• Join over 1.2 million students every month
• Accelerate your learning by 29%
• Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

# Numerical integration coursework

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Numerical integration coursework

Problem For this coursework, I am going to use my knowledge of numerical methods to produce an approximation to an area which does not have an analytic solution. I will be finding the approximation, to an appropriate degree of accuracy, of the integral shown above. On the graph below is the area that I will be approximating underneath the curve of y= from x=0 to x=2. Note that throughout my method I worked in radians. This problem is appropriate for numerical solution as I chose my graph to be a polynomial curve involving a square root so that there would be no analytical solution. Due to the fact that I cannot yet integrate functions like this approximating methods will have to be used. According to the numerical methods module the three approximation methods to be used are:

Mid-point rule- this method was adopted because it is used to approximate the area underneath the graph by dividing it up into individual rectangles.

Trapezium rule- this method was adopted because it is used to approximate the area underneath the graph, this is done so by dividing it up into individual trapeziums.

Simpson’s rule- I have realised that out of the

Middle

Sn= 2(Mn) +Tn

3

Extrapolating my answers to the Simpson’s rule to infinity will be the most accurate answer that I can give.

Formula view of my method for approximations

Here I will briefly show how I used algorithms on Microsoft Excel to reach my approximations: Mid-point rule

Trapezium rule Simpson’s rule Error analysis

As all three rules are actually only approximations there is always error involved, they are all gradually converging towards the actual solution. In reference to my graph the integral section is concave which means that the trapezium rule gives an overestimate and the mid-point rule gives an underestimate. As the number of strips increases the trapezium rule will tend to the solution from above and the mid-point rule will tend from below.

Error in the mid-point rule

In the mid-point rule the error is proportional to the width of the rectangle squared, or in mathematical terms, absolute error Mn= kh2, wherek is the constant. If the mid-point rule with n strips has a strip width of h, then the mid-point rule with 2n strips has a strip width ofh/2.

Hence: Therefore when you double the amount of strips (n) the error decreases by about a factor of 4, the error multiplier is therefore 0.25.

Error in the trapezium rule

The error connected to the trapezium rule is the same as the error in the mid-point rule.

Conclusion Using this formula we can now extrapolate our answers of Mⁿ to infinity.  Trapezium rule

Similarly you can use the formula for in the same way, just replacing M with T due to the error multiplier being the same.   Simpson’s rule

If you follow through the same steps as we did for the mid-point you similarly reach a formula for extrapolating Simpson’s rule to infinity:   Interpretation

So in conclusion I can confidently quote my solution to the integral to 8 significant figures:

10.193205

This is due to the three approximations that I reached (17 sig figs): 10.1932054791824 10.1932054077805 10.1932054458615

There was however some limitation. The software, Microsoft Excel, only calculated to 15 decimal places inevitably producing minimal amounts of error with each calculation done. To further improve my results I could have used better mathematical software which worked to more decimal places, but for a problem like this Excel was more than sufficient.

The fact that the trapezium rule and the mid-point rule give the same solution up to 8 significant figures guarantees that my solution is valid to this many significant figures. This is because, as I have indicated in the paragraphs dealing with error analysis, in the integral section of my graph the trapezium rule tends towards the solution from above and the mid-point rule from below meaning the solution is between the two. Simpson’s rule, being a weighted average, is more accurate and therefore likewise proves the solution.

Overall then my solution is proved by 3 different rules.

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

# Related AS and A Level Core & Pure Mathematics essays

1.  5 star(s)

Using these data, I predict that the next table containing the gradient of will display 1500. 5 625 1875 1500 Binomial proof shall verify this for us, though realistically enough, the table provides enough evidence. 3 (x+h) 4 - 3x4 = 3(x4 + h4 +4hx� + 6x�h� + 4xh�)

2. ## MEI numerical Methods

0.633079233 1/3 0.712208165 1/4 0.761616673 There are two relationships which this graph shows: Assuming ? is +ve, as k -> ?, ? -> 0 Assuming ? is -ve , as k -> -?, ? -> 0 To simplify if K is a positive number then it has a negative correlation,

1. ## Solving Equations. Three numerical methods are discussed in this investigation. There are advantages and ...

0.688476563 0.000692398 0.688964844 -0.000121048 0.688720703 0.000285673 0.000244141 13 0.688720703 0.000285673 0.688964844 -0.000121048 0.688842773 8.2312E-05 0.00012207 14 0.688842773 8.2312E-05 0.688964844 -0.000121048 0.688903809 -1.93681E-05 6.10352E-05 15 0.688842773 8.2312E-05 0.688903809 -1.93681E-05 0.688873291 3.14719E-05 3.05176E-05 16 0.688873291 3.14719E-05 0.688903809 -1.93681E-05 0.68888855 6.05186E-06 1.52588E-05 17 0.68888855 6.05186E-06 0.688903809 -1.93681E-05 0.688896179 -6.65815E-06 7.62939E-06 18 0.68888855 6.05186E-06

2. ## Numerical integration can be described as set of algorithms for calculating the numerical value ...

Thus M16 means that area under the curve is split in 16 rectangles whereas M32 means its split up in 32. Having explained the mid-point rule above, I shall now explain the trapezium rule. The two methods are quite similar to each other in the sense of approximating the definite integral.

1. ## C3 Coursework: Numerical Methods

The first root I shall attempt to find is the root at point C. The initial estimate (starting point) is x=2. The tangent to the point x=2 crosses the x axis at 1.63. This gives a second estimate of 1.63.

2. ## Functions Coursework - A2 Maths

I have confirmed that this root is correct to five decimal places because I have confirmed that it lies in the interval [1.879385,1.879386]. This means that 1.879385<x<1.879386; This directly tells us that x>1.879385, therefore x is not less than 1.87939 to five decimal places because it is equal to at least 1.87939 to five decimal places.

1. ## Solving Equations Using Numerical Methods

Here is the table of results. I can now see that the root lies between -1.526 and -1.525. As I only intend to find the root to 3 decimal places I don't need to continue the method. To be certain that the root is between -1.526 and -1.525, I will calculate f(x)

2. ## Mathematics Coursework - OCR A Level

1.249 This is an example of a graph that does not work. When putting in integer values into the equation, there is no change of sign as the graph crosses the x-axis twice in between 0 and 1. x y -5 626.6767 -4 257.3433 -3 82.01 -2 16.67667 -1 1.343333 • Over 160,000 pieces
of student written work
• Annotated by
experienced teachers
• Ideas and feedback to 