx = A_n f( - 1) + B_n f(1) + C\sum\limits_{i = 1}^n {f(x_{n,i} )} }$$ for polynomials of degree ≤n+2. Some numerical results are given when λ=1/2.     

Stability Criteria for Finite Difference Approximations to Parabolic Systems—An Update

In a recent series of papers, Goldberg [G1, G2] and Sun and Yuan [SY] studied the L ₂-stability of a well-known family of finite difference approximations for the initial-value problem associated with the multispace-dimensional parabolic system $$\frac{{\partial {\text{u(x,}}\;t{\text{)}}}}{{\partial t}} = \sum\limits_{1 \leqslant {\kern 1pt} p{\kern 1pt} \leqslant {\kern 1pt} q{\kern 1pt} \leqslant {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} s} {A_{pq} \frac{{\partial ^2 {\text{u(x,}}\;t{\text{)}}}}{{\partial x_p \partial x_q }}} + \sum\limits_{1 \leqslant {\kern 1pt} p{\kern 1pt} \leqslant {\kern 1pt} s} {B_p \frac{{\partial {\text{u(x,}}\;t{\text{)}}}}{{\partial x_p }} + C{\text{u(x,}}\;t{\text{)}}} $$ where A _pq ,B _p and C are constant matrices, A _pq being Hermitian. In the present paper we discuss these earlier results and complete the underlying theory by answering four open questions.     

Delayed theory combination vs. Nelson-Oppen for satisfiability modulo theories: a comparative analysis

Most state-of-the-art approaches for Satisfiability Modulo Theories $(SMT(\mathcal{T}))$ rely on the integration between a SAT solver and a decision procedure for sets of literals in the background theory $\mathcal{T} (\mathcal{T}{\text {-}}solver)$ . Often $\mathcal{T}$ is the combination $\mathcal{T}_1 \cup \mathcal{T}_2$ of two (or more) simpler theories $(SMT(\mathcal{T}_1 \cup \mathcal{T}_2))$ , s.t. the specific ${\mathcal{T}_i}{\text {-}}solvers$ must be combined. Up to a few years ago, the standard approach to $SMT(\mathcal{T}_1 \cup \mathcal{T}_2)$ was to integrate the SAT solver with one combined $\mathcal{T}_1 \cup \mathcal{T}_2{\text {-}}solver$ , obtained from two distinct ${\mathcal{T}_i}{\text {-}}solvers$ by means of evolutions of Nelson and Oppen’s (NO) combination procedure, in which the ${\mathcal{T}_i}{\text {-}}solvers$ deduce and exchange interface equalities. Nowadays many state-of-the-art SMT solvers use evolutions of a more recent $SMT(\mathcal{T}_1 \cup \mathcal{T}_2)$ procedure called Delayed Theory Combination (DTC), in which each ${\mathcal{T}_i}{\text {-}}solver$ interacts directly and only with the SAT solver, in such a way that part or all of the (possibly very expensive) reasoning effort on interface equalities is delegated to the SAT solver itself. In this paper we present a comparative analysis of DTC vs. NO for $SMT(\mathcal{T}_1 \cup \mathcal{T}_2)$ . On the one hand, we explain the advantages of DTC in exploiting the power of modern SAT solvers to reduce the search. On the other hand, we show that the extra amount of Boolean search required to the SAT solver can be controlled. In fact, we prove two novel theoretical results, for both convex and non-convex theories and for different deduction capabilities of the ${\mathcal{T}_i}{\text {-}}solvers$ , which relate the amount of extra Boolean search required to the SAT solver by DTC with the number of deductions and case-splits required to the ${\mathcal{T}_i}{\text {-}}solvers$ by NO in order to perform the same tasks: (i) under the same hypotheses of deduction capabilities of the ${\mathcal{T}_i}{\text {-}}solvers$ required by NO, DTC causes no extra Boolean search; (ii) using ${\mathcal{T}_i}{\text {-}}solvers$ with limited or no deduction capabilities, the extra Boolean search required can be reduced down to a negligible amount by controlling the quality of the $\mathcal{T}$ -conflict sets returned by the ${\mathcal{T}_i}{\text {-}}solvers$ .     

