Hello there!(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

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 im not sure if im 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 ive seen in some of the posts?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Homework Help: A proof in Numerical Analysis

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**