MHB Monotonically convergence to the root

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Convergence Root
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! 😊

We have the following iteration from Newton's method \begin{align*}x_{k+1}&=x_k-\frac{f(x_k)}{f'(x_k)}=x_k-\frac{x_k^n-a}{nx_k^{n-1}}=\frac{x_k\cdot nx_k^{n-1}-\left (x_k^n-a\right )}{nx_k^{n-1}}=\frac{ nx_k^{n}-x_k^n+a}{nx_k^{n-1}}\\ & =\frac{ (n-1)x_k^{n}+a}{nx_k^{n-1}}\end{align*}

I want to show that for $x_0\geq a^{1/n}$ the method converges monotonically to the root.So first we have to show that the sequence $(x_k)$ is monotone decreasing, right?I have done the following:

\begin{align*}&x_{k+1}=\frac{ (n-1)x_k^{n}+a}{nx_k^{n-1}}=\frac{n-1}{n}x_k+\frac{a}{nx_k^{n-1}}=\left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k+\frac{a}{nx_k^{n-1}} \\ & \Rightarrow \frac{x_{k+1}}{x_k}=\frac{\left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k+\frac{a}{nx_k^{n-1}}}{x_k}=\left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )+\frac{a}{nx_k^{n}}=1+\frac{a-x_k^{n}}{nx_k^{n}}\end{align*}

Since $x_0\geq a^{1/n}$ we have that all approximations are greater than $a^{1/n}$. Is this correct? :unsure:

So we get $x_k\geq a^{1/n} \Rightarrow x_k^n\geq a \Rightarrow a-x_k^{n}\leq 0$.

Therefore we get that $\frac{x_{k+1}}{x_k}\leq 1 \Rightarrow x_{k+1}\leq x_k$ and so the sequence is decreasing.Then I want to show also that $$x_{k+1}-a\leq \frac{n-1}{n}(x_k-a)$$

I have done the following:
$$x_{k+1}-a=\frac{n-1}{n}x_k+\frac{a}{nx_k^{n-1}}-a=\frac{n-1}{n}x_k+\frac{a}{nx_k^{n-1}}-\frac{nx_k^{n-1}a}{ nx_k^{n-1}}=\frac{n-1}{n}x_k-a\cdot \frac{nx_k^{n-1}-1}{ nx_k^{n-1}}$$

To get the desired result we need:
$$\frac{nx_k^{n-1}-1}{ nx_k^{n-1}}\geq \frac{n-1}{n} \Rightarrow \frac{nx_k^{n-1}-1}{ x_k^{n-1}}\geq n-1
\Rightarrow nx_k^{n-1}-1\geq nx_k^{n-1}-x_k^{n-1} \Rightarrow x_k^{n-1}\geq 1 $$ but does this hold? :unsure:
Then last question...
I want to calculate $2010^{(1/17)}$ with starting point $x_0=2010$, with $4$ decimal digits.
For that we use the above formula with $a=2010$, $n=17$ and $x_0=2010$.

Some approximations that we get:
\begin{align*}&x_1=\left (1-\frac{1}{17}\right )\cdot 2010+\frac{2010}{17\cdot 2010^{17-1}}=\frac{16}{17}\cdot 2010+\frac{2010}{17\cdot 2010^{16}}=\frac{16}{17}\cdot 2010+\frac{1}{17\cdot 2010^{15}}=\frac{16\cdot 2010^16+1}{17\cdot 2010^{15}}\approx 1891.7647 \\ &x_2=\left (1-\frac{1}{17}\right )\cdot 1891.7647+\frac{2010}{17\cdot 1891.7647^{17-1}}=\frac{16}{17}\cdot 1891.7647+\frac{2010}{17\cdot 1891.7647^{16}}\approx 1780.4844 \\ &x_3=\left (1-\frac{1}{17}\right )\cdot 1780.4844+\frac{2010}{17\cdot 1780.4844^{17-1}}=\frac{16}{17}\cdot 1780.4844+\frac{2010}{17\cdot 1780.4844^{16}}\approx 1675.7500\end{align*}
In Wolfram I checked that the result is about $1.5642$. So to get the correct result we have to apply the method many items or have I done something wrong? :unsure:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hi mathmari!

