I have tried to figure out a proof for simspons error that I found online(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

http://rowdy.mscd.edu/~talmanl/PDFs/Misc/Quintics.pdf

it is on page 149

I have sorted out the proof I think to (9) including (9). But I wonder how they could assume that F is continous on [0,h] when F is a different function in 0? It looks like derivative but one has -t to 0 and the other have t to zero would it not give different direction for the derivative?

EDIT: Got it -t in denumerator right?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

# Proof error simpsons rule

Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email,
Google+,
Twitter, or
Facebook

Have something to add?

- Similar discussions for: Proof error simpsons rule

Loading...

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**