• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10
  11. 11
    11
  12. 12
    12
  13. 13
    13

Different methods of solving equations compared. From the Excel tables of each method, we know that method 1 (change of sign method) takes 28 steps to find the root, while method 2 (Newton-Raphson method) and method 3 (rearrangement) take 4 and 17 steps r

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Numerical Methods

Method 1: Change of sign method

Equation 1: image00.png

             →  image01.png

  Use the Autograph and it gives us the overall view of the graph of the function.

image12.png

  If we zoom in on the x and y axes, we can see that the graph shows that the equation has a root between x=0 and x=1. Bisect the interval between 0 and 1, then bisect the new interval where the sign changes and we can see that the two boundary lines get closer and closer to each other and will meet at a point finally (in theory).

image23.png

  However, in practice, we are not able to find out the exact values of the roots but we can still use this method to find the approximate values. Excel can help us with that.

 As shown in the table below by inputting initial values of a=0, b=1, we can calculate that f(a)>0, f(b)<0. Then divide the interval in half and get the midpoint c, where c=image29.png=0.5, and also the value of f(c). Since f(c)>0, we then can get a subinterval between c and b. The previous steps are then repeated. This method is applied recursively to the subinterval where the sign change occurs.

  The table below shows the data with accuracy of 8 decimal places.

a

f(a)

b

f(b)

c

f( c)

Max. error

0.00000000

2.60000000

1.00000000

-0.80000000

0.50000000

1.00000000

1.70000000

0.50000000

1.00000000

1.00000000

-0.80000000

0.75000000

0.10625000

0.90000000

0.75000000

0.10625000

1.00000000

-0.80000000

0.87500000

-0.34765625

0.45312500

0.75000000

0.10625000

0.87500000

-0.34765625

0.81250000

-0.12060547

0.22695313

0.75000000

0.10625000

0.81250000

-0.12060547

0.78125000

-0.00711670

0.11342773

0.75000000

0.10625000

0.78125000

-0.00711670

0.76562500

0.04958649

0.05668335

0.76562500

0.04958649

0.78125000

-0.00711670

0.77343750

0.02123928

0.02835159

0.77343750

0.02123928

0.78125000

-0.00711670

0.77734375

0.00706232

0.01417799

0.77734375

0.00706232

0.78125000

-0.00711670

0.77929688

-0.00002694

0.00708951

0.77734375

0.00706232

0.77929688

-0.00002694

0.77832031

0.00351775

0.00354463

0.77832031

0.00351775

0.77929688

-0.00002694

0.77880859

0.00174542

0.00177235

0.77880859

0.00174542

0.77929688

-0.00002694

0.77905273

0.00085924

0.00088618

0.77905273

0.00085924

0.77929688

-0.00002694

0.77917480

0.00041615

0.00044309

0.77917480

0.00041615

0.77929688

-0.00002694

0.77923584

0.00019460

0.00022155

0.77923584

0.00019460

0.77929688

-0.00002694

0.77926636

0.00008383

0.00011077

0.77926636

0.00008383

0.77929688

-0.00002694

0.77928162

0.00002844

0.00005539

0.77928162

0.00002844

0.77929688

-0.00002694

0.77928925

0.00000075

0.00002769

0.77928925

0.00000075

0.77929688

-0.00002694

0.77929306

-0.00001310

0.00001385

0.77928925

0.00000075

0.77929306

-0.00001310

0.77929115

-0.00000617

0.00000692

0.77928925

0.00000075

0.77929115

-0.00000617

0.77929020

-0.00000271

0.00000346

0 .77928925

0.00000075

0.77929020

-0.00000271

0.77928972

-0.00000098

0.00000173

0.77928925

0.00000075

0.77928972

-0.00000098

0.77928948

-0.00000012

0.00000087

0.77928925

0.00000075

0.77928948

-0.00000012

0.77928936

0.00000032

0.00000043

0.77928936

0.00000032

0.77928948

-0.00000012

0.77928942

0.00000010

0.00000022

0.77928942

0.00000010

0.77928948

-0.00000012

0.77928945

-0.00000001

0.00000011

0.77928942

0.00000010

0.77928945

-0.00000001

0.77928944

0.00000005

0.00000005

0.77928944

0.00000005

0.77928945

-0.00000001

0.77928945

0.00000002

0.00000003

0.77928945

0.00000002

0.77928945

-0.00000001

0.77928945

0.00000001

0.00000001

Error bound: ±0.000000005 (9dp)

The table below shows part of the formulas used in the Excel.

