© 2026 NeckPinch · www.neckpinch.com · All rights reserved.
Course 2Book 2B: Spaces, Functions and ChangeChapter 10
Ordinary Differential Equations
Existence, uniqueness, Gronwall, comparison, blow-up and invariant sets.
Not in Tao. This chapter is self-contained. For a second voice, Gerald Teschl's Ordinary Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems (American Mathematical Society, Graduate Studies in Mathematics 140) covers the same ground, chapters 1–3 and 6, and with the AMS's permission the author posts an online edition on his web page; Hirsch, Smale and Devaney, Differential Equations, Dynamical Systems, and an Introduction to Chaos, is gentler and has many pictures.
An ordinary differential equation (ODE) says how a quantity changes in terms of its current value: . Population growth, radioactive decay, the motion of planets, chemical reactions and electrical circuits are all ODEs. They are not in Tao's two volumes, and none of the Path's books before Course 8 treat them carefully, yet every later course uses them: the flow of a vector field on a manifold (8A.6 Flows and the Lie Derivative), geodesics (9A.3 Geodesics and the Exponential Map), and the evolution of curvature under Ricci flow, which at each point behaves like an ODE plus a diffusion term (11A.2 How Curvature Evolves, 11A.4 Maximum Principles under Ricci Flow). So the guidebook does them here, where the tools are ready.
The chapter answers four questions. Do solutions exist, and are they unique? Yes, if is Lipschitz, by the contraction principle of 2B.2 Completeness and Contraction applied in the function space of 2B.5 Uniform Convergence and Arzelà–Ascoli. How sensitive are they to the initial data? At most exponentially, by Gronwall's inequality, and sometimes exactly that sensitive, which is why weather can't be forecast indefinitely. How long do they last? Either for ever or until they become infinite: the blow-up alternative, the ODE form of the statement that a Ricci flow exists as long as its curvature stays bounded. What regions do they stay in? Those whose boundary the vector field doesn't cross outwards: invariant sets, the ODE fact behind Hamilton's maximum principle for systems (11A.4 Maximum Principles under Ricci Flow).
By the end of this chapter you will be able to:
- prove the Picard–Lindelöf existence and uniqueness theorem by contraction;
- prove Gronwall's inequality and use it for uniqueness and continuous dependence on initial data;
- use the blow-up alternative to turn an a-priori bound into global existence, and compute blow-up times;
- solve linear systems with the matrix exponential and read stability from eigenvalues;
- prove comparison principles for scalar ODEs and invariance of convex sets for systems, and check the hypotheses in examples.
How far ahead can we predict?
In 1963 the meteorologist Edward Lorenz published "Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow", which studied a drastically simplified model of convection in a layer of fluid heated from below, three ODEs for three numbers describing the circulation and temperature:
with , and . The right-hand side is a polynomial, so by the theorems of this chapter the solution through any initial point exists, is unique, and depends continuously on the initial point. Determinism holds.
But continuity is not the same as stability. Start two solutions apart (in practice, the same state measured to nine decimal places) and integrate them numerically. Their separation grows roughly like : it is about by , by , by , and of the size of the solutions themselves by , after which the two runs are unrelated (Figure 10.1). Gronwall's inequality, proved below, says that errors grow at most exponentially. Lorenz's system shows that exponential growth actually happens, for an equation with no randomness at all. That observation is the origin of the modern idea that weather has a finite predictability horizon: each digit of extra precision in the initial state buys only a fixed extra amount of forecast time.
Existence and uniqueness
We study the initial value problem
where takes values in and is continuous on an open set of . Higher-order equations reduce to this: becomes the system .
By the fundamental theorem of calculus (2A.11 The Riemann Integral), a continuous function solves (IVP) on an interval if and only if it solves the integral equation
The integral form needs no derivatives, and it is the one that sets up a fixed-point problem.
Two examples show what can go wrong.
- Non-uniqueness. , has the solution , and also , and also, for any , the function that is until and afterwards. The function is continuous but has infinite slope at .
- Finite-time blow-up. , has the solution , which becomes infinite at (2A.10 Derivatives). The right-hand side is perfectly smooth, but it grows faster than linearly.
The first problem is cured by a Lipschitz condition. The second is not a problem to be cured but a phenomenon to be understood.
is Lipschitz in on a set with constant if whenever . It is locally Lipschitz if every point has a neighbourhood on which it is Lipschitz in . By the mean value inequality (2B.8 Calculus in Several Variables), every function is locally Lipschitz.
Let be continuous on the cylinder , with there, and Lipschitz in on with constant . Let . Then (IVP) has exactly one solution on with values in .
