So you would run the central difference formula with 2, 1, 0.5.
Yes, but you need to choose different ##x_i, x_{i+1}, x_{i-1}## for each step size. Notice the values of these variables in the prior post with step size ##h = 1##.
Maybe what confuses me is when they say "calculate the TRE of the last estimate", its just the second of two estimates calculated using
To compute the true relative error for each result, simply use:
$$E_T = \frac{|\text{true result - calculated result}|}{\text{true result}} \times 100 \% = \frac{|0.2 - \text{calculated result}|}{0.2} \times 100 \%$$
You can compute one for each calculated result, but the question only wants to you comment on a particular one.
then for
Zondrina said:
↑
4/3D(h2)−1/3D(h1)
we would use f(2) and f(1) , and then again with f(1), f(0.5)?
No, think about what each ##D(h_i)## represents in terms of the estimates you have calculated. You should also take notice of the spacing between each step size ##h_i## and how it relates to ##h_2 = \frac{h_1}{2}##.
Is it possible to derive a formula that has 3 terms that includes h_3, h_2, h_1 where h_1=h_2/2=h_3/4
I don't think so. The point of Richardson Extrapolation is to recursively compute better derivative/integral estimates. There are actual formulas for this, namely:
$$\frac{4}{3} D(h_2) - \frac{1}{3} D(h_1)$$
$$\frac{16}{15} D(h_2) - \frac{1}{15} D(h_1)$$
There is an actual pattern here, and the next term would be ##\frac{64}{63} D(h_2) - \frac{1}{63} D(h_1)##.
The first equation above takes two estimates with error proportional to ##O(h^2)## and satisfies ##h_2 = \frac{h_1}{2}##; it allows you to compute an estimate with error proportional to ##O(h^4)##. So the first equation looks something like this for the problem at hand:
$$\frac{4}{3} D(h_2) - \frac{1}{3} D(h_1) = \frac{4}{3} D(\frac{h_1}{2}) - \frac{1}{3} D(h_1) = \frac{4}{3} D(1) - \frac{1}{3} D(2)$$