20 views

Uploaded by Uzma Azam

- 360 Problems for Mathematical Contest
- Chap2
- COEB223 Numec Assignment 1
- Bisection Method
- Bisection Method Lecture
- January 2008
- NULecture3.pdf
- Part Solution of Dummit and Foote
- Calculus Review Formulas
- Numerical Methods
- Final 06
- Roots Finding Techniques for Non Linear Eq
- A MODIFIED NEWTON'S METHOD FOR SOLVING NONLINEAR PROGRAMING PROBLEMS
- A set of new Smarandache functions, sequences, and conjectures in number theory, by Felice Russo
- Carl Benjamin Boyer - Cardan and the Pascal triangle
- Exercises 2
- KKWIEER Nashik.docx
- Burns Hasselblat-The Sarkoviskii Theorem
- SQL
- yr 12 maths hl sow - student

You are on page 1of 40

Root Finding

We describe and analyze several techniques for nding a real root of a general nonlinear real function of one variable. We apply one of these methods to the special important problem of calculating square roots. Then, we discuss how to calculate real roots in the special case of a polynomial. A root of a function f is a point, x = x , where the equation f (x) = 0 is satised. So, for example x = 0 is a root of f (x) = x, f (x) = x2 , f (x) = x and f (x) = ln (x + 1). A root x is simple if f (x ) = 0, if the function f exists everywhere on an open interval containing x , and if f (x ) = 0. So, x = 0 is a simple root of f (x) = x and f (x) = ln (x + 1) 1 1 (choose the open interval to be ( 2 , 2 )). But, x = 0 is not a simple root of f (x) = xn , n > 1 because f (0) = 0 Also, x = 0 is not a simple root of f (x) = x because there is no open interval containing x = 0 in which f (x) exists everywhere. Observe that, at a simple root x , the graph of f (x) crosses the x-axis. However, the graph of f (x) can also cross the x-axis at a root which is not simple; consider, for example the root x = 0 of f (x) = x3 , or any other odd power of x. Suppose we want to compute a simple root of a function f that is continuous on the closed interval [c, d]; that is, the value f (x) is dened at each point x [c, d] and has no jumps (discontinuities) there. If f (a) f (b) < 0, then, from the Intermediate Value Theorem (see Problem 6.0.1), there is a point x [c, d] where f (x ) = 0. That is, if the function f is continuous and changes sign on an interval, then it must have at least one root in that interval. We will exploit this property in later sections of this chapter but we begin with a related problem. Root-nding problems often occur in xedpoint form; that is, the problem is to nd a point x = x that satises the equation x = g (x) This type of problem sometimes arises directly when nding an equilibrium of some process. We can convert a problem written in the form to solve the equation x = g (x) to the standard form of solving the equation f (x) = 0 simply by setting f (x) x g (x) = 0. But, rst we consider this problem in its natural xedpoint form. We need some theorems from the calculus of a single variable which we now state as problems. We follow these problems with some that apply the theorems. Problem 6.0.1. The Intermediate Value Theorem. Let the function f be continuous on the closed interval [a, b]. Show that for any number v between the values f (a) and f (b) there exists at least one point c (a, b) such that f (c) = v . Problem 6.0.2. Consider the function f (x) = x ex . Use the Intermediate Value Theorem (see Problem 6.0.1) to prove that the equation f (x) = 0 has a solution x (0, 1).

Problem 6.0.3. The Mean Value Theorem. Let the function f be continuous and dierentiable on the closed interval [a, b]. Show that there exists a point c (a, b) such that f (c) = f (b) f (a) ba 159

160

Figure 6.1: Graph of f (x) = x ex Problem 6.0.4. Consider the function f (x) = x ex on the interval [a, b] = [0, 1]. Use the Mean Value Theorem (see Problem 6.0.3) to nd a point c (0, 1) where f (c) = . f (b) f (a) ba

0.4

0.6

0.8

Problem 6.0.5. Consider the functions f (x) = (x 1)(x + 2)2 and F (x) = x x + 2. 1. What are the roots of f ? 2. What are the simple roots of f ? 3. What are the roots of F ? 4. What are the simple roots of F ? Problem 6.0.6. Consider the equation x = cos x . Convert this equation into the standard 2 form f (x) = 0 and hence show that it has a solution x (0, 1). [Hint: Use the Intermediate Value Theorem (see Problem 6.0.1) on f (x).]

6.1

FixedPoint Iteration

A commonly used technique for computing a solution x of an equation x = g (x) is to dene a sequence {xn }n=0 of approximations of x according to the iteration xn+1 = g (xn ), n = 0, 1, . . . Here x0 is an initial estimate of x and g is the xedpoint iteration function. If the function g is continuous and the sequence {xn }n=0 converges to x , then x satises x = g (x ). In practice, to nd a good starting point x0 for the xedpoint iteration we may estimate x from a graph of f (x) = x g (x). For example, consider the function f (x) = x ex in Fig. 6.1. From the Intermediate Value Theorem (Problem 6.0.1) there is a root of the function f in the interval (0, 1) because f (x) is continuous on [0, 1] with f (0) = 1 < 0 and f (1) = 1 e1 > 0 so f (0) f (1) < 0. The graph of the derivative f (x) = 1+ ex in Fig. 6.2 suggests that this root is simple because f (x) is continuous and positive for all x [0, 1]. Alternatively, the root of f (x) can be characterized as the intersection of the line y = x and the curve y = g (x) ex as in Fig. 6.3. Either way, x0 = 0.5

161

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

162 Iteration Function ex ln(x) xn xn 0.5000 0.5000 0.6065 0.6931 0.5452 0.3665 0.5797 1.0037 0.5601 -0.0037 0.5712 ****** 0.5649 ****** 0.5684 ****** 0.5664 ****** 0.5676 ****** 0.5669 ****** 0.5673 ****** 0.5671 ******

n 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Table 6.1: Computing the root of x ex = 0 by xedpoint iteration. The asterisks indicate values that are not dened when using only real arithmetic. Note, though, if complex arithmetic is used, these values are computed as complex numbers. Iteration Function 3 x+1 x3 1 xn xn 1.000 1.000 1.260 0.000 1.312 -1.000 1.322 -2.000 1.324 -9.000 1.325 -730.0 1.325 HUGE

n 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Table 6.2: Computing the real root of x3 x 1 = 0 by xedpoint iteration. is a reasonable initial estimate to x . Of course we are relying rather too much on graphical evidence here. As we saw in Section 2.3.1 graphical evidence can be misleading. This is especially true of the evidence provided by low resolution devices such as graphing calculators. But we can prove there is a unique simple root of the equation x = ex easily. The curve y = x is strictly monotonic increasing and continuous everywhere and the curve y = ex is strictly monotonic decreasing and continuous everywhere. We have already seen these curves intersect so there is at least one root and the monotonicity properties show that the root is simple and unique. If we take natural logarithms of both sides of the equation x = ex and rearrange we obtain x = ln(x) as an alternative xedpoint equation. Table 6.1 lists the iterates computed using each of the xedpoint iteration functions g (x) = ex , i.e. using the iteration xn+1 = exn , and g (x) = ln(x), i.e. using the iteration xn+1 = ln(xn ), each working to 4 decimal digits and starting from x0 = 0.5. (The asterisks in the table are used to indicate that the logarithm of a negative number, x4 , is not dened when using real arithmetic.) The iterates computed using the iteration function g (x) = ex converge to x = 0.567143 while iterates computed using the iteration function g (x) = ln(x) diverge. An analysis of these behaviors is given in the next section. As another example, consider the cubic polynomial f (x) = x3 x 1. Its three roots comprise one real root and a complex conjugate pair of roots. Solving the equation f (x) x3 x 1 = 0

163

5 4 3 2 1 0.5 -1 1 1.5 2

Figure 6.4: Graph of f (x) = x3 x 1 for x3 then taking the cube root suggests the xedpoint iteration function g (x) = 3 x + 1, while rearranging directly for x suggests the iteration function g (x) = x3 1. From the plot of the values f (x) = x3 x 1 in Fig. 6.4, we see that x = 1.3 . Starting from the point x0 = 1.0 for each iteration function we compute the results in Table 6.2. That is the results in the rst column are from the iteration xn+1 = 3 xn + 1 and in the second column from the iteration xn+1 = x3 n 1. [The entry HUGE in the table corresponds to a number clearly too large to be of interest; the iteration ultimately overows on any computer or calculator!] The iterates generated using the iteration function g (x) = 3 x + 1 converge to the root x = 1.3247 , while the iterates generated using the iteration function g (x) = x3 1 diverge. Problem 6.1.1. Assume that the function g is continuous and that the sequence {xn }n=0 converges to a xed point x . Employ a limiting argument to show that x satises x = g (x ). Problem 6.1.2. Consider the function f (x) = x ex . The equation f (x) = 0 has a root x in (0, 1). Use Rolles Theorem (see Problem 4.1.22) to prove that this root x of f (x) is simple. Problem 6.1.3. 1. Show algebraically by rearrangement that the equation x = ln(x) has the same roots as the equation x = ex 2. Show algebraically by rearrangement that the equation x = 3 x + 1 has the same roots as the equation x3 x 1 = 0 3. Show algebraically by rearrangement that the equation x = x3 1 has the same roots as the equation x3 x 1 = 0 Problem 6.1.4. Prove that the equation x = ln(x) has a unique simple real root. Problem 6.1.5. Prove that the equation x3 x 1 = 0 has a unique simple real root. Problem 6.1.6. For f (x) = x3 x 1, the show that rearrangement x3 x 1 = x(x2 1) 1 = 0 1 leads to a xedpoint iteration function g (x) = 2 , and show that the rearrangement x3 x 1 = x 1 x . How do the iterates (x 1)(x2 + x + 1) x = 0 leads to the iteration function g (x) = 1 + 2 x +x+1 generated by each of these xedpoint functions behave? [In each case compute a few iterates starting from x0 = 1.5.]