Proof. Let be the set of continuous . It is a closed subset of with the sup metric, which is complete (2B.5 Uniform Convergence and Arzelà–Ascoli), so is complete (2B.2 Completeness and Contraction). Define
maps to . is continuous, and .
is eventually contracting. For , . Feeding this bound back in, by induction,
Since , some is a contraction. By 2B.2 Completeness and Contraction's corollary on eventually contracting maps, has exactly one fixed point in , which is the solution.
The iterates , starting from the constant function, are the Picard iterates. For they are the Taylor polynomials of (2B.2 Completeness and Contraction). The same theorem holds backwards in time, on .
A second, quite different existence theorem is worth knowing. Peano's theorem says that if is merely continuous, solutions still exist (but may not be unique, as showed). The proof is by compactness instead of contraction: build approximate solutions by Euler's method (straight-line steps), note that they all have slope at most , so they are equicontinuous, and extract a uniformly convergent subsequence by Arzelà–Ascoli (2B.5 Uniform Convergence and Arzelà–Ascoli). The limit solves the integral equation (Exercise 10.13). The two proofs are the two engines of existence, completeness and compactness, side by side.
Gronwall's inequality
Let be continuous and non-negative on , and suppose that for constants and ,
Then on .
Proof. Let , so and . Then , so . Hence .
The proof is the comparison argument of 2A.10 Derivatives: a quantity growing no faster than times itself grows no faster than . Its consequences are the basic stability facts about ODEs.
Let be Lipschitz in with constant on a region containing the graphs of two solutions and of on . Then
In particular, solutions with the same initial value coincide.
Proof. , so satisfies . Apply Gronwall.
For the Lorenz system, a Lipschitz constant on the region where solutions live gives the bound on the growth of errors. The bound is crude (here is much larger than the observed rate ), but the form of the bound, exponential, is attained. No better general statement is possible.
Differentiability in the initial data also holds. If is , the solution is in , and its derivative solves the linearised (or variational) equation with . (Differentiate the equation in ; the proof that this is legitimate is an application of the implicit function theorem or of Gronwall to difference quotients, and we take it on trust.) The growth rate of along a typical solution of the Lorenz system is its Lyapunov exponent, about .
How long do solutions last?
Picard–Lindelöf gives existence for a short time. Gluing local solutions together, using uniqueness to make the pieces agree, gives a maximal solution, defined on a largest open interval containing , and the question is what happens at its ends.
Let be locally Lipschitz, and let be the maximal solution of , , on . If , then leaves every compact set for good: for every compact there is with for . In particular as .
Proof. Let be compact and let be the closed -neighbourhood of , also compact. is Lipschitz and bounded, say by , on (cover by finitely many balls on which is Lipschitz, 2B.3 Compactness; a Lipschitz constant on follows with a little care, Exercise 10.14). By Picard–Lindelöf with , the solution starting at any point of at any time exists for a time at least , the same for every starting point. Now suppose for a sequence . Choose with . The solution starting at at time exists until , and by uniqueness it continues . That contradicts maximality.
The theorem turns the existence question into a bounds question. If you can prove an a-priori bound, that every solution stays in some compact set on every finite time interval, then solutions exist for all time. For example, if (linear growth), Gronwall applied to shows can't blow up in finite time, so solutions are global. In particular every linear system with continuous coefficients has solutions for all time.
For with and , separating variables gives
Larger initial data blow up sooner. Compare Newton's law of cooling, , whose solutions relax exponentially to the ambient temperature and exist for all time: the right-hand side grows only linearly. The thermal runaway of 2A.10 Derivatives is the case of a heat source that grows faster than linearly with temperature, and it is the blow-up alternative in action (Figure 10.2).
Hamilton proved in 1982 that a Ricci flow on a closed manifold exists on a maximal interval , and that if then is unbounded as (11A.3 Short-Time Existence and Uniqueness, 11A.6 Hamilton’s 1982 Theorem). That is the blow-up alternative, with "leaves every compact set" replaced by "curvature becomes unbounded"; its proof uses Shi's estimates to show that bounded curvature gives bounds on everything else, so the flow can be continued, exactly as was uniform above. The singularities that Perelman analyses are precisely the finite times at which curvature blows up, and the scalar-curvature comparison of 2A.10 Derivatives () already shows that on a manifold with positive scalar curvature, must be finite.
Linear systems
For a constant matrix , the solution of is (2B.6 Power Series, Exponentials and Bump Functions). Its long-time behaviour is decided by the eigenvalues of . If is diagonalisable with eigenvalues and eigenvectors , then writing ,
Components along eigenvalues with negative real part decay, those with positive real part grow, and complex eigenvalues produce rotation at rate with growth or decay (2B.6 Power Series, Exponentials and Bump Functions). In the plane this gives the standard phase portraits: a stable node (two negative eigenvalues), an unstable node, a saddle (eigenvalues of opposite signs, with a stable and an unstable direction), spirals and centres. The equilibrium is asymptotically stable exactly when every eigenvalue has negative real part.
