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 [Broken]

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 | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Proof error simpsons rule

Loading...

Similar Threads for Proof error simpsons |
---|

B Proof of a limit rule |

I Why can we WLOG derive Simpson's rule over interval -1 to 1 |

B Proof of quotient rule using Leibniz differentials |

B Don't follow one small step in proof |

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**