It looks correct to me.
Btw, you might formulate it more properly as a proof by induction. (Nerd)

Still, it is not enough is it? We still need to prove that the sequence converges to $a$.
And if we have that, then perhaps we can also deduce that the sequence is decreasing. (Sweating)
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
It looks correct to me.
Btw, you might formulate it more properly as a proof by induction. (Nerd)

Still, it is not enough is it? We still need to prove that the sequence converges to $a$.
And if we have that, then perhaps we can also deduce that the sequence is decreasing. (Sweating)

We show by induction that $x_k\geq a^{1/n}$ for all $k\geq 0$.

Base Case: For $k=0$ it is true, as thisis given.

Inductive Hypothesis: We suppose that this is true for $k=i$, i.e. $x_i\geq a^{1/n}$.
We want to show that this is also true for $k=i+1$, i.e. that $x_{i+1}\geq a^{1/n}$.
We have that $$x_{i+1}=\frac{ (n-1)x_i^{n}+a}{nx_i^{n-1}}\geq \frac{ (n-1)\left(a^{1/n}\right )^{n}+a}{nx_i^{n-1}}=\frac{ (n-1)a+a}{nx_i^{n-1}}=\frac{ na}{nx_i^{n-1}}=\frac{ a}{x_i^{n-1}}$$ How do we continue? :unsure:
 
For the second part, to show the inequality $x_{n+1}-a\leq \frac{n-1}{n}(x_k-a)$, do we maybe do the following?
\begin{align*}x_{k+1}-a-\frac{n-1}{n}(x_k-a)&=x_{k+1}-a-\left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )(x_k-a) \\ & =x_{k+1}-a-\left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k+\left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )a \\ & =x_{k+1}-a-x_k+\frac{1}{n}x_k+a-\frac{1}{n}a \\ & =x_{k+1}-x_k+\frac{1}{n}x_k-\frac{1}{n}a \\ & =x_{k+1}-x_k+\frac{x_k-a}{n} \\ & \leq x_{k}-x_k+\frac{x_k-a}{n} \\ & = \frac{x_k-a}{n}\end{align*} So we have to show that the last term is negative. How can we see that? :unsure:
 
mathmari said:
Then last question...
I want to calculate $2010^{(1/17)}$ with starting point $x_0=2010$, with $4$ decimal digits.
For that we use the above formula with $a=2010$, $n=17$ and $x_0=2010$.

Some approximations that we get:
\begin{align*}&x_1=\left (1-\frac{1}{17}\right )\cdot 2010+\frac{2010}{17\cdot 2010^{17-1}}=\frac{16}{17}\cdot 2010+\frac{2010}{17\cdot 2010^{16}}=\frac{16}{17}\cdot 2010+\frac{1}{17\cdot 2010^{15}}=\frac{16\cdot 2010^16+1}{17\cdot 2010^{15}}\approx 1891.7647 \\ &x_2=\left (1-\frac{1}{17}\right )\cdot 1891.7647+\frac{2010}{17\cdot 1891.7647^{17-1}}=\frac{16}{17}\cdot 1891.7647+\frac{2010}{17\cdot 1891.7647^{16}}\approx 1780.4844 \\ &x_3=\left (1-\frac{1}{17}\right )\cdot 1780.4844+\frac{2010}{17\cdot 1780.4844^{17-1}}=\frac{16}{17}\cdot 1780.4844+\frac{2010}{17\cdot 1780.4844^{16}}\approx 1675.7500\end{align*}
In Wolfram I checked that the result is about $1.5642$. So to get the correct result we have to apply the method many items or have I done something wrong?
This iteration process looks correct to me.
Note that in each iteration we have $x_{k+1}=\frac{n-1}n x_k + \text{ something positive}$.
So for a large starting value, we go down by less than a factor $\frac{n-1}n=\frac{16}{17}$ per iteration. 🤔
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
This iteration process looks correct to me.
Note that in each iteration we have $x_{k+1}=\frac{n-1}n x_k + \text{ something positive}$.
So for a large starting value, we go down by less than a factor $\frac{n-1}n=\frac{16}{17}$ per iteration. 🤔

I applied the method online for the given function and I saw that to get a result close to the true value we have to do about 115 iterations. (Lipssealed)

