In the 4th section The condition that convection be absent of the book Fluid Mechanics by Landau and Lifshitz, they give the following statement:
For the (mechanical) equilibrium to be stable, it is necessary (though not in general sufficient) that the resulting force on the element should tend to return it to its original position.
My question is, why this condition is not sufficient in general?
In the context, they consider a fluid element moving along $z$-axis, see the image below.
By Lyapunov's theorem, if the potential function $U(z) \in C^1$ has a strict minimum at an equilibrium $z_0$, then $z_0$ is stable. (For example, see What is the state of the equilibrium for a second derivative equal to zero?)
But, if assume $U(z)$ is $C^{\infty}$, then the strict minimality of $U$ at $z_0$ is equivalent to the attractivity of $F$ in some neighborhood of $z_0$: by Taylor's formula, we have \begin{equation} U(z) = U(z_0) + a_k z^k + O(z^{k + 1}), \end{equation} where $a_k \neq 0$, then \begin{equation} F(z) = - \partial U / \partial z = - k a_k z^{k-1} + O(z^{k}). \end{equation} So $U(z_0)$ is strictly minimal at $z_0$ $\iff$ $a_k > 0$ and $k$ is even $\iff$ $F$ is attractive in some neighborhood of $z_0$.
In other words, the local attractivity of $F$ should also be sufficient for stability. What am I missing here?