• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. 14
  15. 15
  16. 16

The method I am going to use to solve x−3x-1=0 is the Change Of Sign Method involving the Decimal Search method

Extracts from this document...


Mathematics C3 Coursework

Numerical solutions of equations

Decimal Search Method --------------------------------------------p.1

Rearrangement Method ------------------------------------------- p.5

Newton-Raphson Method ----------------------------------------- p.9

Comparison ----------------------------------------------------------- p.12

Solving  x³−3x-1=0 using the “Change Of Sign” Method:

The method I am going to use to solve  x³−3x-1=0 is the Change Of Sign Method involving the Decimal Search method, which is that you are looking for the roots of the equations f(x)=0. This means that I want the value of x for which the graph of y=f(x) crosses the x axis. As the curve crosses the x axis, f(x)changes sign, so provided that f(x) is continuous function, once I have located an interval in which f(x) changes sign, I know that that interval must contain a root. Now, I have drawn the graph of x³−3x-1=0by using the Autograph software, and the graph is shown below:


The point that the arrow pointing is the root I need to find.

From my graph above, I can see that the root of the equation is between x=0 and x=-1. The table of x values and f(x) values is shown below. I can work out the f(x) values by substituting the x-values into the equation.

x                      f(x)  

-0.1                    -1.299

-0.2                    -0.408

-0.3                    -0.127

 -0.4                     0.136


...read more.


x3 = √[(1-3(x2)^5)/5] = 0.4366342

x4 = √[(1-3(x3)^5)/5] = 0.4364376

x5 = √[(1-3(x4)^5)/5] = 0.4364621

x6 = √[(1-3(x5)^5)/5] = 0.4364590

x7 = √[(1-3(x6)^5)/5] = 0.4364594

x8 = √[(1-3(x7)^5)/5] = 0.4364594

I can see convergence from x4 , and there is no change between x7 andx8 for this number of decimal places. I know that this method has worked successfully to find a root. This is shown graphically below:

Therefore, my root is x=0.43646( 5d.p.)


I know that using Rearrangement B can help me find a root of   3x^5+5x²-1=0. However, Rearrangement A of this function would not find the same root as I have found. This is explained with a diagram with of Rearrangement A and its iterative formula below. This failure is shown graphically below:


From the graph above, I can see that there is no convergence to that particular root I am looking for, but I want to test it again by substitution into the iterative formula of Rearrangement A, which is

y= [(1- 5x²)/3]^(1/5) and the starting value for x(x0) is 0, the same as before.

Zx0  = 0

x1  = √[(1-3(x0)^5)/5] = 0.8027416

  x2  = √[(1-3(x1)^5)/5] = -0.9417235

  x3  = √[(1-3(x2)^5)/5] = -1.0274040

  x4  = √[(1-3(x3)^5)/5] = -1.0735437

Immediately, I can see that  I can see that there is really no convergence to that particular root I am looking for(the one in Rearrangement B and my observation from the graph is correct.

...read more.


x3 = x2 - [(x2^3-3x2+1)/ (3x2^2-3)] =  -0.347296

x4 = x3 - [(x3^3-3x3+1)/ (3x3^2-3)] =  -0.347296

For the Newton-Raphson method, I find the same root as the other methods had found. Therefore, the root for all methods is -0.34730 (6d.p.) and the error is 0.000005.

Now, I can compare the efficiency of each methods.

After a lot of examples, I found that the Decimal Search method was the simplest out of the three, as it does not involve any iteration, so mistakes with iterative formulas and rearrangements are not applicable as with the other two methods used. However, the efficiency is not that good, though it is  

simple, it has to work many steps if an accurate root is needed (e.g. 5 decimal place), it really consume time to have an accurate root.

Both the Newton-Raphson method and the Rearrangement method were fixed point estimates and involved an iterative process. Therefore, these methods were very similar. However, these two methods differ because there is a specific formula for the Newton-Raphson method. Although the Newton-Raphson method gave the much more rapid rate of convergence. In fact, the Newton-Raphson method gave the most rapid rate of convergence to 6d.p. , whereas, for the Decimal Search method, it took me very many calculations to converge to 5d.p. . So the Decimal Search method is not as efficient as the iterative methods( Rearrangement method and Newton-Raphson method). However, it was really easy to make mistakes on the calculator due the order of the terms in the iterative formulae.

...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

    The Gradient Function

    5 star(s)

    The general pattern here between the two values of x and the gradient, the value of the gradient function here is 3x�. Using this formula, I can predict that the next 5 values of x and the gradient will be: x x2 3x2 5 25 75 6 36 108 7

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Estimate a consumption function for the UK economy explaining the economic theory and statistical ...

    3 star(s)

    Because the absolute value of this is 1.41, which is less than 2. The same answer can be shown in the p-value as well, as LS_1 has the highest p-value compare with the other value. Even R^2 in this equation is not as high as the absolute consumption function, but

  1. Investigate the solution of equations, comparing the following methods, Systematic search for change of ...

    I will draw a new tangent here and continue the process. I will illustrate this root graphically, but the other two purely numerically. I need to differentiate this equation, in order to use this method as the Newton-Raphson formula is as follows.

  2. Numerical Method (Maths Investigation)

    1 -0.0841 1.1 -0.0361 1.2 -0.0081 1.3 -1E-04 1.4 -0.0121 1.5 -0.0441 1.6 -0.0961 1.7 -0.1681 1.8 -0.2601 1.9 -0.3721 X f(x) 2 -0.5041 2.1 -0.6561 2.2 -0.8281 2.3 -1.0201 2.4 -1.2321 2.5 -1.4641 2.6 -1.7161 2.7 -1.9881 2.8 -2.2801 2.9 -2.5921 3 -2.9241 NEWTON-RAPHSON METHOD One of the Fixed

  1. I am going to solve equations by using three different numerical methods in this ...

    -1.735649917 -1.735649917 -1.09912868 27.62106745 -1.695856789 -1.695856789 -0.03431212 25.90287655 -1.694532143 -1.69453214 -3.745E-05 25.8463345 -1.69453069 -1.694530694 -4.48E-11 25.84627268 -1.694530694 -1.694530694 3.55271E-15 25.84627268 -1.694530694 -1.694530694 -7.1054E-15 25.84627268 -1.694530694 -1.694530694 3.55271E-15 25.84627268 -1.694530694 In this spreadsheet, Xr = estimated value Xr. f'(Xr) =the value after differentiated f (Xr)

  2. MEI numerical Methods

    Formula used for spreadsheet: Proof of root: Another way to check the root is to check the upper and lower bounds of the interval in which my root lies in. The interval in which the root has to lie in is, 0.4797310065 < x < 0.4797310075 (this is due to the error being � 0.0000000005, as explained later)

  1. Change of Sign Method.

    = -0.00218772512 When x = 0.8395, f(0.8395) = 0.00280856463 The error bounds of the root 0.839 are 0.839 � 0.0005. However, I am able to say that I have a more accurate solution, as I know that the root lies in the interval [0.8389,0.8390]. Failure of the Change of Sign Method There are a number of situations that can cause problems for change of sign methods.

  2. Investigate the number of winning lines in the game of connect 4.

    F=aW+b Because there are 2 layers we put in the 'First number' twice. 7=a4+b (1) 11=a5+b (2) 4=a (2)-(1) Substitute 'a' back into (1) 7=4x4+b 7=16+b B= -9 Substitute 'a' and 'b' back into original equation F=4W-9 that is the equation for getting the first number.

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