Formule di quadratura «chiuse» di tipo gaussiano: Tabulzione dei nodi e dei coefficienti

The coefficientsA _hi and the nodesx _mi for «closed” Gaussian-type quadrature formulae $$\int\limits_{ - 1}^1 {f(x)dx = \sum\limits_{h = 0}^{2_8 } {\sum\limits_{i = 0}^{m + 1} {A_{hi} f^{(h)} (x_{mi} ) + R\left[ {f(x)} \right]} } } $$ withx _m0 =?1,x _{m, m+1} =1 andR[f(x)]=0 iff(x) is a polinomial of degree at most2m(s+1)+2(2s+1)?1, have been tabulated for the cases: $$\left\{ \begin{gathered} s = 1,2 \hfill \\ m = 2,3,4,5 \hfill \\ \end{gathered} \right.$$ .     

Leader election using loneliness detection

We consider the problem of leader election (LE) in single-hop radio networks with synchronized time slots for transmitting and receiving messages. We assume that the actual number n of processes is unknown, while the size u of the ID space is known, but is possibly much larger. We consider two types of collision detection: strong (SCD), whereby all processes detect collisions, and weak (WCD), whereby only non-transmitting processes detect collisions. We introduce loneliness detection (LD) as a key subproblem for solving LE in WCD systems. LD informs all processes whether the system contains exactly one process or more than one. We show that LD captures the difference in power between SCD and WCD, by providing an implementation of SCD over WCD and LD. We present two algorithms that solve deterministic and probabilistic LD in WCD systems with time costs of ${\mathcal{O}(\log \frac{u}{n})}$ and ${\mathcal{O}(\min( \log \frac{u}{n}, \frac{\log (1/\epsilon)}{n}))}$ , respectively, where ${\epsilon}$ is the error probability. We also provide matching lower bounds. Assuming LD is solved, we show that SCD systems can be emulated in WCD systems with factor-2 overhead in time. We present two algorithms that solve deterministic and probabilistic LE in SCD systems with time costs of ${\mathcal{O}(\log u)}$ and ${\mathcal{O}(\min ( \log u, \log \log n + \log (\frac{1}{\epsilon})))}$ , respectively, where ${\epsilon}$ is the error probability. We provide matching lower bounds.     

Branching Time Logics \mathcal {BTL}^{\mathrm {U,S}}_{\mathrm {N},\mathrm {N}^{-1}}(\mathcal {Z})_{\alpha } with Operations Until and Since Based on Bundles of Integer Numbers, Logical Consecutions, Deciding Algorithms

This paper is intended as an attempt to describe logical consequence in branching time logics. We study temporal branching time logics $\mathcal {BTL}^{\mathrm {U,S}}_{\mathrm {N},\mathrm {N}^{-1}}(\mathcal {Z})_{\alpha }$ which use the standard operations Until and Next and dual operations Since and Previous (LTL, as standard, uses only Until and Next). Temporal logics $\mathcal {BTL}^{\mathrm {U,S}}_{\mathrm {N},\mathrm {N}^{-1}}(\mathcal {Z})_{\alpha }$ are generated by semantics based on Kripke/Hinttikka structures with linear frames of integer numbers $\mathcal {Z}$ with a single node (glued zeros). For $\mathcal {BTL}^{\mathrm {U,S}}_{\mathrm {N},\mathrm {N}^{-1}}(\mathcal {Z})_{\alpha }$ , the permissible branching of the node is limited by α (where 1≤α≤ω). We prove that any logic $\mathcal {BTL}^{\mathrm {U,S}}_{\mathrm {N},\mathrm {N}^{-1}}(\mathcal {Z})_{\alpha }$ is decidable w.r.t. admissible consecutions (inference rules), i.e. we find an algorithm recognizing consecutions admissible in $\mathcal {BTL}^{\mathrm {U,S}}_{\mathrm {N},\mathrm {N}^{-1}}(\mathcal {Z})_{\alpha }$ . As a consequence, it implies that $\mathcal {BTL}^{\mathrm {U,S}}_{\mathrm {N},\mathrm {N}^{-1}}(\mathcal {Z})_{\alpha }$ itself is decidable and solves the satisfiability problem.     

On the computation of Tricomi's ψ function

Two methods for calculating Tricomi's confluent hypergeometric function are discussed. Both methods are based on recurrence relations. The first method converges like $$\exp ( - \alpha |\lambda |^{1/3} n^{2/3} )for some \alpha > 0$$ and the second like $$\exp ( - \beta |\lambda |^{1/2} n^{1/2} )for some \beta > 0.$$ Several examples are presented.