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

Solving equations by numerical methods - The Interval Bisection method

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Maxim Protsenko

Pure Mathematics 2 Coursework

Solving equations by numerical methods

The Interval Bisection method

The coursework on Numerical Methods shows the techniques that can be applied to find the solutions of equations, which have no algebraic solution. The first method is the Interval Bisection Method. It involves finding an interval of x in which f(x) changes sigh. If f(x) is a continuous function, it follows that it has a root within that interval. The equation for this method that I took is x³+2x²-x-3=0.

image00.png

It is clearly seen on the graph that one of the roots of the equation is between 1 and 2. Within this interval f(x) changes the sigh from negative to positive. To find the root I built a table where a is the lower limit of the interval (in this case 1) and b is the upper limit of the interval (in this equation it is 2). The table looks like this.

The Interval Bisection Table

x³+2x²-x-3=0

f(x)<0

f(b)>0

A

b

(a+b)/2

f((a+b)/2)

possible error

1

2

1.5

3.375

0.5

1

1.5

1.25

0.828125

0.25

1

1.25

1.125

-0.169921875

0.125

1.125

1.25

1.1875

0.307373047

0.0625

1.125

1.1875

1.15625

0.06338501

0.03125

1.125

1.15625

1.140625

-0.054592133

0.015625

1.140625

1.15625

1.1484375

0.004064083

0.0078125

1.140625

1.1484375

1.14453125

-0.025346935

0.00390625

1.14453125

1.1484375

1.146484375

-0.0106621757

0.001953125

1.146484375

1.1484375

1.1474609375

-0.00330423657

0.0009765625

1.1474609375

1.1484375

1.14794921875

0.000378625351

0.00048828125

So the answer is 1.14794921 to (6 d. p.)

The possible error value represents the distance between the estimated root and the interval limits. The error bunds are a and b, so that x is between the two values. The error bounds for this root of the equation x³+2x²-x-3=0 are

1.1474609375 <x< 1.1484375

...read more.

Middle

, for a root of f(x)=0. Then drawing the tangent to the curve y=f(x) at the point (image02.png, f(image02.png)). The point at which the tangent cuts the x axis then gives the next approximation for the root and the process is repeated.

The equation I took for this method is x³-7x+1=0.

It looks like this:

image24.png

The gradient of the tangent at (image02.png, f(image02.png)) is f ‘(image02.png). The equation of the straight line can be written as

y-image03.png=m(x-image02.png),

the equation of the tangent is:

y-f(image02.png)=f ‘(image02.png)[x-image02.png].

This tangent cuts the x axis at (image04.png, 0), so:

0 -f(image02.png)=f ‘(image02.png)[image04.png-image02.png].

Rearranging this gives:

image04.png=image02.png-image06.png.

=> the Newton-Raphson iterative formula:

image07.png

As my equation is x³-7x+1=0, with the root in the interval [2, 3], I can rewrite it as:

f(x)= x³-7x+1=0 and f ‘(x)=image08.png.

The iterative formula is therefore:

image07.png

=image09.png

Starting with the point image02.png=3 gives

x(n)

f(x)

f '(x)

x(n+1)

3

7

20

2.65

2.65

1.059625

14.0675

2.574676

2.574676

0.044678977

12.886864

2.571209

2.571209

0.00009

12.833342

2.571201

2.571201

0.0000000004

12.83323

2.571201

The Newton-Raphson method gives an extremely rapid rate of convergence.

The first root of the equation I found is 2.571201 with the error bounds of 2.571200<x<2.571202.

...read more.

Conclusion

        But despite of this it takes lots of time to obtain one root and would take ages to do it without any computer or graphic calculator aid. Also the initial search may miss one or more root, for example when the x-axis is a tangent to the urve or when several roots are very close together.

        Newton Raphson method is the easiest way to estimate the root and takes much less time than to estimate the root using the first method. It doesn’t take that much time but it can go wrong very quickly and jump to another root.

        And the last method rearranging is the hardest one. It takes plenty of time to rearrange the equation and then to estimate the root. And it’s very likely to do something wrong using it.

        In conclusion I can say that the most efficient and easiest way for me to estimate the root, was the first one, because it takes not so much time if you get used to it. Very useful were PC programs such as Excel and Autograph. And at last the fact that in excel it is easier to change one equation on another and to get other roots, I can definitely say that it is the best method for me.

...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)

    graph is wrong. The iterations are also wrong as they diverge away from the point as well. If you differentiate the y = g(x) function and substitute x for the approximation of the root. If that g'(x) < -1 or g'(x)

  2. Marked by a teacher

    The Gradient Function

    5 star(s)

    3x� is suitable for the next investigative values. 3x� x y second value x second value y gradient 4 192 4.1 206.763 151.29 4 192 4.01 193.443603 144.7209 4 192 4.001 192.144036 144.072 3 81 3.1 89.373 86.49 3 81 3.01 81.812703 81.5409 3 81 3.001 81.081027 81.05401 2 24 2.1 27.783 39.69 2 24 2.01 24.361803 36.3609

  1. MEI numerical Methods

    tanx - 1, I could then compare my approximation of the root which the one autograph provided. Formula application: For my spreadsheets to work I had to create a formula for; * The method of bisection * Secant method * False position method * Fixed point iteration * I used

  2. Numerical solutions of equations

    So my starting value for x (x1) would be 0.5. x1 = 0.5 (I substitute x1 = 0.5 into iterative formula to get x2) x2 = 0.701561 (I substitute x2 value into iterative formula to get x3) x3 = 0.676396 x4 = 0.681619 x5 = 0.680600 x6 = 0.680802 x7=

  1. This coursework is about finding the roots of equations by numerical methods.

    and f(1.61795) x y 1.61805000E+00 2.21277E-05 1.61795000E+00 -0.000116049 We can also write the solution bounds as the error bounds 1.6180� 0.00005 The example below shows that NR fails to find the root. y=x�-5x�+4.67x-0.418 The turning point near to x1 caused the divergence Xn+1= Xn-f(Xn)/f'(Xn)

  2. Newton Raphson Method for Solving 6x3+7x2-9x-7=0

    Other iteration shows the same value this is because the value is precise so the software can?t proceed. The final value is x= -0.63488 because it is the last number showing in the table. I substituted x= -0.63488 to the equation 6x3+7x2-9x-7 the f(x)

  1. C3 COURSEWORK - comparing methods of solving functions

    can find out that the root in the interval of [-1, 0] is near to 0-3.5269 of 5 significant figures. n xn 1 -1.00000 -0.30000 2 -0.30000 -0.20283 3 -0.20283 -0.19613 4 -0.19613 -0.19609 5 -0.19609 -0.19609 On the other hand, from the table below, I can find out that

  2. Evaluating Three Methods of Solving Equations.

    We also notice that, at the root of the equation, xn+1 will be equal to xn. We will therefore continue to repeat the same process with the new point xn+1 till we reach root. It was easy to get excel to do these calculations within seconds.

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