I'm better then Newton (Method of Approximation)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a Delphi program that claims to outperform Newton's method for approximating the square root of 2. The author asserts that their original method can find the root in one step under specific conditions, highlighting its efficiency compared to traditional algorithms. While acknowledging that specialized algorithms can outperform Newton's method in terms of iterations and CPU cycles, the general consensus is that Newton's method remains versatile for any function with a continuous first derivative. Participants also suggest consulting "Numerical Recipes in C" for further insights and recommend exploring programming languages beyond Delphi. The conversation emphasizes the balance between innovative methods and established algorithms in numerical approximation.
dr-dock
http://www.geocities.com/dr_physica/moa.zip

is a delphi program showing how my method of approxim outperforms/beats the Newton's one while looking for sqrt(2)

try the case A+B=2*sqrt(2) and see the magic!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
There are lots of algorithms which can "beat" the Newton-Raphson method if the only criterion is the number of iterations computed. Specifically, with some domain knowledge of the kind of problem you're trying to solve, a variety of more specialized algorithms can beat Newton's method in terms of CPU cycles performed. In general, though, Newton's method is simple and works on any function with a continuously defined first derivative.

I advise that you consult "Numerical Recipes in C." I also advise that you learn a better programming language than Delphi.

- Warren
 
I remember last semester my math teacher would occasionally mention the Newton method. It was always funny because he'd mean to just mention it but then would get caught up in this whole discourse on how it was probably the best algorithim ever and yada yada yada and all the sudden class is up and he's done nothing but talk about how amazing Newtons algorithim was. It was quite comicall really
 
Originally posted by chroot
There are lots of algorithms which can "beat" the Newton-Raphson method if the only criterion is the number of iterations computed. Specifically, with some domain knowledge of the kind of problem you're trying to solve, a variety of more specialized algorithms can beat Newton's method in terms of CPU cycles performed. In general, though, Newton's method is simple and works on any function with a continuously defined first derivative.

I advise that you consult "Numerical Recipes in C." I also advise that you learn a better programming language than Delphi.

- Warren
quite right.
but the special thing is that this one is my original invention and it finds the root in just one step almost analytically under special conditions.
 
SUre, there are better methods of approximation.

But for the sake of approximation, I'll use the Newton-Raphson method. :wink:
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Back
Top