1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Homework Help: A proof in Numerical Analysis

  1. Sep 25, 2005 #1
    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
    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


    PS: How do you make those javascript math expressions ive seen in some of the posts?
  2. jcsd
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Similar Threads for proof Numerical Analysis Date
Proof of Wheatstone bridge equation Dec 26, 2017
Simple Pendulum motion - Numerical Integration Nov 10, 2017
Question about Carnot theorem proof May 4, 2017
Show that potential energy is conserved Apr 19, 2017