164

6.1.1

Analysis of Convergence

Given an initial estimate x0 of the root x of the equation x = g (x), we need two properties of the iteration function g to ensure that the sequence of iterates {xn }n=1 dened by xn+1 = g (xn ), n = 0, 1, . . . , converges to x : x = g (x ); that is, x is a xedpoint of the iteration function g . For any n, lets dene en = xn x to be the error in xn considered as an approximation to x . Then the sequence of absolute errors {|en |}n=0 decreases monotonically to 0; that is, for each value of n, the iterate xn+1 is closer to the point x than was the previous iterate xn . Assuming that the derivative g is continuous wherever we need it to be, from the Mean Value Theorem (Problem 6.0.3), we have en+1 = = = = xn+1 x g (xn ) g (x ) g (n ) (xn x ) g (n ) en

where n is some (unknown) point between x and xn . Summarizing, the key equation en+1 = g (n ) en

states that the new error en+1 is a factor g (n ) times the old error en . Now, the new iterate xn+1 is closer to the root x than is the old iterate xn if and only if |en+1 | < |en |. This occurs if and only if |g (n )| < 1. So, informally, if |g (n )| < 1 for each value of n arising in the iteration, the absolute errors tend to zero and the iteration converges. More specically: If for some constant 0 < G < 1, |g (x)| G (the tangent line condition) for all x I = [x r, x + r] then, for every starting point x0 I , the sequence {xn }n=0 is well dened and converges to the xedpoint x . (Note that, as xn x , g (xn ) g (x ) and so g (n ) g (x ) since n is trapped between xn and x .)

The smaller the value of |g (x )|, the more rapid is the ultimate rate of convergence. Ultimately (that is, when the iterates xn are so close to x that g (n ) g (x )) each iteration reduces the magnitude of the error by a factor of about g (x ). If g (x ) > 0, convergence is ultimately onesided. Because, when xn is close enough to x then g (n ) will have the same sign as g (x ) > 0 since we assume that g (x) is continuous near x . Hence the error er+1 will have the same sign as the error er for all values of r > n. By a similar argument, if g (x ) < 0, ultimately (that is, when the iterates xn are close enough to x ) convergence is twosided because the signs of the errors er and er+1 will be opposite for each value of r > n. We have chosen the interval I to be centered at x . This is to simplify the theory. Then, if x0 lies in the interval I so do all future iterates xn . The disadvantage of this choice is that we dont know the interval I until we have calculated the answer x ! However, what this result does tell us is what to expect if we start close enough to the solution. If |g (x )| G < 1, g (x) is continuous in a neighborhood of x , and x0 is close enough to x then the xed point iteration xn+1 = g (xn ), n = 0, 1, . . . , converges to x . The convergence rate is linear if g (x ) = 0 and superlinear if g (x ) = 0; that is, ultimately en+1 g (x )en

6.1. FIXEDPOINT ITERATION n 0 1 2 3 4 5 xn 0.5000 0.6065 0.5452 0.5797 0.5601 0.5712 en -0.0671 0.0394 -0.0219 0.0126 -0.0071 0.0040 en /en1 -0.587 -0.556 -0.573 -0.564 -0.569

165

Table 6.3: Errors and error ratios for xedpoint iteration with g (x) = ex n 0 1 2 3 4 xn 1.000 1.260 1.312 1.322 1.324 en -0.325 -0.065 -0.012 -0.002 -0.000 en /en1 0.200 0.192 0.190 0.190 3 x+1

Table 6.4: Errors and error ratios for xedpoint iteration with g (x) = Formally, if the errors satisfy |en+1 | =K p n |en | lim

where K is a positive constant then the convergence rate is p. The case p = 1 is labelled linear, p = 2 quadratic, p = 3 cubic, etc.; any case with p > 1 is superlinear. The following examples illustrate this theory. Example 6.1.1. Let g (x) = ex , then x = 0.567143 and g (x) = ex . Note, if x > 0 then 1 < g (x) < 0. For all x (0, ), |g (x)| < 1. Choose x0 in the interval I [0.001, 1.133] which is approximately centered symmetrically about x . Since g (x ) = 0.567 < 0, convergence is ultimately twosided. Ultimately, the error at each iteration is reduced by a factor of approximately | 0.567| as we see in the last column of Table 6.3. 1 . Note, if x 0 3(x + 1)2/3 1 1 1 1 then x + 1 1 and hence 0 . So |g (x)| for 1. Therefore 0 g (x) = x+1 3 3 3(x + 1)2/3 x [0, ). Choose x0 in the interval I [0, 2.649] which is approximately symmetrically centered around x . Since g (x ) 0.189, convergence is ultimately onesided. The error at each iteration is ultimately reduced by a factor of approximately 0.189, see the last column of Table 6.4. Example 6.1.2. Let g (x) = 3 x + 1, then x = 1.3247 and g (x) = Problem 6.1.7. For the divergent sequences shown in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 above, argue why |x xn+1 | > |x xn | whenever xn is suciently close, but not equal, to x . Problem 6.1.8. Analyze the convergence, or divergence, of the xedpoint iteration for each of the iteration functions 1. g (x) 1 x2 1

2. g (x) 1 +

x x2 + x + 1

166

See Problem 6.1.6 for the derivation of these iteration functions. Does your analysis reveal the behavior of the iterations that you computed in Problem 6.1.6? Problem 6.1.9. Consider the xedpoint equation x = 2 sin x for which there is a root x 1.89. Why would you expect the xedpoint iteration xn+1 = 2 sin xn to converge from a starting point x0 close enough to x ? Would you expect convergence to be ultimately onesided or twosided? Why? Use the iteration xn+1 = 2 sin xn starting (i) from x0 = 2.0 and (ii) from x0 = 1.4. In each case continue until you have 3 correct digits in the answer. Discuss the convergence behavior of these iterations in the light of your observations above.

6.2

A systematic procedure for constructing iteration functions g given the function f is to choose the Newton Iteration Function f (x) g (x) = x f (x) leading to the wellknown Newton Iteration xn+1 = xn A. Expand f (y ) around x using Taylor series: f (y ) = f (x) + (y x)f (x) + . . . f (xn ) f (xn )

How does this choice of iteration function arise? Here are two developments:

Now terminate the Taylor series after the terms shown. Setting y = xn+1 , f (xn+1 ) = 0 and x = xn and rearranging gives the Newton iteration. Note, this is valid because we assume xn+1 is much closer to x than is xn , so, usually, f (xn+1 ) is much closer to zero than is f (xn ). B. The curve y = f (x) crosses the x-axis at x = x . In pointslope form, the tangent to y = f (x) at the point (xn , f (xn )) is given by y f (xn ) = f (xn )(x xn ). Let xn+1 be dened as the value of x where this tangent crosses the x-axis (see Fig. 6.5). Rearranging, we obtain the Newton iteration. A short computation shows that, for the Newton iteration function g , g (x) = 1 f (x) f (x)f (x) f (x)f (x) + = 2 f (x) f (x) f (x)2 f (x )f (x ) =0 f (x )2

From the previous section we know that, when xn is close enough to x , then en+1 g (x )en . So g (x ) = 0 implies en+1 is very much smaller in magnitude than en . In Table 6.5 we give the iterates, errors and error ratios for the Newton iteration applied to the function f (x) = x ex . See Table 6.6 for the iterates, errors and error ratios for the function f (x) = x3 x 1. In these tables the correct digits are underlined. At each Newton iteration the number of correct digits approximately doubles: this behavior is typical for quadratically convergent iterations. Can we conrm theoretically that the Newton iteration approximately doubles the number of correct digits at each iteration? From Taylor series, en+1 = xn+1 x = g (xn ) g (x ) = g (x + en ) g (x ) e2 = en g (x ) + n g (x ) + . . . 2

167

y = f(x)

(xn , f(xn))

Figure 6.5: Illustration of Newtons method. xn+1 is the location where the tangent line through the point (xn , f (xn )) crosses the x-axis.

n 0 1 2 3

Table 6.5: Errors and error ratios for the Newton iteration applied to f (x) = x ex .

n 0 1 2 3 4 5

Table 6.6: Errors and error ratios for the Newton iteration applied to f (x) = x3 x 1.

