Simpson's rule can solve cubics exactly

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter zeta101
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Simpson's rule can solve cubic polynomials exactly, as well as quadratic polynomials. The discussion emphasizes the application of Simpson's rule to a generic cubic function represented as ax^3 + bx^2 + cx + d. It is established that applying Simpson's rule to the integral from x_0 to x_0 + 2h does not lose generality by setting x_0 to zero, simplifying the proof process. The discussion concludes that if Simpson's rule is valid for individual polynomials, it is also valid for their sum.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Simpson's rule in numerical integration
  • Familiarity with polynomial functions, specifically cubic and quadratic forms
  • Knowledge of integral calculus and properties of definite integrals
  • Basic algebraic manipulation skills for polynomial expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the derivation and proof of Simpson's rule for cubic polynomials
  • Explore the application of Simpson's rule in numerical integration techniques
  • Learn about the properties of definite integrals and their implications in calculus
  • Investigate the relationship between polynomial functions and numerical methods
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying calculus, and anyone interested in numerical methods for solving integrals, particularly those involving polynomial functions.

zeta101
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Simpson's rule can solve cubics exactly...(as well as quadratics which makes sense) the question is why? I've googled around and can't find an explanation, although it is just stated as being true.

Can someone offer and explanation or a website?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The most straightforward way to try and prove it would be to apply Simpson's rule to a generic cubic. (i.e. ax^3 + bx^2 + cx + d)
 
Thanks for the reply.

Could you tell me that if the integral is from x_0 to x_0 + 2h then can i set x_0 = 0 and it still be a proof (it's a lot simplier if i do)? or have i lost generality?

Thanks again!
 
Instead of simply wondering if it's okay, you could try and prove it's okay. Can you find a way to convert the general problem into this form?
 
having thought about it this is the only thing i can think of:

int_{x_0}^{x_0+2h} -----> int_{x_0 -x_0}^{x_0+2h-x_0}

so, that's saying that the integral doesn't lose any generality by subtracting x_0 (a constant) from both the upper and lower limits (i don't know for certain i can do this, but it seems ok). So if it still stays general then setting x_0 to zero is also.

please tell me i am right :)

thanks for the guidance
 
Last edited:
You only need to prove that appling simpsons rule to x^3 gives the same answer as integration.

Thi
It should be clear that if simpsons works for both polynomials p(x) and q(x) then it works for p(x)+ q(x). Because int (p(x)+q(x)) = int(p(x)) + int(q(x))
and the same rule applies to Simpsons rule since using simpsons rule on the function p(x) +q(x) gives area =( b-a)/6*( p(a)+ q(a) +
4*(p(a+b)/2)+ q((a+b)/2) + p(b) + q(b)).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
19K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K