Using interpolants to solve a polynomial.

  • Thread starter Thread starter riddle
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Polynomial
riddle
Messages
38
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Show that a root of the equation x3 - 3x - 5 =0 lies in the interval [2,3], and then find the root using linear interpolation correct to one decimal place.


Homework Equations


n/a

The Attempt at a Solution


This is my first ever time using interpolants ( well at least in the sense of solving a polynomial. I think I've used them before... but instinctively.)

This is what I did:
3 \div 13 = (x1 - 2) \div (3-x1)
to end up with x1 = 2.1875.
I went on to get the third approximation only to find out that it was outside the range (less than 2).
I checked what the solution said, and it said:
3 \div 13 = (3-x1) \div (x1 - 2)

I'm utterly confused. Please help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The first thing your problem asked was to show that there was a root of your function between x = 2 and x = 3. Did you do that? And how did you do it?

Your x1 looks OK, and it is between 2 and 3. Did you check whether you got lucky and x1 is your root? If it isn't, then how do you know whether the root is in [2, x1] or in [x1, 3]? You have to know that in order to know which interval to do the next step with.
 
Oh. I forgot to mention that I'd got the first part. Yes. The root is in between 2 and 3.
I just substituted "x" with 3 and 2 and saw that f(3) / f(2) = -s. i.e., the sign changed, so there had to have had been a number which had f(x) = 0, i.e., the root of the equation.
My first approximation is different from what the book says, the same with all my further approximations. I thought that it might have been a typo, but then I couldn't do the other questions either, and in the end I checked to see if the answers that the book gave worked, and they did. So there's got to be something wrong in what I'm doing.
 
riddle said:
Oh. I forgot to mention that I'd got the first part. Yes. The root is in between 2 and 3.
I just substituted "x" with 3 and 2 and saw that f(3) / f(2) = -s. i.e., the sign changed, so there had to have had been a number which had f(x) = 0, i.e., the root of the equation.
My first approximation is different from what the book says, the same with all my further approximations. I thought that it might have been a typo, but then I couldn't do the other questions either, and in the end I checked to see if the answers that the book gave worked, and they did. So there's got to be something wrong in what I'm doing.

Your first approximation for x1 of 35/16=2.1875 is correct. The value of the function at that point is negative so you want to use x = 2.1875 and x = 3 for your calculation of x2. I get 2.250619230 for it.
 
Ok. I'm getting the same thing.
I understand how this works now. But I'm still having trouble believing that the publishers messed up so bad. Can you just have a look at what they did. I'm really tired right now, and I won't be able to use the book for a week or two so I won't be able to look at it later.
 

Attachments

  • interpolation.jpg
    interpolation.jpg
    9.8 KB · Views: 455
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top