168

Neglecting the higher order terms not shown here, since g (x ) = 0, assuming g (x ) = 0 as it is in most cases, we obtain the error equation en+1 (For example, for the iteration in Table 6.5 g (x ) 2 en 2

gence.) Now, lets check that this error equation implies ultimately doubling the number of correct digits. Dividing both sides of the error equation by x leads to the relation x g (x ) 2 rn 2 en . Suppose that xn is correct to about t decimal where the relative error rn in en is dened by rn x digits, so that rn 10t and choose d to be an integer such that rn+1 x g (x ) 10d 2

where the sign of is chosen according to the sign of the left hand side. Then, rn+1 x g (x ) 2 rn 10d 102t = 10d2t 2

As the iteration converges, t grows and, ultimately, 2t will be much larger than d so then rn+1 102t . Hence, for suciently large values t, when rn is accurate to about t decimal digits then rn+1 is accurate to about 2t decimal digits. This approximate doubling of the number of correct digits at each iteration is evident in Tables 6.5 and 6.6. When the error en is suciently small that the error equation is accurate then en+1 has the same sign as g (x ). Then, convergence for the Newton iteration is onesided: from above if g (x ) > 0 and from below if g (x ) < 0. Summarizing for a simple root x of f : 1. The Newton iteration converges when started from any point x0 that is close enough to the root x assuming g (x) is continuous in a closed interval containing x , because the Newton iteration is a xed point iteration with |g (x )| < 1 2. When the error en is suciently small that the error equation is accurate, the number of correct digits in xn approximately doubles at each Newton iteration. 3. When the error en is suciently small that the error equation is accurate, the Newton iteration converges from one side. Example 6.2.1. Consider the equation f (x) x20 1 = 0 with real roots 1. If we use the Newton iteration the formula is x20 1 xn+1 = xn n 19 20xn Starting with x0 = 0.5, which we might consider to be close to the root x = 1 we compute x1 = 26213, x2 = 24903, x3 = 23658 to ve digits, that is the rst iteration took an enormous leap across the root then the iterations creep back towards the root. So, we didnt start close enough to get quadratic convergence; the iteration is converging linearly. If, instead, we start from x0 = 1.5, to ve digits we compute x1 = 1.4250, x2 = 1.3538 and x3 = 1.2863, and convergence is again linear. If we start from x0 = 1.1, to ve digits we compute x1 = 1.0532, x2 = 1.0192, x3 = 1.0031, and x4 = 1.0001. We observe quadratic convergence in this last set of iterates. Problem 6.2.1. Construct the Newton iteration by deriving the tangent equation to the curve y = f (x) at the point (xn , f (xn )) and choosing the point xn+1 as the place where this line crosses the x-axis. (See Fig. 6.5.)

6.2. THE NEWTON ITERATION Problem 6.2.2. Assuming that the root x of f is simple, show that g (x ) = show that f (x ) en+1 2 en 2f (x )

169 f (x ) . Hence, f (x )

Problem 6.2.3. For the function f (x) = x3 x 1 write down the Newton iteration function g and calculate g (x) and g (x). Table 6.6 gives a sequence of iterates for this Newton iteration function. en In Table 6.6 compute the ratios 2 . Do the computed ratios behave in the way that you would en1 predict? Problem 6.2.4. Consider computing the root x of the equation x = cos(x), that is computing the value x such that x = cos(x ). Use a calculator for the computations required below. 1. Use the iteration xn+1 = cos(xn ) starting from x0 = 1.0 and continuing until you have computed x correctly to three digits. Present your results in a table. Observe that the iteration converges. Is convergence from one side? Viewing the iteration as being of the form xn+1 = g (xn ), by analyzing the iteration function g show that you would expect the iteration to converge and that you can predict the convergence behavior. 2. Now use a Newton iteration to compute the root x of x = cos(x) starting from the same value of x0 . Continue the iteration until you obtain the maximum number of digits of accuracy available on your calculator. Present your results in a table, marking the number of correct digits in each iterate. How would you expect the number of correct digits in successive iterates to behave? Is that what you observe? Is convergence from one side? Is that what you would expect and why? N 1 Problem 6.2.5. Some computers perform the division by rst computing the reciprocal and D D N 1 1 then computing the product = N . Consider the function f (x) D . What is the root D D x f (x) of f (x)? Show that, for this function f (x), the Newton iteration function g (x) = x can f (x) be written so that evaluating it does not require divisions. Simplify this iteration function so that evaluating it uses as few adds, subtracts, and multiplies as possible. N 2 Use the iteration that you have derived to compute = without using any divisions. To do D 3 this, rst use the Newton iteration for the reciprocal of D = 3 starting from x0 = 0.5; iterate until N you have computed the reciprocal to 10 decimal places. Next, compute . D

6.2.1

For any real value a > 0, the function f (x) = x2 a has two square roots, x = a. The Newton iteration applied to f (x) gives xn+1 = xn f (xn ) f (xn ) = xn = x2 na 2xn a xn + xn 2

Note, the (last) algebraically simplied expression is less expensive to compute than the original expression because it involves just one divide, one add, and one division by two whereas the original expression involves a multiply, two subtractions, a division and a multiplication by two. [When using IEEE Standard oatingpoint arithmetic, multiplication or division by two of a machine oating point number involves simply increasing or reducing, respectively, that numbers exponent by one. This is a low cost operation relative to the standard arithmetic operations.]

a 1 xn + we observe that xn+1 has the same sign as xn for all n. 2 xn Hence, if the Newton iteration converges, it converges to that root with the same sign as x0 . Now consider the error in the iterates. en xn a Algebraically, = xn+1 a (xn a)2 = 2xn xn + = = 2xn e2 n 2 a xn

en+1

for n 1, so

From this formula, we see that when x0 > 0 we have e1 = x1 a > 0 so that x1 > a > 0. It follows similarly that en 0 for all n 1. Hence, if xn converges to a then it converges from above. To prove that the iteration converges, note that en xn a distance from xn to a 0 = = <1 xn xn 0 distance from xn to 0 en+1 = e2 n = 2xn en xn en en < 2 2

1 Hence, for all n 1, the error en is reduced by a factor of at least at each iteration. Therefore the 2 iterates xn converge to a. Of course, quadratic convergence rules! as this is the Newton iteration, so when the error is suciently small the number of correct digits in xn approximately doubles with each iteration. However, if x0 is far from the root we may not have quadratic convergence initially, and, at worst, the error may only be approximately halved at each iteration. Not surprisingly, the Newton iteration is widely used in computers and calculators mathematical software libraries as a part of the built-in function for determining square roots. Clearly, for this approach to be useful a method is needed to ensure that, from the start of the iteration, the error is suciently small that quadratic convergence rules!. Consider the oatingpoint number a = S (a) 2e(a) where the signicand, S (a), satises 1 S (a) < 2. (As we saw in Chapter 2, any positive oating point number may be written this way.) If the exponent e(a) is even then a = S (a) 2e(a)/2 Hence, we can compute a from this expression by computing the square root of the signicand S (a) and halving the exponent e(a). Similarly, if e(a) is odd then e(a) 1 is even, so a = {2S (a)} 2e(a)1 and a = 2S (a) 2(e(a)1)/2 Hence, we can compute a from this expression by computing the square root of twice the signicand, 2S (a), and halving the adjusted exponent, e(a) 1. Combining these two cases we observe that the signicand is in the range 1 S (a) < 2 2S (a) < 4 So, for all values a > 0 computing a is reduced to simply modifying the exponent and computing b for a value b in the interval [1, 4); here b is either S (a) or it is 2S (a) depending on whether the exponent e(a) of a is even or odd, respectively. This process of reducing the problem of computing square roots of numbers a dened in the semiinnite interval (0, ) to a problem of computing square roots of numbers b dened in the (small) nite interval [1,4) is a form of range reduction. Range reduction is used widely in simplifying

171

the computation of mathematical functions because, generally, it is easier (and more accurate and ecient) to nd a good approximation to a function at all points in a small interval than at all points in a larger interval. The Newton iteration to compute b is Xn + Xn+1 = 2 b Xn

n = 0, 1, . . .

where X0 is chosen carefully in the interval [1, 2) to give convergence in a small (known) number of iterations. On many computers a seed table is used to generate the initial iterate X0 . Given the value of a, the value of b =(S (a) or 2S (a)) is computed, then the arithmetic unit supplies the leading bits (binary digits) of b to the seed table which returns an estimate for the square root of the b. Starting from number described by these leading bits. This provides the initial estimate X of 0 X0 , the iteration to compute b converges to machine accuracy in a known maximum number of iterations (usually 1, 2, 3 or 4 iterations). The seed table is constructed so the number of iterations needed to achieve machine accuracy is xed and known for all numbers for which each seed from the table is used as the initial estimate. Hence, there is no need to check whether the iteration has converged thus saving computing the iterate needed for a check! Problem 6.2.6. Use the above range reduction strategy (based on powers of 2) combined with the 2 Newton iteration for computing each of 5 and 9. [Hint: 5 = 5 4 2 ] (In each case compute b then start the Newton iteration for computing b from X0 = 1.0). Continue the iteration until you have computed the maximum number of correct digits available on your calculator. Check for (a) the predicted behavior of the iterates and (b) quadratic convergence. Problem 6.2.7. Consider the function f (x) = x3 a which has only one real root, namely x = 3 a. Show that a simplied Newton iteration for this function may be derived as follows xn+1 = xn f (xn ) f (xn ) = xn = 1 3 x3 na x2 n a 2xn + 2 xn 1 3

Problem 6.2.8. In the cube root iteration above show that the second (algebraically simplied) expression for the cube root iteration is less expensive to compute than the rst. Assume that the 1 value of is precalculated and in the iteration a multiplication by this value is used where needed. 3 Problem 6.2.9. For a > 0 and the cube root iteration 1. Show that en+1 = when x0 > 0 2. Hence show that e1 0 and x1 > 3. When xn 3 a show that 3 a and, in general, that xn (2xn + 3 a)en <1 3x2 n 3 a for all n 1 (2xn + 3 a) 2 en 3x2 n

4. Hence, show that the error is reduced at each iteration and that the Newton iteration converges from above to 3 a from any initial estimate x0 > 0. Problem 6.2.10. We saw that x can be computed for any x > 0 by range reduction from values of 3 X for X [1, 4). Develop a similar argument that shows how x can be computed for any x > 0 3 by range reduction from values of X for X [1 , 8) . What is the corresponding range of values for X for computing 3 x when x < 0?

