SlotLayer 0
Replace a spatial domain with a finite grid
Approximate the spatial derivatives of a PDE on finitely many points, leaving time continuous, so that what remains is a system of ordinary differential equations in the grid values. The method of lines: the continuum is gone, the clock is not.
A linear PDE with its initial and boundary conditions, a domain, a lattice spacing or basis size, and a smoothness assumption on the exact solution — the truncation bound is derived by Taylor expansion and is only valid to the order the solution is differentiable.
A generator A acting on the vector of grid values, an initial vector, and the truncation error the replacement cost — stated as a power of the lattice spacing, which is the term that fixes how fine the grid has to be.
This one, drawn
From Partial differential equation to Linear ODE system
A circle is an object you are holding. Each line between the two ends is one recorded way through this slot; where a way is built from smaller slots, those are its own lines. Circles are named on hover, and each one is a link.
Nothing drawn here has a recorded way through it that this figure leaves shut. See it on the map
Why this is a layer
The choice made here is not which grid but which approximation of the derivative — concretely, the three-point second-order stencil against a higher-order one, which is the difference between the two methods drawn below. The competing answers trade against each other rather than dominating. A low-order stencil touches few neighbours, so the generator stays sparse and every downstream simulation cost — which is charged in sparsity — stays low, and the truncation error falls only as the square of the spacing. A high-order stencil buys error falling as a much higher power of the spacing and pays for it in a denser generator, which Costa, Jordan and Ostrander state outright as the trade: better error scaling comes 'at the cost of simulating more complex (less sparse) Hamiltonians'. Which side of that trade wins depends on the smoothness of the solution, because a high-order discretization is only justified if the exact solution has the derivatives its Taylor expansion assumes. So a reader standing here is choosing between sparsity and grid size under a regularity assumption they have to make explicit, and no theorem settles it for them.
Ways to do this
2 methods recorded
- Graph-Laplacian finite differences
Discretize the domain onto a lattice and read the discrete Laplacian off the resulting graph: off-diagonal entries minus one between neighbours, each diagonal entry the degree of its vertex. Higher-order stencils are obtained by factorizing the operator through hypergraph incidence matrices, which is what lets the error fall faster than the second power of the spacing while keeping a form a simulator can consume.
- Central differences, space only
Replace each second spatial derivative by the three-point central difference on a uniform grid and leave the time derivative alone. What comes out is the plainest form the method of lines takes: one generator, assembled from a single stencil repeated at every interior point, acting on the vector of grid values.
Routes that skip this layer
No recorded route avoids this step.
This is a step inside
Nothing in this graph needs this as a step, so it is where a reading starts.
In the Atlas
No record in the Atlas covers this yet. The catalogue is circuits and primitives; this part of the literature is not in it.