Problem with fitting simple quadratic function to 3 data points

In summary, The individual has an array of data points representing chi^2 values for a fit and wants to calculate the 1-sigma error for the fit. The idea is to find the lowest chi^2 value and the two points on either side, fit a quadratic function to these points, and then calculate the deviations on either side to find the 1-sigma error. However, there is a mental block in figuring out how to fit a quadratic to the three data points and the individual is looking for a simpler way to implement this without using Cramer's Rule. Suggestions include using the Lagrange Polynomial or other polynomial interpolation methods.
  • #1
johnismint
1
0
Hello PF,

Ok so here is my problem. I have an array of data points which are the chi^2 values for a fit I have performed. I wish to calculate the 1-sigma error for this fit, so I figure I could find the lowest chi^2 value, and the two points either side that value, and fit a quadratic function to this. Then 'fill' this such that deltachi^2=1 and calculate the deviations either side. But this is somewhat irrelevant for now...

I have a complete mental block, and I'm really struggling to figure out how to fit a quadratic to these 3 data points. I'm editing a fortran-77 program to do this (which I'm not that familiar with) so would like to keep it as simple as possible. If my function is F(x)= a*x**2 + b*x + c, I already have c constrained to be my minimum value, however, I can't seem to figure out how to get these other co-efficients. I know there are methods such as Cramer's rule, however this would require significant changes to the program, which I would like to avoid. Can anyone think of an easier way to implement this?

Many thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If you plug in each of your data points, you'll get three linear equations in three unknowns (a, b, c). Then it's just a bit of linear algebra.
 
  • #4
rochfor1 said:
If you plug in each of your data points, you'll get three linear equations in three unknowns (a, b, c). Then it's just a bit of linear algebra.

I think that's what he was referring to by Cramer's Rule in his original post, he doesn't want to do that.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Back
Top