Taylor's Inequality/Newton's Method (Tips, Please)

  • Thread starter Thread starter DivGradCurl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Method Tips
AI Thread Summary
Newton's method approximates the root of the equation f(x)=0 using successive iterations defined by x_{n+1} = x_n - f(x_n)/f'(x_n). The discussion focuses on applying Taylor's Inequality to demonstrate that if the second derivative f''(x) exists and is bounded, then the error in the approximation decreases quadratically with each iteration. Specifically, it shows that if the error at stage n is at most 10^{-m}, then the error at stage n+1 is at most (M/2K)10^{-2m}. Participants suggest using the function g(x) and the second-degree Taylor polynomial to derive the relationship between the approximations and the actual root. The conclusion confirms the quadratic convergence of Newton's method under the specified conditions.
DivGradCurl
Messages
364
Reaction score
0
Problem

Newton's method gives an approximation to a root r of the equation f(x)=0. From an initial approximation x_1 we obtain successive approximations x_2 , x_3 , \ldots , where

x_{n+1} = x_n - \frac{f(x_n)}{f^{\prime}(x_n)}

Use Taylor's Inequality with n=1, a=x_n, and x=r to show that if f^{\prime \prime} (x) exists on an interval I containing r, x_n, and x_{n+1}, and \left| f^{\prime \prime} (x) \right| \leq M, \left| f^{\prime} (x) \right| \geq K for all x \in I, then

\left| x_{n+1} - r \right| \leq \frac{M}{2K}\left| x_n - r \right| ^2

[This means that if x_n is accurate to d decimal places, then x_{n+1} is accurate to about 2d decimal places. More precisely, if the error at stage n is at most 10^{-m}, then the error at stage n+1 is at most \left( \frac{M}{2K} \right) 10^{-2m} .]

Comments

I'm acquainted with Newton's method

x_{n+1} = x_n - \frac{f(x_n)}{f^{\prime}(x_n)}

and Taylor's Inequality

\left| R_n (x) \right| \leq \frac{M}{\left( n+1 \right) !} \left| x-a \right| ^{n+1} \qquad \mbox{ for } \left| x-a \right| \leq d

However, it's not clear to me how I can join those concepts. Here is what I tried to do (without success :cry:):

If

\int _{x_n} ^{r} f^{\prime \prime} (t) \, dt \leq \int _{x_n} ^{r} M \, dt

f^{\prime} (r) - f^{\prime} (x_n) \leq M (r-x_n)

f^{\prime} (r) \leq f^{\prime} (x_n) + M (r-x_n)

Then

\int _{x_n} ^{r} K \, dt \leq \int _{x_n} ^{r} f^{\prime} (t) \, dt \leq \int _{x_n} ^{r} \left[ f^{\prime} (x_n) + M (t-x_n) \right] \, dt

K (r-x_n) \leq f (r) - f(x_n) \leq f^{\prime}(x_n)(r-x_n) + \frac{M}{2} (r-x_n) ^2

I just need some tips. I probably am in the wrong direction.

Thank you :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would suggest that you consider the function g(x)=x-\frac{f(x)}{f^{'}(x)}, using Taylor's inequality. Note that R_n(x) can be expressed as |x_{n+1}-r|. Also, after differentiating g(x) once, you may need an estimate for |f(x)|. You may obtain such by noting that f(x)=\int^{x}_{r}f^{'}(y)dy
 
Last edited:
This seems close, but I'm not 100% sure.

x_{n+1} = x_n - \frac{f(x_n)}{f^{\prime}(x_n)} \Longrightarrow r \approx x_n - \frac{f(x_n)}{f^{\prime}(x_n)}

Let's rewrite that as follows

0 = f(x_n) + f^{\prime}(x_n) (r-x_n)

which is the first-degree Taylor polynomial approximation to r.

In order to gain further insight through Taylor's Inequality, we may find the second-degree Taylor polynomial approximation to r. Thus, we have

0 = f(x_n) + f^{\prime}(x_n) (r-x_n) + \frac{f^{\prime \prime}(x_n)}{2} (r-x_n) ^2

Then

0 = \frac{f(x_n)}{f^{\prime}(x_n)} + (r-x_n) + \frac{f^{\prime \prime}(x_n)}{2f^{\prime}(x_n)} (r-x_n) ^2

0 = -(x_{n+1}-x_n) + (r-x_n) + \frac{f^{\prime \prime}(x_n)}{2f^{\prime}(x_n)} (r-x_n) ^2

0 = r - x_{n+1} + \frac{f^{\prime \prime}(x_n)}{2f^{\prime}(x_n)} (r-x_n) ^2

r - x_{n+1} = - \frac{f^{\prime \prime}(x_n)}{2f^{\prime}(x_n)} (r-x_n) ^2

\left| r - x_{n+1} \right| = \frac{\left| f^{\prime \prime}(x_n) \right|}{2\left|f^{\prime}(x_n)\right|} \left| r-x_n \right| ^2

\left| r - x_{n+1} \right| \leq \frac{M}{2K} \left| r-x_n \right| ^2 \Longleftrightarrow \left| x_{n+1} - r \right| \leq \frac{M}{2K} \left| x_n - r \right| ^2
 
Last edited:
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top