Is the Secant Method's Convergence to -1 Provable?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on proving the convergence of the secant method, specifically that dk+1/ek approaches -1 as k approaches infinity. Daniel presents a derivation using the secant method formula, demonstrating that dk+1 is defined as the difference between successive approximations. He incorporates an expression from his lecture notes regarding the error term, concluding that as k increases, the term involving the second derivative approaches zero, thus validating his proof that dk+1/ek equals -1.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the secant method in numerical analysis
  • Familiarity with error analysis in iterative methods
  • Knowledge of calculus, particularly derivatives and limits
  • Basic proficiency in LaTeX for mathematical expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the convergence properties of the secant method in detail
  • Explore error analysis techniques for numerical methods
  • Learn about the implications of the second derivative in convergence proofs
  • Practice writing mathematical expressions using LaTeX
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, numerical analysts, and students studying numerical methods who are interested in the convergence behavior of iterative algorithms like the secant method.

pinodk
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Hello there!
yet another proof, that i need help on
I am supposed to prove that the following statement holds for the secant method
dk+1/ek -> -1 for k->Infinity
where
dk+1 is the next change and ek is the error.

I have this idea, but i want to hear whether its a valid proof.

i use the expression for the secant method

xk+1 = xk - f(xk) * ( xk-xk-1/f(xk)-f(xk-1) )

and derive that
dk+1 = xk+1 - xk = - f(xk) * ( xk-xk-1/f(xk)-f(xk-1) ) (1)

I then use an expression in the lecture book, saying that
f(xk) = ek* ( f(xk)-f(xk-1)/xk-xk-1 ) - (ek-1*ek * f''(xa)/2 )

My argument is then that for k->Infinity, i will get that - (ek-1*ek * f''(xa)/2 ) goes towards zero. xa is in the interval between the exact solution and the current x, xk.
This is the part that I am not sure if I am right about, can i argue like this?

I then get the following expression

f(xk) = ek* ( f(xk)-f(xk-1)/xk-xk-1 )

Where I use the expression (1) and get
f(xk) = ek* (- f(xk) /dk+1)
Ánd from this I get
dk+1/ek = -1

Cheers
-Daniel

PS: How do you make those javascript math expressions I've seen in some of the posts?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, your proof is valid. To make a math expression, you can use LaTeX notation. For example: \frac{2}{3} will output $\frac{2}{3}$.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K