I Proving Newton's forward difference interpolation formula

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving Newton's forward difference interpolation formula, expressed as a polynomial involving coefficients a_n derived from finite differences. The formula starts with the base case where y_0(x_0) equals a_0 and extends to higher-order terms using finite differences. The key point is that the coefficients a_n can be calculated as a_n = (Δ^n y_0) / (h^n n!), where h represents the step size. The conversation also touches on using induction or a triangular matrix approach to derive these coefficients systematically. Overall, the goal is to establish a rigorous proof of the interpolation formula.
PLAGUE
Messages
35
Reaction score
2
TL;DR Summary
How to prove newtons forward difference interpolation formula using induction?
Say, $$y_n (x) = a_0 + a_1(x -x_0) + a_2(x-x_1)(x - x_0) + ... +a_n(x-x_0)(x-x_1)...(x-x_{n-1})$$
Now, $$y_0(x_0) = a_0$$
$$y_1(x_1) = a_0 + a_1(x_1 - x_0)$$
or, $$a_1 = \frac{\Delta y_0}{h}$$
Here, $$h = \frac{x_i - x_0}{i}$$
Similarly, $$a_n = \frac{(\Delta)^n y_0}{h^n n!}$$

Next substituting the values of a, we get the Newton's Forward Interpolation Formula.

It is not difficult to see that ##a_n = \frac{(\Delta)^n y_0}{h^n n!}##. But how do I prove this by induction method? Or any other rigorous way?

Screenshot 2025-08-02 205225.webp
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top