A

f(a)

b

f(b)

c

f( c)

0

=0.2*(A2-4)*(A2+2)*(2*A2-1)+1

1

=0.2*(C2-4)*(C2+2)*(2*C2-1)+1

=(A2+C2)/2

=0.2*(E2-4)*(E2+2)*(2*E2-1)+1

=IF(F2>0,E2,A2)

=0.2*(A3-4)*(A3+2)*(2*A3-1)+1

=IF(F2<0,E2,C2)

=0.2*(C3-4)*(C3+2)*(2*C3-1)+1

=(A3+C3)/2

=0.2*(E3-4)*(E3+2)*(2*E3-1)+1

=IF(F3>0,E3,A3)

=0.2*(A4-4)*(A4+2)*(2*A4-1)+1

=IF(F3<0,E3,C3)

=0.2*(C4-4)*(C4+2)*(2*C4-1)+1

=(A4+C4)/2

=0.2*(E4-4)*(E4+2)*(2*E4-1)+1

...read more.

Middle

0.68896484

-0.00016641

0.00025309

0.68896484

-0.00016641

0.68945313

0.00008753

0.68920898

-0.00003965

0.00012697

0.68920898

-0.00003965

0.68945313

0.00008753

0.68933105

0.00002389

0.00006359

0.68920898

-0.00003965

0.68933105

0.00002389

0.68927002

-0.00000790

0.00003177

0.68927002

-0.00000790

0.68933105

0.00002389

0.68930054

0.00000799

0.00001589

0.68927002

-0.00000790

0.68930054

0.00000799

0.68928528

0.00000005

0.00000794

0.68927002

-0.00000790

0.68928528

0.00000005

0.68927765

-0.00000393

0.00000397

0.68927765

-0.00000393

0.68928528

0.00000005

0.68928146

-0.00000194

0.00000199

0.68928146

-0.00000194

0.68928528

0.00000005

0.68928337

-0.00000095

0.00000099

0.68928337

-0.00000095

0.68928528

0.00000005

0.68928432

-0.00000045

0.00000050

0.68928432

-0.00000045

0.68928528

0.00000005

0.68928480

-0.00000020

0.00000025

0.68928480

-0.00000020

0.68928528

0.00000005

0.68928504

-0.00000008

0.00000012

0.68928504

-0.00000008

0.68928528

0.00000005

0.68928516

-0.00000002

0.00000006

0.68928516

-0.00000002

0.68928528

0.00000005

0.68928522

0.00000002

0.00000003

0.68928516

-0.00000002

0.68928522

0.00000002

0.68928519

0.00000000

0.00000002

0.68928519

0.00000000

0.68928522

0.00000002

0.68928520

0.00000001

0.00000001

0.68928519

0.00000000

0.68928520

0.00000001

0.68928520

0.00000000

0.00000000

0.68928519

0.00000000

0.68928520

0.00000000

0.68928519

0.00000000

0.00000000

0.68928519

0.00000000

0.68928519

0.00000000

0.68928519

0.00000000

0.00000000

  Since this method cannot find out all the roots, we say that it fails in this case. For the example above, it is because the three roots lie too close together. We usually ignore the other two roots when we find out one in the interval since we didn’t expect them all in such a small interval.

Method 2: Newton-Raphson method

Equation 2: image35.png

              → image02.png

  Here shows the overall view of the graph of the function.

image03.png

  Zoom in on the axes we can clearly see that using the Newton-Raphson method gives us one root efficiently.

image04.png

How does the Newton-Raphson method actually work?

image05.png

  The graph above shows a part of a function (the blue curve). Suppose we have an estimated value of a root, xn. Draw a tangent at where x=xn, which is shown in red, we can get another estimated root xn+1 which is a better approximation.

  Sinceimage06.png, we can deduce thatimage07.png.

  With the help of Excel, we can get the approximate value of the root shown above within just a few steps.