172

Problem 6.2.11. Use the range reduction in the previous problem followed by a Newton derived iteration to compute each of the values 3 10 and 3 20; in each case, start the iteration from X0 = 1.0. Problem 6.2.12. Let a > 0. Write down the roots of the function f (x) = a 1 x2

Write down the Newton iteration for computing the positive root of f (x) = 0. Show that the iteration formula can be simplied so that it does not involve divisions. Compute the arithmetic costs per iteration with and without the simplication; recall that multiplications or divisions by two (exponent shifts) do not count as arithmetic. How would you compute a from the result of the iteration, without using divisions or using additional iterations? Problem 6.2.13. Let a > 0. Write down the real root of the function f (x) = a 1 x3

Write down the Newton iteration for computing the real root of f (x) = 0. Show that the iteration formula can be simplied so that it does not involve a division at each iteration. Compute the arithmetic costs per iteration with and without the simplication; identify any parts of the computation that can be computed a priori, that is they can be computed just once independently of the number of iterations. How would you compute 3 a from the result of the iteration, without using divisions or using additional iterations? Calculator and Software Note The algorithm for calculating square roots on many calculators and in many mathematical software libraries is essentially what has been described in this section.

6.3

Secant Iteration

The major disadvantage of the Newton iteration is that the function f must be evaluated at each iteration. This derivative may be dicult to derive or may be far more expensive to evaluate than the function f . One quite common circumstance where it is dicult to derive f is when f is dened by a program. Recently, the technology of Automatic Dierentiation has made computing automatically the values of derivatives dened in such complex ways a possibility. When the cost of evaluating the derivative is the problem, this cost can often be reduced by using instead the iteration f (xn ) xn+1 = xn mn approximating f (xn ) in the Newton iteration by mn which is chosen as a dierence quotient mn = f (xn ) f (xn1 ) xn xn1

This dierence quotient uses the alreadycomputed values f (x) from the current and the previous iterate. It yields the secant iteration: xn+1 f (xn ) f (xn ) f (xn1 ) xn xn1 f (xn ) = xn (xn xn1 ) [preferred computational form] f (xn ) f (xn1 ) xn f (xn1 ) xn1 f (xn ) [computational form to be avoided] = f (xn1 ) f (xn ) = xn

173

This iteration requires two starting values x0 and x1 . Of the three expressions for the iterate xn+1 , the second expression xn+1 = xn f (xn ) f (xn ) f (xn1 ) (xn xn1 ), n = 1, 2, . . .

provides the best implementation. It is written as a correction of the most recent iterate in terms of a scaling of the dierence of the current and the previous iterate. All three expressions suer from cancellation; in the last, cancellation can be catastrophic. When the error en is small enough and when the secant iteration converges, it can be shown that 1 + 5 the error ultimately behaves like |en+1 | K |en |p where p = 1.618 and K is a positive 2 constant. (Derivation of this result is not trivial.) Since p > 1, the error exhibits superlinear convergence but at a rate less than that exemplied by quadratic convergence. However, this superlinear convergence property has a similar eect on the behavior of the error as the quadratic convergence property of the Newton iteration. As long as f (x) is continuous and the root x is simple, we have the following properties: If the initial iterates x0 and x1 are both suciently close to the root x then the secant iteration is guaranteed to converge to x . When the iterates xn and xn1 are suciently close to the root x then the secant converges superlinearly; that is, the number of correct digits increases faster than linearly at each iteration. Ultimately the number of correct digits increases by a factor of approximately 1.6 per iteration. Example 6.3.1. Consider solving the equation f (x) x3 x 1 = 0 using the secant iteration starting with x0 = 1 and x1 = 2. Observe in Table 6.7 that the errors are tending to zero at an increasing rate but not as fast as in quadratic convergence where the number of correct digits 1+ 5 p doubles at each iteration. The ratio |ei |/|ei1 | where p = is tending to a limit until limiting 2 precision is encountered. n 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 xn 1.0 2.0 1.16666666666666 1.25311203319502 1.33720644584166 1.32385009638764 1.32470793653209 1.32471796535382 1.32471795724467 1.32471795724475 en -0.32471795724475 0.67528204275525 -0.15805129057809 -0.07160592404973 0.01248848859691 -0.00086786085711 -0.00001002071266 0.00000000810907 -0.00000000000008 -0.00000000000000 |en |/|en1 |p 0.298 1.417 0.890 1.043 0.901 0.995 0.984

Problem 6.3.1. Derive the secant iteration geometrically as follows: Write down the formula for the straight line joining the two points (xn1 , f (xn1 )) and (xn , f (xn )), then for the next iterate xn+1 choose the point where this line crosses the x-axis. (The gure should be very similar to Fig. 6.5.) Problem 6.3.2. In the three expressions for the secant iteration above, assume that the calculation of f (xn ) is performed just once for each value of xn . Write down the cost per iteration of each form in terms of arithmetic operations (adds, multiplies, subtracts and divides) and function, f , evaluations.

174

30 25 20 15 10 5 5 10 15 20 25 30

Figure 6.6: Plot of log2 (en ) versus n linear on average convergence of bisection.

6.4

The methods described so far in this chapter choose an initial estimate for the root of f (x), then use an iteration which converges in appropriate circumstances. However, normally there is no guarantee that these iterations will converge from an arbitrary initial estimate. Next we discuss iterations where the user must supply more information but the resulting iteration is guaranteed to converge.

6.4.1

Bisection

The interval [a, b] is a bracket for a root of f (x) if f (a) f (b) 0. Clearly, when f is continuous a bracket contains a root of f (x). For, if f (a) f (b) = 0, then either a or b or both is a root of f (x) = 0. And, if f (a) f (b) < 0, then f (x) starts with one sign at a and ends with the opposite sign at b, so by continuity f (x) = 0 must have a root between a and b. (Mathematically, this last argument appeals to the Intermediate Value Theorem, see Problem 6.0.1.) Let [a, b] be a bracket for a root of f (x). The bisection method renes this bracket (that is, it a+b makes it shorter) as follows. Let m = ; this divides the interval [a, b] into two subintervals 2 [a, m] and [m, b] each of half of the length of [a, b]. We know that at least one of these subintervals must be a bracket (see Problem 6.4.2), so the bisection process renes an initial bracket to a bracket of half its length. This process is repeated with the newly computed bracket replacing the previous one. On average, the bisection method converges linearly to a root. As described in Problem 6.4.4, this (approximate) linear convergence is illustrated in Fig. 6.6. That is, the data points in the gure lie approximately on a straight line of slope one through the origin. Example 6.4.1. Consider solving the equation f (x) x3 x 1 = 0 using the bisection method starting with the bracket [a, b] where a = 1 and b = 2 and terminated when the bracket is smaller than 104 . Observe in Table 6.8 that the errors are tending to zero but irregularly. The ratio en /en1 is not tending to a limit. Problem 6.4.1. Consider using the bisection method to compute the root of f (x) = x ex starting with initial bracket [0, 1] and nishing with a bracket of length 210 . Predict how many iterations will be needed? a+b be 2 the midpoint of [a, b]. Show that if neither [a, m] nor [m, b] is a bracket, then neither is [a, b]. [Hint: If neither [a, m] nor [m, b] is a bracket, then f (a) f (m) > 0 and f (m) f (b) > 0. Conclude that Problem 6.4.2. Let the interval [a, b] be a bracket for a root of the function f , and let m =

6.4. ROOT BRACKETING METHODS xn 1.0000000000000000 2.0000000000000000 1.5000000000000000 1.2500000000000000 1.3750000000000000 1.3125000000000000 1.3437500000000000 1.3281250000000000 1.3203125000000000 1.3242187500000000 1.3261718750000000 1.3251953125000000 1.3247070312500000 1.3249511718750000 1.3248291015625000 1.3247680664062500 en -0.3247179572447501 0.6752820427552499 0.1752820427552499 -0.0747179572447501 0.0502820427552499 -0.0122179572447501 0.0190320427552499 0.0034070427552499 -0.0044054572447501 -0.0004992072447501 0.0014539177552499 0.0004773552552499 -0.0000109259947501 0.0002332146302499 0.0001111443177499 0.0000501091614999 en /en1 0.260 -0.426 -0.673 -0.243 -1.558 0.179 -1.293 0.113 -2.912 0.328 -0.023 -21.345 0.477 0.451

175

f (a) f (b) > 0; that is, conclude that [a, b] is not a bracket.] Now, proceed to use this contradiction to show that one of the intervals [a, m] and [m, b] must be a bracket for a root of the function f . Problem 6.4.3. (Boundary Case) Let [a, b] be a bracket for a root of the function f . In the denition of a bracket, why is it important to allow for the possibility that f (a) f (b) = 0? In what circumstance might we have f (a) f (b) = 0 without having either f (a) = 0 or f (b) = 0? Is this circumstance likely to occur in practice? How would you modify the algorithm to avoid this problem? Problem 6.4.4. Let {[an , bn ]} n=0 be the sequence of intervals (brackets) produced when bisection is applied to the function f (x) x ex starting with the initial interval (bracket) [a0 , b0 ] = [0, 1]. Let x denote the root of f (x) in the interval [0, 1], and let en max(x an , bn x ) be the maximum deviation of the endpoints of the nth interval [an , bn ] from the root x . Fig. 6.6 depicts a plot of log2 (en ) versus n. Show that this plot is consistent with the assumption that, approximately, en = c 2n for some constant c.

