Is the Secant Method's Convergence to -1 Provable?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving that the secant method's convergence ratio dk+1/ek approaches -1 as k approaches infinity. The user presents their proof approach, utilizing the secant method formula and an error expression from their lecture notes. They argue that as k increases, a specific term involving the second derivative of the function approaches zero, allowing them to derive the desired result. The response confirms the validity of their proof and provides guidance on using LaTeX for mathematical expressions. Overall, the thread focuses on the mathematical proof of convergence in the secant method.
pinodk
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
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
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 I am not sure if I am 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 I've seen in some of the posts?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, your proof is valid. To make a math expression, you can use LaTeX notation. For example: \frac{2}{3} will output $\frac{2}{3}$.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top