So taking this starting point is a bad idea... Do you have also an idea about the question with the inequality? :unsure:
 
mathmari said:
Do you have also an idea about the question with the inequality?
Have you considered looking at the error as is given by a formula with the second derivative of $f$?
If we can prove that this error is always positive and that it converges to 0, then we have what we need. 🤔
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Have you considered looking at the error as is given by a formula with the second derivative of $f$?
If we can prove that this error is always positive and that it converges to 0, then we have what we need. 🤔

What do you mean? I haven't really understood that. :unsure:
 
mathmari said:
What do you mean? I haven't really understood that.
Wiki lists the error in each iteration to a root $\alpha$ as
$$\varepsilon_{n+1} = \frac {- f'' (\xi_n)}{2 f'(x_n)} \cdot {\varepsilon_n}^2$$
where $\varepsilon_n = \alpha - x_n$ and $\xi_n$ is between $\alpha$ and $x_n$.

If we can prove that $\varepsilon_n$ is a negative and increasing sequence that converges to 0, we have proven everything, haven't we? 🤔
 
  • #10
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Wiki lists the error in each iteration to a root $\alpha$ as
$$\varepsilon_{n+1} = \frac {- f'' (\xi_n)}{2 f'(x_n)} \cdot {\varepsilon_n}^2$$
where $\varepsilon_n = \alpha - x_n$ and $\xi_n$ is between $\alpha$ and $x_n$.

If we can prove that $\varepsilon_n$ is a negative and increasing sequence that converges to 0, we have proven everything, haven't we? 🤔

So in this case we have that $\epsilon_k=a^{1/n}-x_k$, right?

So we get
$$\epsilon_{k+1}=-\frac{n(n-1)\xi_k^{n-2}}{2nx_k^{n-1}}\cdot \epsilon_n^2=-\frac{(n-1)\xi_k^{n-2}}{2x_k^{n-1}}\cdot \epsilon_n^2\leq -\frac{(n-1)(a^{1/n})^{n-2}}{2(a^{1/n})^{n-1}}\cdot \epsilon_n^2=-\frac{n-1}{2a^{1/n}}\cdot \epsilon_k^2$$ with $\epsilon_k=a^{1/n}-x_k$.

Is that correct so far? :unsure:
 
  • #11
The inequality is not correct since the expression is negative.
Instead the inequality would apply if we take the magnitudes of both sides. 🤔

Either way, we can already see that each error after the first is negative, so we can conclude that $x_n \ge a^{1/n}$. 🤔
 
  • #12
Klaas van Aarsen said:
The inequality is not correct since the expression is negative.
Instead the inequality would apply if we take the magnitudes of both sides. 🤔

Either way, we can already see that each error after the first is negative, so we can conclude that $x_n \ge a^{1/n}$. 🤔
Ahh ok!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
I tried again to show the ineuqlaity $x_{k+1}-a\leq \frac{n-1}{n}(x_k-a)$ and I have the following:

\begin{align*}x_{k+1}&=\left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k+\frac{a}{nx_k^{n-1}} \\ & \leq \left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k+\frac{a}{n\left (a^{1/n}\right )^{n-1}} \\ & = \left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k+\frac{a}{na^{1-\frac{1}{n}}} \\ & = \left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k+\frac{a^{\frac{1}{n}}}{n} \\ & \leq \left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k+\frac{a}{n}\end{align*}
At the second line I used the fact that $x_k\geq a^{1/n}$ and so $\frac{1}{x_k}\leq \frac{1}{a^{1/n}}$ and at the last line I used the fact that $a^{1/n}\leq a$.

Are these inequalities correct? :unsure:

Then subtracting at both sides "$a$" we get \begin{equation*}x_{k+1}-a\leq \left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k+\frac{a}{n}-a=\left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k-\left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )a=\left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )(x_k-a)\end{equation*}

Is everything correct? :unsure:
 
  • #14
mathmari said:
I tried again to show the ineuqlaity $x_{k+1}-a\leq \frac{n-1}{n}(x_k-a)$ and I have the following:

At the second line I used the fact that $x_k\geq a^{1/n}$ and so $\frac{1}{x_k}\leq \frac{1}{a^{1/n}}$ and at the last line I used the fact that $a^{1/n}\leq a$.

Are these inequalities correct?