The linear theory describes nonlinear systems near equilibria. If , then near , , and the eigenvalues of decide stability: if all have negative real part, is asymptotically stable for the nonlinear system too (Exercise 10.12). This is the "linearise" step of thread L applied to dynamics. In 11B.1 Ricci Solitons the same question, stability of an equilibrium, is asked of Ricci solitons, which are the equilibria of Ricci flow up to scaling and diffeomorphism.
Comparison and invariant sets
The comparison principle
For scalar equations, solutions can't cross. That gives a powerful way to control a solution of a complicated equation by one of a simpler equation.
Let be locally Lipschitz, a solution of , and a function with on and . Then on .
Proof. Let , and let be a Lipschitz constant for on an interval containing the values of and on . Then . Suppose for some , and let ; then and on . There, , so and , a contradiction.
In 2A.10 Derivatives this was done by hand for , to show that scalar curvature forces a singularity. The general version says: to bound a quantity that satisfies a differential inequality, solve the corresponding equation and compare. In PDE the same idea, applied at the maximum point of a function, becomes the maximum principle (6A.4 Maximum Principles).
Invariant sets
For systems there is no ordering of to compare with, and the right notion is an invariant set: a set such that solutions starting in stay in . When is a closed set invariant? Intuitively, when the vector field never points out of it at its boundary. For convex sets this has a clean form. A vector is an outward normal to a closed convex set at a boundary point if for every : the whole of lies on one side of the plane through perpendicular to .
Let be closed and convex, and locally Lipschitz. Suppose that at every boundary point of , the vector field doesn't point outwards:
Then every solution of that starts in stays in for as long as it exists.
Proof. For each , let be the nearest point of to , which exists by compactness (2B.3 Compactness) and is unique by convexity, and let , half the squared distance to . Two facts about convex sets are needed (Exercise 10.15): is an outward normal to at , and is differentiable with .
Let be a solution starting in , on an interval on which it stays in a compact set where has Lipschitz constant . Write . Then
where the first term is by the hypothesis, since is an outward normal at (or zero). So , and . The solution never leaves .
The SIR model of Kermack and McKendrick (1927) divides a population into fractions susceptible (), infected () and removed (recovered or dead). With transmission rate and recovery rate ,
The meaningful states form the triangle , and it is invariant: on the edge , ; on , ; on , . In each case the outward normal (, or ) has a non-positive inner product with the vector field (Figure 10.3). So the model can never produce a negative number of people, which is reassuring and also a theorem.
The equation for gives the threshold: with . An outbreak grows initially if and only if , and the number infected peaks exactly when has fallen to . The figure uses and per day (), illustrative values chosen for the picture, not fitted to any disease.
In dimension 3, Hamilton showed that under Ricci flow the eigenvalues of the curvature operator satisfy, at each point, a heat-type equation whose reaction part is the ODE
(in his normalisation; 11A.2 How Curvature Evolves derives it and fixes conventions). His maximum principle for systems (11A.4 Maximum Principles under Ricci Flow) says: a closed convex set of curvature operators, invariant under the parallel transport, that is invariant under this ODE is also preserved by the Ricci flow. The diffusion term can't push the curvature out of a convex set, because at a point where the curvature first touches the boundary, the Laplacian points inwards (the Hessian argument of 2B.8 Calculus in Several Variables), and the ODE does not point outwards by hypothesis. So proving that Ricci flow preserves a curvature condition reduces to Theorem 10.8 for a three-dimensional ODE. Exercise 10.16 does the simplest case: nonnegative curvature operator is preserved.
Figure 10.4 previews the ODE's behaviour. Solutions starting with all eigenvalues positive blow up with the ratios and tending to , the curvature of a round sphere: this is the ODE heart of Hamilton's 1982 theorem that 3-manifolds with positive Ricci curvature become round (11A.6 Hamilton’s 1982 Theorem). Some solutions with a negative eigenvalue are drawn instead towards the direction , the curvature of a round cylinder, which is the shape of a neck about to pinch (11B.4 Singularities).
History
Newton and Leibniz solved the first differential equations in the 1670s–1690s, and through the 18th century Euler and others solved many by explicit formulas. Cauchy, in lectures from the 1820s, gave the first existence proof, by the polygon (Euler) approximations. Rudolf Lipschitz introduced his condition in 1876; Émile Picard developed successive approximations in 1890, and Ernst Lindelöf gave the theorem its modern form in 1894. Giuseppe Peano proved existence for continuous right-hand sides in 1886 and 1890. Thomas Grönwall published his inequality in 1919. Henri Poincaré, from the 1880s, turned the subject from finding formulas to describing the shapes of solutions, the qualitative theory of which phase portraits and invariant sets are part, and Lorenz's 1963 paper showed how strange those shapes can be. William Kermack and Anderson McKendrick's epidemic model appeared in 1927. Hamilton's use of invariant sets for the curvature ODE dates from his 1982 and 1986 papers on 3- and 4-manifolds.