6.4.2

The method of bisection makes no use of the magnitudes of the values f (x) at the endpoints of each bracket, even though they are normally computed. In contrast, the method of false position uses these magnitudes. As in bisection, in false position we begin with a bracket [a, b] containing the root and the aim is to produce successively shorter brackets that still contain the root. Rather than choose the interior point t as the midpoint m of the current bracket [a, b] as in bisection, the method of false position chooses as t the point where the secant line through the points (a, f (a)) and (b, f (b)) intersects the xaxis. So t=a f (a) f (a) f (b) (a b)

is the new approximation to the root of f (x). Then, the new bracket is chosen by replacing one of the endpoints a or b by this value of t using the sign of f (t) so as to preserve a bracket, just like in the bisection method. As the bracket [a, b] is rened, the graph of f (x) for points inside the bracket behaves increasingly like a straightline. So we might expect that this straight line approximation would accurately estimate the position of the root. Is this false position algorithm useful? Probably not. Consider the case where the function f is concave up on the bracket [a, b] with f (a) < 0 and f (b) > 0. The secant line through the points

176 xi 1.0000000000000000 2.0000000000000000 1.1666666666666665 1.2531120331950207 1.2934374019186834 1.3112810214872344 1.3189885035664628 1.3222827174657958 1.3236842938551607 1.3242794617319507 1.3245319865800917 1.3246390933080365 1.3246845151666697 1.3247037764713760 1.3247119440797213 1.3247154074520977 1.3247168760448742 1.3247174987790529

CHAPTER 6. ROOT FINDING ei -0.3247179572447501 0.6752820427552499 -0.1580512905780835 -0.0716059240497293 -0.0312805553260667 -0.0134369357575157 -0.0057294536782873 -0.0024352397789542 -0.0010336633895893 -0.0004384955127994 -0.0001859706646583 -0.0000788639367135 -0.0000334420780803 -0.0000141807733740 -0.0000060131650288 -0.0000025497926524 -0.0000010811998759 -0.0000004584656972 ei /ei1 -0.234 0.453 0.437 0.430 0.426 0.425 0.424 0.424 0.424 0.424 0.424 0.424 0.424 0.424 0.424 0.424

(a, f (a)) and (b, f (b)) cuts the x-axis at a point t to the left of the root x of f (x) = 0. Hence, the values f (t) and f (a) have the same sign. Hence the left endpoint a will be moved to the position of t. This is ne, but what is not ne is that it is also the left endpoint that is moved on all future iterations! That is, the false position algorithm never moves the right endpoint when the function f is concave up on the bracket! If, instead, f is concave down on the bracket, by a similar argument the left endpoint is never moved by the false position algorithm. Almost all functions are either concave up or concave down on short enough intervals containing a simple root, so the false position method is a poor algorithm for rening a bracket in almost all cases. We can improve the false position method in many ways so as to ensure that convergence is not onesided and that the length of the bracket tends to zero. One such method is to keep track of the brackets and when it is clear that the iterates are onesided to insert a bisection point in place of a false position point as the next iterate. Such an algorithm is described in the pseudocode in Fig. 6.7. In this algorithm two iterations of onesided behavior are permitted before a bisection iteration is inserted. In reality far more sophisticated algorithms are used. Example 6.4.2. Consider solving the equation f (x) x3 x 1 = 0 using the false position method dened in Fig. 6.7 starting with a = 1 and b = 2 and terminating when the error is smaller than 106 . Observe in Table 6.9 that the errors are tending to zero linearly; the ratio |ei |/|ei1 | is tending to a constant. Convergence is one-sided (the errors are all negative). Example 6.4.3. Consider solving the equation f (x) x3 x 1 = 0 using the false positionbisection method starting with the bracket [a, b] where a = 1 and b = 2 and terminated when the bracket is smaller than 104 . Observe in Table 6.10 that the errors are tending to zero but erratically. Convergence is not longer one-sided but the error is much smaller for the right-hand end of the bracket. Problem 6.4.5. Show that t is the point where the straight line through the points (a, f (a)) and (b, f (b)) intersects the xaxis. Problem 6.4.6. Consider any function f that is concave down. Argue that the false position algorithm will never move the left endpoint.

177

Let [a, b] be a bracket for a root of f (x) The requirement is to reduce the length of the bracket to a length no greater than tol The counters ka and kb keep track of the changes in the endpoints ka := 0; kb := 0 f a := f (a); f b := f (b) if sign(f a) sign(f b) 0 then return (no bracket on root) while |b a| > tol do if ka = 2 or kb = 2 then !Use bisection t := a + 0.5(b a) ka := 0; kb := 0 else !Use false position t := a + f a(f b f a)/(b a) endif f t := f (t) if f t = 0 then return (exact root f ound) if sign(f a) sign(f t) 0 then b := t; f b := f t ka := ka + 1; kb := 0 else a := t; f a := f t ka := 0; kb := kb + 1 endif end while Figure 6.7: Pseudocode False Position Bisection.

6.5

A rather dierent approach to root-nding is to use inverse interpolation. We discuss just the most commonly used variant, quadratic inverse interpolation. Consider a case where we have three points xn2 , xn1 and xn and we have evaluated the function f at each of these points giving the values yni = f (xni ), i = 0, 1, 2. Assume f has an inverse function g then xni = g (yni ), i = 0, 1, 2. Now, make a quadratic interpolant to this inverse data: P2 (y ) = (y yn1 )(y yn2 ) (y yn )(y yn2 ) (y yn1 )(y yn ) g (yn )+ g (yn1 )+ g (yn2 ) (yn yn1 )(yn yn2 ) (yn1 yn )(yn1 yn2 ) (yn2 yn1 )(yn2 yn ) yn1 yn2 yn yn2 yn1 yn xn + xn1 + xn2 (yn yn1 )(yn yn2 ) (yn1 yn )(yn1 yn2 ) (yn2 yn1 )(yn2 yn )

Discard the point xn2 and continue with the same process to compute xn+2 using the points xn1 and xn , and the new point xn+1 . Proceeding in this way, we obtain an iteration reminiscent of the .44 secant iteration for which the error behaves approximately like en+1 = Ke1 n . Note that this rate of convergence occurs only when all the xi are close enough to the root x of the equation f (x) = 0; that is, in the limit quadratic inverse interpolation is a superlinearly convergent method. Now, the quadratic inverse interpolation iteration is only guaranteed to converge from points close enough to the root. One way of guaranteeing convergence is to use the iteration in a bracketing method, rather like false position whose disadvantages quadratic inverse interpolation shares, in this setting. Consider three points a, b and c and the values A = f (a), B = f (b) and C = f (c). With

178 xi 1.0000000000000000 2.0000000000000000 1.1666666666666665 1.2531120331950207 1.6265560165975104 1.3074231247616550 1.3206623408834519 1.4736091787404813 1.3242063715696741 1.3246535623375968 1.3991313705390391 1.3247137081586036 1.3247176768803632 1.3619245237097011 1.3247179477646336 1.3247179569241898 1.3433212403169454 1.3247179572392584 1.3247179572446521 1.3340195987807988 1.3247179572447452 1.3247179572447461

CHAPTER 6. ROOT FINDING ei -0.3247179572447501 0.6752820427552499 -0.1580512905780835 -0.0716059240497293 0.3018380593527603 -0.0172948324830950 -0.0040556163612981 0.1488912214957312 -0.0005115856750759 -0.0000643949071533 0.0744134132942891 -0.0000042490861465 -0.0000002803643868 0.0372065664649510 -0.0000000094801165 -0.0000000003205602 0.0186032830721954 -0.0000000000054916 -0.0000000000000979 0.0093016415360487 -0.0000000000000049 -0.0000000000000040

appropriate ordering a < b < c there are two possibilities: AB < 0 and AC < 0 so that [a, b] is a bracket on the root; and AB > 0 and AC < 0 so that [b, c] is a bracket on the root. We consider just the rst of these; the second follows similarly. We compute d = P2 (0) = BC AC AB a+ b+ c (A B )(A C ) (B A)(B C ) (C B )(C A)

and we expect d to be close to the root. Indeed, since P2 (y ) is quadratic, normally we would expect that d [a, b]. If this is the case we can discard the point c and order the points so they have the same properties as above (or the alternative AC < 0 and BC < 0 which gives the bracket [b, c]) then proceed as before. Unfortunately, d may not lie in [a, c] and even if it does it may be very close to one of the points a, b and c. So, to use this method we need a method for dealing with these cases where d is not usable. One such approach is to use a secant iteration instead for the interval [a, b] using the values A = f (a) and B = f (b) in those cases when d / (a, b) or when d [a, b] but d a or d b. If a secant approximation also delivers an unacceptable point d then bisection may be used. Problem 6.5.1. Derive the formula for the error in interpolation associated with the interpolation formula P2 (y ) = (y yn )(y yn2 ) (y yn1 )(y yn ) (y yn1 )(y yn2 ) g (yn )+ g (yn1 )+ g (yn2 ) (yn yn1 )(yn yn2 ) (yn1 yn )(yn1 yn2 ) (yn2 yn1 )(yn2 yn )

Write the error term in terms of derivatives of f (x) rather than of g (y ), recalling that g is the inverse 1 of f so that g (y ) = . f (x) Problem 6.5.2. Show graphically how we may get d / (a, b). Remember in sketching your graph that P2 (y ) is quadratic in y . [Hint: Make the y -axis the horizontal.]