We need $a\ge 1$ for the inequality $a^{1/n}\leq a$ to be true.
So you're proving a weaker version of the statement. 🤔

Then subtracting at both sides "$a$" we get \begin{equation*}x_{k+1}-a\leq \left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k+\frac{a}{n}-a=\left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k-\left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )a=\left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )(x_k-a)\end{equation*}

Is everything correct?
Yep.
 
  • #15
Klaas van Aarsen said:
We need $a\ge 1$ for the inequality $a^{1/n}\leq a$ to be true.
So you're proving a weaker version of the statement. 🤔

So do we have to prove that $a\geq 1$ ? Or do we have to take cases, if $a\geq 1$ and if $a<1$ ? :unsure:
 
  • #16
mathmari said:
So do we have to prove that $a\geq 1$ ? Or do we have to take cases, if $a\geq 1$ and if $a<1$ ?
We cannot prove that $a\ge 1$, since $a$ is part of the input statement without any constraints.
We can only assume that $a \ge 0$ because otherwise $a^{1/n}$ is not well defined. 🧐

What you have now only works for $a\ge 1$, although the statement is also true for $a<1$. We can tell if we consider the graph.
So either we have to be satisfied with the proof of a weaker statement, or we have to indeed take the case $a<1$ separately, or we need to find a different way. 🤔
 
  • #17
Do you have an idea for the case $a<1$ ?

I have done the following:

If $a< 1$ then $a^{1/n}\leq a$ and so $$x_{k+1}\leq \left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k+\frac{a^{\frac{1}{n}}}{n} \Rightarrow x_{k+1}-a\leq \left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k+\frac{a^{\frac{1}{n}}}{n}-a=\left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k-\frac{na-a^{\frac{1}{n}}}{n}=\left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k-\frac{n\left (a^n\right )^{\frac{1}{n}}-a^{\frac{1}{n}}}{n}$$ But I don't have an idea how to continue... :unsure:
 
  • #18
One other idea:

If $a< 1$ then \begin{align*}x_{k+1}&=\left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k+\frac{a}{nx_k^{n-1}}\\ & \leq \left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k+\frac{1}{nx_k^{n-1}} \\ & \leq \left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k+\frac{1}{n\left (a^{1/n}\right )^{n-1}} \\ & = \left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k+\frac{1}{na^{1-\frac{1}{n}}} \\ & = \left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k+\frac{a^{\frac{1}{n}-1}}{n} \\ & = \left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k+\frac{a^{\frac{1-n}{n}}}{n} \end{align*}
But how could we get the power of $a$ below? :unsure:
 
  • #19
mathmari said:
Then I want to show also that $$x_{k+1}-a\leq \frac{n-1}{n}(x_k-a)$$
Just realized, shouldn't we try to show that $x_{k+1}-a^{1/n}\leq \frac{n-1}{n}(x_k-a^{1/n})$ instead? (Wondering)
The root of $y=x^n-a$ is $a^{1/n}$ after all, while $-a$ is the $y$-intersection.

Let $\alpha=a^{1/n}$.
Then we have:
\[ x_{k+1}-\alpha = x_k - \frac{x_k^n-a}{nx_k^{n-1}}-\alpha =x_k-\alpha - \frac{x_k^n-\alpha^n}{nx_k^{n-1}} =\left(1 - \frac{x_k^{n-1}+\ldots+\alpha^{n-1}}{nx_k^{n-1}}\right)(x_k-\alpha) \le \left(1 - \frac{1}{n}\right)(x_k-\alpha) \]
🤔
 
Last edited:
  • #20
"Convergence" is a noun, not a verb, adjective, or adverb. You need an adjective to modify it, not an adverb- "Monotone Covergence" NOT "Monotonically Convergence"!

("Coverge" is a verb so "Monotonically Converge" is correct.)

Okay, that's my rant for today.
 
  • #21
Country Boy said:
"Convergence" is a noun, not a verb, adjective, or adverb. You need an adjective to modify it, not an adverb- "Monotone Covergence" NOT "Monotonically Convergence"!

("Coverge" is a verb so "Monotonically Converge" is correct.)

Okay, that's my rant for today.
Indeed... but... erm... "coverge" is not a verb. It is "converge".

Okay, that's my nitpicking for today.
 
  • #22
I'm so ashamed!
 
Back
Top