Understanding Brent's root finding method

  • Thread starter Thread starter phantomvommand
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
1 replies · 2K views
phantomvommand
Messages
287
Reaction score
39
TL;DR
I am unsure about the conditions for rejecting the secant or IQI method in favour of bisection
Screenshot 2025-07-13 at 3.31.49 PM.webp


I am unsure about why in the case where bisect_flag == False, we should check b-1 - b-2. Is the objective not to check that we are halving the interval between our best guesses b, so it should be abs(b - b-1), regardless of whether the previous step was a bisection or not?
 
on Phys.org
phantomvommand said:
I am unsure about why in the case where bisect_flag == False, we should check b-1 - b-2. Is the objective not to check that we are halving the interval between our best guesses b, so it should be abs(b - b-1), regardless of whether the previous step was a bisection or not?

According to p.50 of Brent's original publication (it is available on archive.org): "practical tests show that this [would slow down] convergence for well-behaved functions by performing unnecessary bisections".

Like many practical algorithms this is a compromise between optimizing performance in the majority of situations whilst avoiding poor performance (or even failure) in pathological cases.

Note that this question probably belongs in the Programming and Computer Science forum. I'll get it moved.
 
Last edited:
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jim mcnamara, Baluncore and berkeman