  The table below shows the data with accuracy of 8 decimal places.

x

f(x)

f'(x)

0.00000000

-1.00000000

6.00000000

0.16666667

-0.13425926

4.41666667

0.19706499

-0.00413017

4.14585394

0.19806121

-0.00000437

4.13707266

0.19806226

0.00000000

4.13706334

  And here’s the formulas used in the table:

x

f(x)

f'(x)

0

=A2*(A2-2)*(A2-3)-1

=3*A2^2-10*A2+6

=A2-(B2/C2)

=A3*(A3-2)*(A3-3)-1

=3*A3^2-10*A3+6

=A3-(B3/C3)

=A4*(A4-2)*(A4-3)-1

=3*A4^2-10*A4+6

=A4-(B4/C4)

=A5*(A5-2)*(A5-3)-1

=3*A5^2-10*A5+6

=A5-(B5/C5)

=A6*(A6-2)*(A6-3)-1

=3*A6^2-10*A6+6

  Similarly, starting with another two points, we can get the approximate values of the other two roots. The tables below show the data with accuracy of 8 decimal places as well.

x

f(x)

f'(x)

x

f(x)

f'(x)

2.00000000

-1.00000000

-2.00000000

3.00000000

-1.00000000

3.00000000

1.50000000

0.12500000

-2.25000000

3.33333333

0.48148148

6.00000000

1.55555556

-0.00137174

-2.29629630

3.25308642

0.03168108

5.21684957

1.55495818

-0.00000012

-2.29589698

3.24701358

0.00017529

5.15915579

1.55495813

0.00000000

-2.29589694

3.24697960

0.00000001

5.15883361

3.24697960

0.00000000

5.15883360

...read more.

Conclusion

-0.00848389

0.39843750

0.01212597

0.39843750

0.01212597

0.40625000

-0.00848389

0.40234375

0.00181472

0.40234375

0.00181472

0.40625000

-0.00848389

0.40429688

-0.00333621

0.40234375

0.00181472

0.40429688

-0.00333621

0.40332031

-0.00076114

0.40234375

0.00181472

0.40332031

-0.00076114

0.40283203

0.00052669

0.40283203

0.00052669

0.40332031

-0.00076114

0.40307617

-0.00011725

0.40283203

0.00052669

0.40307617

-0.00011725

0.40295410

0.00020471

0.40295410

0.00020471

0.40307617

-0.00011725

0.40301514

0.00004373

0.40301514

0.00004373

0.40307617

-0.00011725

0.40304565

-0.00003676

0.40301514

0.00004373

0.40304565

-0.00003676

0.40303040

0.00000348

0.40303040

0.00000348

0.40304565

-0.00003676

0.40303802

-0.00001664

0.40303040

0.00000348

0.40303802

-0.00001664

0.40303421

-0.00000658

0.40303040

0.00000348

0.40303421

-0.00000658

0.40303230

-0.00000155

0.40303040

0.00000348

0.40303230

-0.00000155

0.40303135

0.00000097

0.40303135

0.00000097

0.40303230

-0.00000155

0.40303183

-0.00000029

0.40303135

0.00000097

0.40303183

-0.00000029

0.40303159

0.00000034

0.40303159

0.00000034

0.40303183

-0.00000029

0.40303171

0.00000003

0.40303171

0.00000003

0.40303183

-0.00000029

0.40303177

-0.00000013

0.40303171

0.00000003

0.40303177

-0.00000013

0.40303174

-0.00000005

0.40303171

0.00000003

0.40303174

-0.00000005

0.40303172

-0.00000001

0.40303171

0.00000003

0.40303172

-0.00000001

0.40303171

0.00000001

0.40303171

0.00000001

0.40303172

-0.00000001

0.40303172

0.00000000

0.40303171

0.00000001

0.40303172

0.00000000

0.40303172

0.00000000

0.40303172

0.00000000

0.40303172

0.00000000

0.40303172

0.00000000

  Use Autograph and Excel to find the required root, and we can see that it gives us the same value of 0.40303172 (correct to 8dp).

Newton-Raphson method

Equation 3: image13.png

  We are required to find the same root which lies between x=0 and x=1.

image30.png

x

f(x)

f'(x)

0.00000000

1.00000000

-2.00000000

0.50000000

-0.25000000

-2.50000000

0.40000000

0.00800000

-2.64000000

0.40303030

0.00000373

-2.63752066

0.40303172

0.00000000

-2.63751948

 It also finds the same value of the root which is corrected to 8dp successfully.

