I Why Avoid Low Values of h in Derivative Estimations?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ethan Singer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Errors Explanation
Ethan Singer
Messages
19
Reaction score
1
So I just began a course on Linear Algebra, and was curious about how we can estimate derivatives using centered differences: After a few minutes of Research, I find the proof involving something about a truncation error, which led me to the conclusion that when estimating derivatives, the rate of change may determine how accurate the estimation is... so my question is: Why?

That is to say, within the mentioned proof, they say that it's best to avoid low values of "h" when estimating derivatives, because if the derivative doesn't change rapidly, the value may be too close to zero... So in summation-

Why is it important to avoid zeroes in calculation? (In the sense that when estimating derivatives, if a particular value is too small, errors may ensue)

And What characterizes a function that changes "too dramatically"?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,

Bit hard to answer in general: a concrete example wold be easier to comment on.

First comment on 'a few minutes of research' : read on in your text.

Generally this is about computing. In a computer, numbers are represented up to a certain relative precision, e.g. 10-6 or 10-15. For a derivative you need the difference between two numbers that are almost equal (depending on step size). That means relative uncertainty in the difference can become untolerably high.

Functions that change too dramatically have high values for derivatives. E.g: For a unit step function in your x, x+h interval you get 1/h as a derivative.
 
Last edited:
Ethan Singer said:
That is to say, within the mentioned proof, they say that it's best to avoid low values of "h" when estimating derivatives, because if the derivative doesn't change rapidly, the value may be too close to zero...

Consider the function ##f(x) = .5 x##. If you had a computer that kept numbers to only 3 decimal places then the approximation for ##f'(1)## using ##h = 0.001## would be ##(f(1.000+ 0.001) - f(1.000))/0.001 = 0.000## because the truncation error makes (0.5)(1.000 + .001) indistinguishable from (0.500).
 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
Back
Top