MHB Comparing Difference Quotients for Approximating $f'''(x)$

  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Difference
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the accuracy of two difference quotients for approximating the third derivative, $f'''(x)$. The first difference quotient has an error bound of $\frac{22}{4} h ||f^{(4)}||_{\infty}$, while the second has a smaller error bound of $\frac{3}{4} h ||f^{(4)}||_{\infty}$. This suggests that the second difference quotient is a more accurate approximation due to its smaller constant. Participants discuss the need for a formal justification of this conclusion, with suggestions to express the error terms in a sharper form. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of error analysis in determining the accuracy of numerical approximations.
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hello! (Wave)

I have to show that the following difference quotients are approximations of $f'''(x)$.

$$\frac{f(x+3h)-3f(x+2h)+3f(x+h)-f(x)}{h^3} \\ \frac{f(x+2h)-2f(x+h)+2f(x-h)-f(x-2h)}{2h^3}$$

Which approximation is more accurate? Justify your answer.I found the Taylor expansion of $f(x+3h) , f(x+2h), f(x+h)$ and found that

$$\left| \frac{f(x+3h)-3f(x+2h)+3f(x+h)-f(x)}{h^3}-f'''(x) \right| \leq \frac{22}{4} h ||f^{(4)}||_{\infty}$$

Have we shown now that $\frac{f(x+3h)-3f(x+2h)+3f(x+h)-f(x)}{h^3}$ is an approximation of $f'''(x)$?
Or do we have to show that the above tends to $0$ ?

Similarly, I found that

$$\left| \frac{f(x+2h)-2f(x+h)+2f(x-h)-f(x-2h)}{2h^3}-f'''(x) \right| \leq \frac{3}{4} h ||f^{(4)}||_{\infty}$$

The second difference quotient is a better approximation because of the smaller constant, right ?

But how could we justify it formally? (Thinking)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
evinda said:
The second difference quotient is a better approximation because of the smaller constant, right ?

But how could we justify it formally? (Thinking)

Hey evinda! (Smile)

I think that what you have is already sufficiently formal.

The only thing I can think of to improve it, is to set the expressions equal to $\frac{22}{4} h f^{(4)}(x+\theta h)$ respectively $\frac{3}{4} h f^{(4)}(x+\xi h)$, where $0\le\theta\le 1$ and $0\le\xi\le 1$.
I'd consider that sharper than giving an upper bound. (Thinking)
 
I like Serena said:
Hey evinda! (Smile)

I think that what you have is already sufficiently formal.

The only thing I can think of to improve it, is to set the expressions equal to $\frac{22}{4} h f^{(4)}(x+\theta h)$ respectively $\frac{3}{4} h f^{(4)}(x+\xi h)$, where $0\le\theta\le 1$ and $0\le\xi\le 1$.
I'd consider that sharper than giving an upper bound. (Thinking)

Nice... Thanks a lot! (Smile)
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Back
Top