CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Strang splitting

Numerical method for solving differential equations

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionSep 28, 2025
Entity authorityQ25303744
Source-derived summary

In applied mathematics Strang splitting is a numerical method for solving differential equations that are decomposable into a sum of differential operators. It is named after Gilbert Strang. It is used to speed up calculation for problems involving operators on very different time scales, for example, chemical reactions in fluid dynamics, and to solve multidimensional partial differential equations by reducing them to a sum of one-dimensional problems.

Fractional step methods

As a precursor to Strang splitting, consider a differential equation of the form

d

y

d

t

=

L

1

(

y

)

+

L

2

(

y

)

{\displaystyle {\frac {d{y}}{dt}}=L_{1}({y})+L_{2}({y})}

where

L

1

{\displaystyle L_{1}}

,

L

2

{\displaystyle L_{2}}

are differential operators. If

L

1

{\displaystyle L_{1}}

and

L

2

{\displaystyle L_{2}}

were constant coefficient matrices, then the exact solution to the associated initial value problem would be

y

(

t

)

=

e

(

L

1

+

L

2

)

t

y

0

{\displaystyle y(t)=e^{(L_{1}+L_{2})t}y_{0}}

.

If

L

1

{\displaystyle L_{1}}

and

L

2

{\displaystyle L_{2}}

commute, then by the exponential laws this is equivalent to

y

(

t

)

=

e

L

1

t

e

L

2

t

y

0

{\displaystyle y(t)=e^{L_{1}t}e^{L_{2}t}y_{0}}

.

If they do not, then by the Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff formula it is still possible to replace the exponential of the sum by a product of exponentials at the cost of a second order error:

e

(

L

1

+

L

2

)

t

y

0

=

e

L

1

t

e

L

2

t

y

0

+

O

(

t

2

)

{\displaystyle e^{(L_{1}+L_{2})t}y_{0}=e^{L_{1}t}e^{L_{2}t}y_{0}+{\mathcal {O}}(t^{2})}

.

This gives rise to a numerical scheme where one, instead of solving the original initial problem, solves both subproblems alternating:

y

~

1

=

e

L

1

Δ

t

y

0

{\displaystyle {\tilde {y}}_{1}=e^{L_{1}\Delta t}y_{0}}

y

1

=

e

L

2

Δ

t

y

~

1

{\displaystyle y_{1}=e^{L_{2}\Delta t}{\tilde {y}}_{1}}

y

~

2

=

e

L

1

Δ

t

y

1

{\displaystyle {\tilde {y}}_{2}=e^{L_{1}\Delta t}y_{1}}

y

2

=

e

L

2

Δ

t

y

~

2

{\displaystyle y_{2}=e^{L_{2}\Delta t}{\tilde {y}}_{2}}

etc.

In this context,

e

L

1

Δ

t

{\displaystyle e^{L_{1}\Delta t}}

is a numerical scheme solving the subproblem

d

y

d

t

=

L

1

(

y

)

{\displaystyle {\frac {d{y}}{dt}}=L_{1}({y})}

to first order. The approach is not restricted to linear problems, that is,

L

1

{\displaystyle L_{1}}

can be any differential operator.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Strang splitting” as numerical method for solving differential equations. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

Editorial reviewA dependable orientation record for establishing vocabulary, names and a first evidence trail. The current 397-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Strang, splitting and Numerical can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as numerical method for solving differential equations. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 28, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q25303744. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Strang splitting”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Strang splitting primary sources, Strang splitting archive and Strang research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Strang splitting”?
  2. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
  3. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from Strang splitting” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.