  From the Excel tables of each method, we know that method 1 (change of sign method) takes 28 steps to find the root, while method 2 (Newton-Raphson method) and method 3 (rearrangement) take 4 and 17 steps respectively. In terms of speed of convergence, we can say that the Newton-Raphson method is the most efficient one.

  However, if we compare them in terms of ease of use with available hardware and software, the change of sign method is the easiest one to use, since it involves least calculation. In change of sign method, we just need the original equation, however, in Newton-Raphson method, we need to calculate its derivative and in rearrangement method we need to rearrange the equation to get g(x). It can be illustrated more clearly in the following table.

steps

formulas involved

Change of sign method

28

f(x)

Newton-Raphson method

4

f(x), f’(x)

Rearrangement

17

f(x), g(x)

...read more.

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Core & Pure Mathematics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Core & Pure Mathematics essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    C3 Coursework - different methods of solving equations.

    5 star(s)

    When I re-arrange f(x) into a different x = g(x), it does not converge to the point when I go through the iterations. E.g. I re- arranged f(x) to: If I plot y = g(x) against y = x, it looks like this: Looking at this, it implies that the

  2. Marked by a teacher

    The Gradient Function

    5 star(s)

    162 3.01 164.170824 218.1672 3 162 3.001 162.216108 216.2161 2 32 2.1 38.8962 74.088 2 32 2.01 32.64481602 64.96481 2 32 2.001 32.06404802 64.09605 1 2 1.1 2.9282 10.648 1 2 1.01 2.08120802 8.242408 1 2 1.001 2.008012008 8.024024 x x4 2x4 gradient 1 1 2 8 2 16 32

  1. Pure 2 coursework - Decimal Search Method

    An example of this is the function f(x)=x3-4x2-3x+11. When rearranged, g(x) = (1/3)(x3-4x2+11) The following data can then be obtained using the aforementioned formula. x xn+1 2 1 1 2.666667 2.666667 0.506173 0.506173 3.368281 3.368281 1.277649 1.277649 2.185356 2.185356 0.777886 0.777886 3.016759 3.016759 0.683895 0.683895 3.149672 3.149672 0.854792 0.854792 2.90063

  2. Change of Sign Method.

    To three decimal places, the root = 0.839. Error Bounds A change of sign method such as the one used, provides bounds within which a root lies so that the maximum possible error in a result is known. When x = 0.8385, f(0.8385) = -0.00218772512 When x = 0.8395, f(0.8395)

  1. Solving equations by numerical methods - The Interval Bisection method

    error 0.00057. So the next method is change of sign. From the graph I decided to estimate the root to be between 1 and 2. f(x)<0 f(b)>0 f ((a+b)/2 ) error a b (a+b)/2 1 2 1.5 3.37500000 0.5000000 1 1.5 1.25 0.82812500 0.2500000 1 1.25 1.125 -0.16992188 0.1250000 1.125

  2. The method I am going to use to solve x&amp;amp;#8722;3x-1=0 is the Change ...

    If my prediction is correct, my calculations above have found a wrong root (the blue arrow), which is not the root I want (the green arrow). The Decimal Search method has failed to find the root that I want from 5x^4+x�-2x�-0.1x+0.1=0.

  1. newton raphson

    I must think about problems. Are there any occasions when this decimal search method might not find root? I've got few examples of that. 1. Equation: x5-2.5x3+1.7 = 0 Intervals: [-2,-1] [1,2] x f(x) -2 -10.3 -1 3.2 0 1.7 1 0.2 2 13.7 In interval [1,2] we have no change of sign (look to the table above).

  2. C3 COURSEWORK - comparing methods of solving functions

    the root in the interval of [0, 1] is near to –0.19609 of 5 significant figures. n xn 1 1.00000 0.78571 2 0.78571 0.72753 3 0.72753 0.72300 4 0.72300 0.72297 5 0.72297 0.72297 6 0.72297 0.72297 Graphical Interpretation of the Newton Raphson method Example: y=2x y=0.5x³+1.5x²–x–0.25 Graph of y=f(x)

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work