Why can we WLOG derive Simpson's rule over interval -1 to 1

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Potatochip911
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derive Interval
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies the derivation of Simpson's Rule over the interval from -1 to 1, emphasizing that there is no loss of generality in this approach due to the scaling transformation. The transformation involves changing variables with the equation x=(b-a)x'/2+(a+b)/2, allowing integrals on any interval [a,b] to be expressed on the standardized interval [-1,1]. The conversation also critiques the terminology used in the Wikipedia article, suggesting that "scaling and shift/translation" is a more accurate description. Additionally, the significance of quadratic interpolation in relation to Rolle's theorem and convexity is highlighted.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Simpson's Rule
  • Familiarity with integral calculus
  • Knowledge of variable substitution techniques
  • Basic concepts of affine spaces
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Simpson's Rule in detail
  • Learn about variable substitution in integral calculus
  • Explore the implications of quadratic interpolation in numerical methods
  • Investigate Rolle's theorem and its applications in convexity
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, calculus students, and anyone interested in numerical integration techniques and their theoretical foundations.

Potatochip911
Messages
317
Reaction score
3
On the Simpson's Rule wikipedia page they mention in their derivation that the calculation can be simplified if one notices that there is no loss in generality in setting ##a=-1## and ##b=1## for the integral ##\int_{a}^{b}P(x)\cdot dx## as a result of scaling.

I'm not entirely sure what they're referring to by scaling but if I had to guess it would be applying Simpson's rule to ##n## sub-intervals. I'm also thrown off by the fact that any odd function will just be 0 over this interval whereas over an asymmetric interval it would in general not be 0 yet somehow this is all valid.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
By scaling, they mean a change of variables of the form
$$x=(b-a)x'/2+(a+b)/2,$$
where ##x'\in[-1,1]##.
By this change of variables an integral on [a,b] can be transformed into one on [-1,1].
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: StoneTemplePython, Potatochip911 and PeroK
The language in wikipedia is a bit sloppy. It really should be called a "scaling and shift / translation". If we were in a vector space, the translation from the origin would put this in an affine space. Sometimes that matters a lot, sometimes not.

Note: the quadratic interpolation method is quite powerful and shows up elsewhere. (E.g. in combination with Rolle's theorem a simple quadratic approximation can prove many useful results related to convexity.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Potatochip911

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K