179

6.6

Roots of Polynomials

Specialized versions of the rootnding iterations described in previous sections may be tailored for computing the roots of a polynomial pn (x) = an xn + an1 xn1 + . . . + a0 of degree n. These methods exploit the fact that we know precisely the number of roots for a polynomial of exact degree n; namely, there are n roots counting multiplicities. In many cases of interest some, or all, of these roots are real. We concentrate on the Newton iteration. To use a Newton iteration to nd a root of a function f requires values of both f (x) and its derivative f (x). For a polynomial pn , it is easy to determine both these values eciently. An algorithm for evaluating polynomials eciently, and generally accurately, is Horners rule . The derivation of Horners rule begins by noting that a polynomial pn can be expressed as a sequence of nested multiplies. For example, for a cubic polynomial, n = 3, and p3 (x) = a3 x3 + a2 x2 + a1 x + a0 may be written as the following sequence of nested multiplies p3 (x) = ((((a3 )x + a2 )x + a1 )x + a0 ) which may be written as the following sequence of operations for evaluating p3 (x): t3 (x) = a3 t2 (x) = a2 + x t3 (x) t1 (x) = a1 + x t2 (x) = t0 (x) = a0 + x t1 (x)

p3 (x)

where ti (x) denotes the ith temporary function. Example 6.6.1. Consider evaluating the cubic p3 (x) = 2 5x + 3x2 7x3 = (2) + x {(5) + x [(3) + x (7)]}

at x = 2. This nested multiplication form of p3 (x) leads to the following sequence of operations for evaluating p3 (x) at any point x: t3 (x) = (7) t2 (x) = (3) + x t3 (x) t1 (x) = (5) + x t2 (x) p3 (x) t0 (x) = (2) + x t1 (x)

which you may check by evaluating the original cubic polynomial directly. To determine the derivative p3 (x) we dierentiate this sequence of operations with respect to x to give the derivative sequence t3 (x) = 0 t2 (x) = t3 (x) + x t3 (x) t1 (x) = t2 (x) + x t2 (x) p3 (x) t0 (x) = t1 (x) + x t1 (x)

t3 (x) = (7) t2 (x) = (3) + 2 (7) = 11 t1 (x) = (5) + 2 (11) = 27 p3 (x) t0 (x) = (2) + 2 (27) = 52

180

Merging alternate lines of the derivative sequence with that for the polynomial produces a sequence for evaluating the cubic p3 (x) and its derivative p3 (x) simultaneously, namely t3 (x) t3 (x) t2 (x) t2 (x) t1 (x) t1 (x) p3 (x) t0 (x) p3 (x) t0 (x) t3 (x) t3 (x) t2 (x) t2 (x) t1 (x) t1 (x) p3 (x) t0 (x) p3 (x) t0 (x) and evaluating at x = 2 we have t3 (x) t3 (x) t2 (x) t2 (x) t1 (x) t1 (x) p3 (x) t0 (x) p3 (x) t0 (x) = = = = = = = = 0 (7) (7) + 2 0 = 7 (3) + 2 (7) = 11 (11) + 2 (7) = 25 (5) + 2 (11) = 27 (27) + 2 (25) = 77 (2) + 2 (27) = 52 = = = = = = = = 0 a3 t3 (x) + x t3 (x) a2 + x t3 (x) t2 (x) + x t2 (x) a1 + x t2 (x) t1 (x) + x t1 (x) a0 + x t1 (x) 0 (7) t3 (x) + x t3 (x) (3) + x t3 (x) t2 (x) + x t2 (x) (5) + x t2 (x) t1 (x) + x t1 (x) (2) + x t1 (x)

Again you may check these values by evaluating the original polynomial and its derivative directly at x = 2. Since the current temporary values ti (x) and ti (x) are used to determine only the next temporary values ti1 (x) and ti1 (x), we can write the new values ti1 (x) and ti1 (x) over the old values ti (x) and ti (x) as follows tp = 0 t = a3 tp = t + x tp t = a2 + x t tp = t + x tp t = a1 + x t p3 (x) tp = t + x tp p3 (x) t = a0 + x t

For a polynomial of degree n the regular pattern of this code segment is captured in the pseudocode in Fig. 6.8. Problem 6.6.1. Use Horners rule to compute the rst two iterates x1 and x2 in Table 6.6. Problem 6.6.2. Write out Horners rule for evaluating a quartic polynomial p4 (x) = a4 x4 + a3 x3 + a2 x2 + a1 x + a0

6.6. ROOTS OF POLYNOMIALS tp := 0 t := a[n] for i = n 1 downto 0 do tp := t + x tp t := a[i] + x t next i pn (x) := tp pn (x) := t Figure 6.8: Pseudocode Horners rule for simultaneously evaluating pn (x) and pn (x)

181

and its derivative p4 (x). For the polynomial p4 (x) = 3x4 2x2 + 1 compute p4 (1) and p4 (1) using Horners scheme. Problem 6.6.3. What is the cost in arithmetic operations of a single Newton iteration when computing a root of the polynomial pn (x) using the code segment in Fig. 6.8 to compute both of the values pn (x) and pn (x). Problem 6.6.4. Modify the code segment computing the values pn (x) and pn (x) in Fig. 6.8 so that it also computes the value of the second derivative pn (x). (Fill in the assignments to tpp below.) tpp =? tp = 0 t = a[n] for i = n 1 downto 0 do tpp =? tp = t + x tp t = a[i] + x t next i pn (x)= tpp pn (x)= tp pn (x)= t

6.6.1

Synthetic Division

Consider a cubic polynomial p3 and assume that we have an approximation to a root x of p3 (x). In synthetic division, we divide the polynomial p3 (x) = a3 x3 + a2 x2 + a1 x + a0 by the linear factor x to produce a quadratic polynomial q2 (x) = b3 x2 + b2 x + b1 as the quotient and a constant b0 as the remainder. The dening relation is p3 (x) b0 = q2 (x) + x x

To determine the constant b0 , and the coecients b1 , b2 and b3 in q2 (x), we write this relation in the form p3 (x) = (x )q2 (x) + b0

182

Now we substitute in this expression for q2 and expand the product (x )q2 (x) + b0 as a sum of powers of x. As this must equal p3 (x) we write the two power series together: (x )q2 (x) + b0 = (b3 )x3 p3 (x) = a3 x3 + (b2 b3 )x2 + a2 x2 + (b1 b2 )x + + a1 x + (b0 b1 ) a0

The left hand sides of these two equations must be equal for any value x, so we can equate the coecients of the powers xi on the right hand sides of each equation (here is considered to be xed). This gives a3 = b3 a2 = b2 b3 a1 = b1 b2 a0 = b0 b1 Solving for the unknown values bi , we have b3 b2 b1 b0 = = = = a3 a2 + b3 a1 + b2 a0 + b1

We observe that ti () = bi ; that is, Horners rule and synthetic division are dierent interpretations of the same relation. The intermediate values ti () determined by Horners rule are the coecients bi of the polynomial quotient q2 (x) that is obtained when p3 (x) is divided by (x ). The result b0 is the value t3 () = p3 () of the polynomial p3 (x) when it is evaluated at the point x = . So, when is a root of p3 (x) = 0, the value of b0 = 0. Synthetic division for a general polynomial pn (x), of degree n in x, proceeds analogously. Dividing pn (x) by (x ) produces a quotient polynomial qn1 (x) of degree n 1 and a constant b0 as remainder. So, pn (x) b0 = qn1 (x) + x x where qn1 (x) = bn xn1 + bn1 xn2 + . . . + b1 Since pn (x) = (x )qn1 (x) + b0 , + + (bn1 bn )xn1 an1 xn1 = bn = bn1 bn . . . = b0 b 1 + ... + + ... + (b0 b1 ) a0

we nd that

an an1 a0

Solving these equations for the constant b0 and the unknown coecients bi of the polynomial qn1 (x) leads to bn = an bn1 = an1 + bn . . . b0 = a0 + b1 How does the synthetic division algorithm apply to the problem of nding the roots of a polynomial? First, from its relationship to Horners rule, for a given value of synthetic division eciently

183

where the quotient polynomial qn1 has degree one less than the polynomial pn . The polynomial qn1 has as its (n 1) roots values that are close to each of the remaining (n 1) roots of pn (x) = 0. We call qn1 the deated polynomial obtained by removing a linear factor (x ) approximating (x x ) from the polynomial pn . This process therefore reduces the problem of nding the roots of pn (x) = 0 to Find one root of the polynomial pn (x) Deate the polynomial pn to derive a polynomial of one degree lower, qn1 Repeat this procedure with qn1 replacing pn

determines the value of the polynomial pn () (and also of its derivative pn () using the technique described in the pseudocode given in Fig. 6.8). Furthermore, suppose that we have found a good approximation to the root, x . When the polynomial pn (x) is evaluated at x = via synthetic division the remainder b0 pn (x ) = 0. We treat the remainder b0 as though it is precisely zero. Therefore, approximately pn (x) = (x x )qn1 (x)

Of course, this process can be recursed to nd all the real roots of a polynomial equation. If there are only real roots, eventually we will reach a polynomial of degree two. Then, we may stop and use the quadratic formula to nish o . To use this approach to nd all the real and all the complex roots of a polynomial equation, we must use complex arithmetic in both the Newton iteration and in the synthetic division algorithm, and we must choose starting estimates for the Newton iteration that lie in the complex plane; that is, the initial estimates x0 must not be on the real line. Better, related approaches exist which exploit the fact that, for a polynomial with real coecients, the complex roots arise in conjugate pairs. The two factors corresponding to each complex conjugate pair taken together correspond to an irreducible quadratic factor of the original polynomial. These alternative approaches aim to compute these irreducible quadratic factors directly, in real arithmetic, and each irreducible quadratic factor may then be factored using the quadratic formula. Example 6.6.3. Consider the quartic polynomial p4 (x) = x4 5x2 + 4 which has roots 1 and 2. Assume that we have calculated the root = 2 and that we use the synthetic division algorithm to deate the polynomial p4 (x) = a4 x4 + a3 x3 + a2 x2 + a1 x + a0 to compute the cubic polynomial q3 (x) = b4 x3 + b3 x2 + b2 x + b1 and the constant b0 . The algorithm is b4 b3 b2 b1 b0 Substituting the values of the coecients compute b4 = b3 = b2 = b1 = b0 = = = = = = a4 a3 + b4 a2 + b3 a1 + b2 a0 + b1

of the quartic polynomial p4 and evaluating at = 2 we (1) (0) + (2)(1) = 2 (5) + (2)(2) = 1 (0) + (2)(1) = 2 (4) + (2)(2) = 0

So, b0 = 0 as it should be since = 2 is exactly a root and we have q3 (x) = (1)x3 + (2)x2 + (1)x + (2) You may check that q3 (x) has the remaining roots 1 and 2 of p4 (x).