We replaced the real line by metric spaces, where distance, completeness and compactness became the main ideas: complete spaces gave the contraction mapping principle, compact spaces gave the maximum principle and the contradiction–compactness template, and connected spaces gave the intermediate value theorem. In spaces of functions, uniform convergence preserved continuity, polynomials turned out to be dense, and the Arzelà–Ascoli theorem turned derivative bounds into compactness. Power series gave the exponential function, the matrix exponential and, by way of a function flat at , smooth cutoffs. Fourier series solved the heat equation on a ring, showing smoothing, energy decay and the maximum principle. Calculus in several variables gave the derivative as a linear map and the Hessian as a quadratic form; the inverse function theorem showed that invertible linearisations make nonlinear equations solvable; and this chapter solved ODEs by contraction and controlled them by Gronwall, comparison and invariant sets.
Two loose ends point to measure theory. First, 2B.7 Fourier Series and the First Heat Equation's Fourier theory wants the space of all functions with , and with the Riemann integral that space is not complete (2B.2 Completeness and Contraction's incomplete example was of exactly this kind). Second, exchanging limits and integrals (2B.5 Uniform Convergence and Arzelà–Ascoli) needed uniform convergence, which is far too strong for PDE, where solutions are found as limits that converge only on average. Book 3A, starting with 3A.1 The Problem of Measure, builds the Lebesgue integral, in which limits behave (the monotone and dominated convergence theorems of 3A.3 The Lebesgue Integral), and completes the function spaces, as 2A.4 The Real Numbers completed .
Exercises
Compute the first three Picard iterates for , , starting from , and compare with the Taylor series of the exact solution . On what interval does the solution exist, and what does the blow-up alternative say happens at its end?
Solution
, , . The Taylor series of is : the iterates agree with it up to . The solution exists on and at the ends.
Show that if is with for a continuous function , then . (Differentiate .) Note that need not be non-negative here.
Let be continuous. Show that the solution of , , blows up in finite time if and only if , and that the blow-up time is this integral. Apply this to , to (for ), and to .
Solution
Separating variables, ; is increasing, and as approaches , which is the existence time. : . : , so no blow-up (the solution is , growing doubly exponentially). : .
Let and suppose every eigenvalue of has real part less than . (a) Assuming is diagonalisable with real eigenvalues, show there is a norm on (Euclidean in eigen-coordinates) with . (b) Using for small, show that solutions of starting close enough to satisfy for some , and so tend to exponentially.
Let be continuous with on . For each , let be Euler's polygon: , and on , is linear with slope . (a) Show the are uniformly bounded and -Lipschitz, so a subsequence converges uniformly to some . (b) Show that , using uniform continuity of on a compact set. So a solution exists, though for it need not be unique.
Let be locally Lipschitz on and compact. Show that is Lipschitz on . (Use a Lebesgue number for a cover of by balls on which is Lipschitz, 2B.3 Compactness, and treat pairs with and separately; for the second, use that is bounded on .)
Let be closed, convex and non-empty, and the nearest point of to . (a) Show that for every (expand for small ). (b) Deduce that . (c) Let . Show that (compare with ), and similarly bound below with an error , using (b). Conclude that is differentiable with .
Solution
(a) must be for ; divide by and let . (b) Apply (a) at with and at with , add, and use Cauchy–Schwarz: . (c) The upper bound is expanded. For the lower bound, the same expansion at gives , and by (b). So .
For Hamilton's ODE :
(a) Show that the closed convex set is invariant, by checking the hypothesis of Theorem 10.8: describe the outward normals at a boundary point, and show that takes values in on . This is Hamilton's theorem that a nonnegative curvature operator is preserved by Ricci flow in dimension 3, in its ODE form.
(b) Show that the half-space is invariant too, by showing that everywhere. (In Hamilton's normalisation is proportional to the scalar curvature, and this is the ODE shadow of .)
(c) Show that a lower bound on the smallest eigenvalue is not preserved: the set (with ) is not invariant, by finding a boundary point where . Controlling negative curvature from below needs a cleverer convex set, the one in the Hamilton–Ivey pinching estimate (11A.5 Hamilton–Ivey Pinching).
Solution
(a) At a boundary point , some coordinates vanish, and the outward normals are the vectors with , non-zero only in the vanishing coordinates. On every component of is a sum of products of non-negative numbers, so and the inner product with any outward normal is . (b) . (c) At , , so the solution immediately enters .
© 2026 NeckPinch (www.neckpinch.com). All content in the guidebook (text, mathematics, figures and exercises) is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. No part may be copied, republished or redistributed without written permission.