I Finding a Rational Function with data (Pade approximation)

cbarker1
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
345
Reaction score
23
TL;DR Summary
I have some points that I need to approximate a function by using a Rational function.
Dear Everybody,

I need some help understanding how to use pade approximations with a given data points (See the attachment for the data).
Here is the basic derivation of pade approximation read the Derivation of Pade Approximate.
I am confused on how to find a f(x) to the data or is there a better way to just use the values of data in order to find the rational function.
I thought about numerical differentiation in order to find f(x) at the point 0.

Thanks,
Cbarker1
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
cbarker1 said:
Summary:: I have some points that I need to approximate a function by using a Rational function.

Dear Everybody,

I need some help understanding how to use pade approximations with a given data points (See the attachment for the data).
Here is the basic derivation of pade approximation read the Derivation of Pade Approximate.
I am confused on how to find a f(x) to the data or is there a better way to just use the values of data in order to find the rational function.
I thought about numerical differentiation in order to find f(x) at the point 0.

Thanks,
Cbarker1
Why do you think you need to do the approximation with a rational function? You have 10 data points, so a 9th degree polynomial would go through all 10 points. As an alternative, you could use Bezier curve fitting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bézier_curve), to find a collection of functions that fit your data points.
 
Because I am learning about pade approximation and I am presenting this method to my colleagues, I need to know where to start. I understand that I can do the polynomial interpolation.
 
cbarker1 said:
Summary:: I have some points that I need to approximate a function by using a Rational function.

Here is the basic derivation of pade approximation read the Derivation of Pade Approximate.
According to the article in the link, you need to have the function definition in order to approximate it as the quotient of two power series. Obviously, you don't have the function definition. In the example in the article, they find the Pade approximation for ##f(x) = e^x##.
cbarker1 said:
I am confused on how to find a f(x) to the data or is there a better way to just use the values of data in order to find the rational function.
I thought about numerical differentiation in order to find f(x) at the point 0.
You mean at the point (1, 20)? I don't see how that would help at all. The graph of the plotted points doesn't look to me like any rational function (other than some polynomial).
 
Polynomial interpolation would works well in this data. But pade approximate would better because the error would be smaller. The best situation is having a defined function that does not happen in many cases in application problems. It is usual given by data points.
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top