184

Example 6.6.4. Well repeat the previous example but using the approximate root = 2.001 and working to four signicant digits throughout. Substituting this value of we compute b4 b3 b2 b1 b0 = = = = = (1) (0) + (2.001)(1) = 2.001 (5) + (2.001)(2.001) = 0.9960 (0) + (2.001)(0.9960) = 1.993 (4) + (2.001)(1.9993) = 0.0120

Given that the error in is only 1 in the fourth signicant digit, the value of b0 is somewhat larger than we might expect. If we assume that = 2.001 is close enough to a root, which is equivalent to assuming that b0 = 0, the reduced cubic polynomial is q3 (x) = x3 2.001x2 0.996x + 1.993. To four signicant digits the cubic polynomial q3 (x) has roots 2.001, 0.998 and 0.998, approximating the roots 2, 1 and 1 of p4 (x), respectively. Problem 6.6.5. The cubic polynomial p3 (x) = x3 7x + 6 has roots 1, 2 and 3. Deate p3 by synthetic division to remove the root = 3. This will give a quadratic polynomial q2 . Check that q2 (x) has the appropriate roots. Repeat this process but with an approximate root = 3.0001 working to ve signicant digits throughout. What are the roots of the resulting polynomial q2 (x). Problem 6.6.6. Divide the polynomial qn1 (x) = bn xn1 + bn1 xn2 + . . . + b1 by the linear factor (x ) to produce a polynomial quotient rn2 (x) and remainder c1 qn1 (x) c1 = rn2 (x) + x x where rn2 (x) = cn xn2 + cn1 xn3 + . . . + c2 . (a) Solve for the unknown coecients ci in terms of the values bi . (b) Derive a code segment, a loop, that interleaves the computations of the bi s and ci s. Problem 6.6.7. By dierentiating the synthetic division relation pn (x) = (x )qn1 (x) + b0 with respect to the variable x, keeping the value of xed, and equating the coecients of powers of x on both sides of the dierentiated relation derive Horners algorithm for computing the value of the derivative pn (x) at any point x = .

6.6.2

So far, we have considered calculating the roots of a polynomial by repetitive iteration and deation, and we have left the impression that both processes are simple and safe although the computation of Example 6.6.4 should give us pause for thought. Obviously there are errors when the iteration is not completed, that is the root is not computed exactly, and these errors are clearly propagated into the deation process which itself introduces further errors into the remaining roots. The overall process is dicult to analyze but a simpler question which we can in part answer is whether the computed polynomial roots are sensitive to these errors. Particularly we might ask the closely related question Are the polynomial roots sensitive to small changes in the coecients of the polynomial? That is, is polynomial root nding an inherently illconditioned process? In many applications one algorithmic choice is to reduce a more complicated computational problem to one of computing the roots of a high degree polynomial. If the resulting problem is likely to be illconditioned, this approach should be considered with caution. Consider a polynomial pn (x) = a0 + a1 x + . . . an xn Assume that the coecients of this polynomial are perturbed to give the polynomial Pn (x) = A0 + A1 x + . . . An xn

185

Let z0 be a root of pn (x) and Z0 be the corresponding root of Pn (x); usually, for suciently small perturbations of the coecients ai there will be such a correspondence. By Taylor series Pn (z0 ) Pn (Z0 ) + (z0 Z0 )Pn (Z0 ) and so, since pn (z0 ) = 0, Pn (z0 ) pn (z0 ) Pn (Z0 ) + (z0 Z0 )Pn (Z0 ) Observing that Pn (Z0 ) = 0, we have z0 Z0

n i=0 (Ai i ai )z0 Pn (Z0 )

So, the error in the root can be large when Pn (Z0 ) 0 such as will occur when Z0 is close to a cluster of roots of Pn (x). We observe that Pn is likely to have a cluster of at least m roots whenever pn has a multiple root of multiplicity m. [Recall that at a multiple root of Pn (x) we have Pn () = 0.] One way that the polynomial Pn might arise is essentially directly. That is, if the coecients of the polynomial pn are not representable as computer numbers at the working precision then they will be rounded; that is, the dierence |ai Ai | max{|ai |, |Ai |} WP . In this case, a reasonable estimate is Pn (z0 ) z0 Z0 WP Pn (Z0 ) so that even small perturbations that arise in the storage of computer numbers can lead to a signicantly sized error. The other way Pn (x) might arise is as a consequence of backward error analysis. For some robust algorithms for computing roots of polynomials, we can show that the roots computed are the roots of a polynomial Pn (x) whose coecients are usually close to the coecients of pn (x) Example 6.6.5. Consider the following polynomial of degree 12: p12 (x) = (x 1)(x 2)2 (x 3)(x 4)(x 5)(x 6)2 (x 7)2 (x 8)(x 9) = x12 60x11 + 1613x10 25644x9 + If we use, for example, Matlab (see Section 6.7) to compute the roots of the power series form of p12 (x), we obtain: exact root 9 8 7 7 6 6 5 4 3 2 2 1 computed root 9.00000000561095 7.99999993457306 7.00045189374144 6.99954788307491 6.00040397500841 5.99959627548739 5.00000003491181 3.99999999749464 3.00000000009097 2.00000151119609 1.99999848881036 0.999999999999976

Observe that each of the double roots 2, 6 and 7 of the polynomial p12 (x) is approximated by a pair of close real roots near the roots 2, 6 and 7 of P12 (x). Also note that the double roots are approximated much less accurately than are the simple roots of similar size, and the larger roots are calculated somewhat less accurately than the smaller ones.

186

Example 6.6.5 and the preceding analysis indicates that multiple and clustered roots are likely to be illconditioned, though this does not imply that isolated roots of the same polynomial are wellconditioned. The numerator in the expression for z0 Z0 contains small coecients ai Ai by denition so, at rst glance, it seems that a near-zero denominator gives rise to the only ill conditioned case. However, this is not so; as a famous example due to Wilkinson shows, the roots of a polynomial of high degree may be illconditioned even when all its roots are wellspaced. Example 6.6.6. Wilkinson devised an example of a ill-conditioned polynomial of degree 20 with the integer roots 1, 2, . . . , 20, that is p20 (x) = (x 1)(x 2) (x 20) = x20 210x19 + 20615x18 1256850x17 +

To demonstrate ill-conditioning in this case, suppose we use Matlab (see Section 6.7) to construct the power series form of p20 (x), and then compute its roots. Some of the coecients are suciently large integers that they require more digits than are available in a Matlab DP word; so, they are rounded. The computed roots or p20 (x) are exact root 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 computed root 20.0003383927958 18.9970274109358 18.0117856688823 16.9695256538411 16.0508983668794 14.9319189435064 14.0683793756331 12.9471623191454 12.0345066828504 10.9836103930028 10.0062502975018 8.99831804962360 8.00031035715436 6.99996705935380 6.00000082304303 5.00000023076008 3.99999997423112 3.00000000086040 1.99999999999934 0.999999999999828

Observe that the computed roots are all real but the least accurate dier from the true (integer) roots in the fourth decimal place (recall that Matlab DP uses about 15 decimal digits in its arithmetic). A calculation of the residuals (that is, evaluations of the computed polynomial) using the Matlab function polyval for the true (integer) roots and for the computed roots shows that both are large. (The true roots have large residuals, when they should mathematically be zero, because of the eects of rounding.) The residuals for the computed roots are about 2 orders of magnitude larger than the residuals for the true roots. This indicates that Matlab performed satisfactorily it was responsible for losing only about 2 of the available 15 digits of accuracy. So, the errors in the computed roots are the result mainly of the illconditioning of the original polynomial. [Note: The results that we give are machine dependent though you should get approximately the same values using DP arithmetic with any compiler on any computer implementing the IEEE Standard.] Example 6.6.7. Next, we increase the degree of the polynomial to 22 giving p22 (x) by adding the (next two) integer roots 21 and 22. Then, we follow the same computation. This time our computation gives a mixture of real and complex conjugate pairs of roots with much larger errors than previously:

6.6. ROOTS OF POLYNOMIALS exact root 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 computed root 22.0044934641580 20.9514187857428 20.1656378752978 18.5836448660249 + 0.441345126232861i 18.5836448660249 - 0.441345126232861i 16.3917246244130 + 0.462094344544644i 16.3917246244130 - 0.462094344544644i 15.0905963295356 13.4984691077096 + 0.371867167940926i 13.4984691077096 - 0.371867167940926i 11.6990708240321 11.1741488784148 9.95843441261174 9.00982455499210 7.99858075332924 7.00011857014703 5.99999925365778 4.99999900194002 4.00000010389144 2.99999999591073 2.00000000004415 1.00000000000012

187

Observe that some of the large roots 21, 20, 15, 12, 11 and 10 of p22 (x) are each computed to no more than three correct digits. Worse, each of the pairs of real roots 18 and 19, 16 and 17, and 13 and 14 of p22 (x) become complex conjugate pairs of roots of P22 (x). They are not even close to being real!

Problem 6.6.8. Consider the quadratic polynomial p2 (x) = x2 2x + 1 with double root x = 1. Perturb the quadratic to the form P2 (x) = x2 2(1 + )x + 1 where is small in magnitude compared to 1 but may be either positive or negative. Approximately, by how much is the root of the quadratic perturbed? Does the root remain a double root? If not, do the roots remain real?

188

6.7

Matlab Notes

By now our familiarity with Matlab should lead us to suspect that there are built-in functions that can be used to compute roots, and it is not necessary to write our own implementations of the methods discussed in this chapter. It is, however, instructive to implement some of the methods; at the very least, such exercises can help to improve our programming skills. We therefore begin this section by developing implementations of xed point, Newton and bisection methods. We then conclude this section with a thorough discussion of the built-in Matlab functions roots (to nd roots of polynomials) and fzero (to nd a root of a more general function). We emphasize that it is typically best to use one of these built-in functions, which have been thoroughly tested, rather than one of our own implementations.

6.7.1

xn+1 = g (xn ), n = 0, 1, 2, ...

The iterates, xn+1 , can be computed using a for loop. To begin the iteration, though, we need an initial guess, x0 , and we need a function, g (x). If g (x) is simple, then it is usually best to dene it as an anonymous function, and if g (x) is complicated, then it is usually best to dene it as a function m-le. Example 6.7.1. Suppose we want to compute 12 iterations of g (x) = ex , using the initial guess x0 = 0.5 (see Table 6.1). Since g (x) is a very simple function, we dene it as an anonymous function, and use a for loop to generate the iterates: g = x = for x end @(x) exp(-x); 0.5; n = 1:12 = g(x);

If we want to test the xed point iteration for several dierent g (x), then it would be helpful to have a Matlab program (that is, a function m-le) that will work for arbitrary g (x). In order to write this function, we need to consider a few issues: In the previous example, we chose, somewhat arbitrarily, to compute 12 iterations. For other problems this may be too many or two few iterations. To increase exibility, we should: Stop the iteration if the computed solution is suciently accurate. This can be done, for example, by stopping the iteration if the relative change between successive iterates is less than some specied tolerance. That is, if |xn+1 xn | tol |xn |. This can be implemented by inserting the following conditional statement inside the for loop: if ( abs(x(n+1)-x(n)) <= tol*abs(x(n)) ) break end A value of tol must be either dened in the code, or specied by the user. The command break terminates execution of the for loop.

189

Allow the user to specify a maximum number of iterations, and execute the loop until the above convergence criterion is satised, or until the maximum number of iterations is reached. It might be useful to return all of the computed iterations. This can be done easily by creating a vector containing x0 , x1 , . Combining these items with the basic code given in Example 6.7.1 we obtain the following function:

function x = FixedPoint(g, x0, tol, nmax) % % x = FixedPoint(g, x0, tol, nmax); % % Find a fixed point of g(x) using the iteration: x(n+1) = g(x(n)) % % Input: g - an anonymous function or function handle, % x0 - an initial guess of the fixed point, % tol - a (relative) stopping tolerance, and % nmax - specifies maximum number of iterations. % % Output: x - a vector containing the iterates, x0, x1, ... % x(1) = x0; for n = 1:nmax x(n+1) = g(x(n)); if ( abs(x(n+1)-x(n)) <= tol*abs(x(n)) ) break end end x = x(:);

The nal statement in the function, x = x(:), is used to ensure x is returned as a column vector. This, of course, is not necessary, and is done only for cosmetic purposes. Example 6.7.2. To illustrate how to use the function FixedPoint, consider g (x) = ex with the initial guess x0 = 0.5. (a) If we want to compute exactly 12 iterations, we can set nmax = 12 and tol = 0. That is, we use the statements: >> g = @(x) exp(-x); >> x = FixedPoint(g, 0.5, 0, 12); The same result could be computed using just one line of code: >> x = FixedPoint(@(x) exp(-x), 0.5, 0, 12); (b) If we want to see how many iterations it takes to reach a certain stopping tolerance, say tol = 108 , then we should choose a relatively large value for nmax. For example, we could compute >> x = FixedPoint(@(x) exp(-x), 0.5, 1e-8, 1000);

190

CHAPTER 6. ROOT FINDING The number of iterations is then length(x) - 1 (recall the rst entry in the vector is the initial guess). For this example, we nd that it takes 31 iterations.

Problem 6.7.1. Implement FixedPoint and use it to: (a) Produce a table corresponding to Table 6.1 starting from the value x0 = 0.6 (b) Produce a table corresponding to Table 6.2 starting from the value x0 = 0.0 (c) Produce a table corresponding to Table 6.2 starting from the value x0 = 2.0 Recall that it is possible to produced formated tables in Matlab using the sprintf and disp commands; see Section 1.3.5. Problem 6.7.2. Implement FixedPoint and use it to compute 10 iterations using each g (x) given in Problem 6.1.6, with x0 = 1.5. Problem 6.7.3. Rewrite the function FixedPoint using while instead of the combination of for and if. Note that it will be necessary to implement a counter to determine when the number of iterations has reached nmax.

6.7.2

The Newton and secant methods are used to nd roots of f (x) = 0. Implementation of these methods is very similar to the xed point iteration. For example, Newtons method can be implemented as follows:

function x = Newton(f, df, x0, tol, nmax) % % x = Newton(f, df, x0, tol, nmax); % % Use Newtons method to find a root of f(x) = 0. % % Input: f - an anonymous function or function handle for f(x) % df - an anonymous function of function handle for f(x) % x0 - an initial guess of the root, % tol - a (relative) stopping tolerance, and % nmax - specifies maximum number of iterations. % % Output: x - a vector containing the iterates, x0, x1, ... % x(1) = x0; for n = 1:nmax x(n+1) = x(n) - f(x(n)) / df(x(n)); if ( abs(x(n+1)-x(n)) <= tol*abs(x(n)) ) break end end x = x(:);

Note that in Newtons method we must input two functions, f (x) and f (x). It might be prudent to include a check, and print an error message, if df(x(n)) is zero, or smaller than a specied value.

191

Example 6.7.3. Suppose we want to nd a root of f (x) = 0 where f (x) = x ex , with initial guess x0 = 0.5. Then, using Newton, we can compute an approximation of this root using the following Matlab statements: >> f = @(x) x - exp(-x); >> df = @(x) 1 + exp(-x); >> x = Newton(f, df, 0.5, 1e-8, 10); or, in one line of code, using >> x = Newton(@(x) x - exp(-x), @(x) 1 + exp(-x), 0.5, 1e-8, 10); For this problem, only 4 iterations of Newtons method are needed to converge to the specied tolerance.

Problem 6.7.4. Implement Newton, and write a similar implementation for the secant iteration. Test both implementations at a simple root of a quadratic polynomial f (x) that is concave up, choosing the initial iterates x0 (and, in the case of secant, x1 ) close to this root. Construct tables containing the values of the iterates, xn and corresponding function values, f (xn ). Is there any pattern to the signs of the consecutive f (x) values? Problem 6.7.5. Implement Newton, and write a similar implementation for the secant iteration. Use both methods to compute the root of f (x) = x ex . For Newton, use the initial guess x0 = 0.5, and for secant use x0 = 0 and x1 = 1. Check the ratios of the errors in successive iterates as in Table 6.7 to determine if they are consistent with the convergence rates discussed in this chapter. Repeat the secant method with initial iterates x0 = 1 and x1 = 0.

6.7.3

Bisection Method

Recall that bisection begins with an initial bracket, [a, b] containing the root, and proceeds as follows: First compute the midpoint, m = (a + b)/2. Determine if a root is in [a, m] or [m, b]. If the root is in [a, m], rename m as b, and continue. Similarly, if the root is in [m, b], rename m as a and continue. Stop if the length of the interval becomes suciently small. Note that we can determine if the root is in [a, m] by checking to see if f (a)f (m) < 0. With these observations, an implementation of the bisection method could have the form:

192

function x = Bisection0(f, a, b, tol, nmax) % % x = Bisection0(f, a, b, tol, nmax); % % Use bisection method to find a root of f(x) = 0. % % Input: f - an anonymous function or function handle for f(x) % [a,b] - an initial bracket containing the root % tol - a (relative) stopping tolerance, and % nmax - specifies maximum number of iterations. % % Output: x - a vector containing the iterates, x0, x1, ... % x(1) = a;, x(2) = b; for n = 2:nmax m = (a+b)/2;, x(n+1) = m; if f(a)*f(m) < 0 b = m; else a = m; end if ( abs(b-a) <= tol*abs(a) ) break end end x = x(:);

Note that this implementation requires that we evaluate f (x) twice for every iteration (to compute f (a) and f (b)). Since this is typically the most expensive part of the method, it can be helpful to reduce the number of function evaluations as much as possible. The bisection method can be implemented so that only one function evaluation is needed at each iteration:

193

function x = Bisection(f, a, b, tol, nmax) % % x = Bisection(f, a, b, tol, nmax); % % Use bisection method to find a root of f(x) = 0. % % Input: f - an anonymous function or function handle for f(x) % [a,b] - an initial bracket containing the root % tol - a (relative) stopping tolerance, and % nmax - specifies maximum number of iterations. % % Output: x - a vector containing the iterates, x0, x1, ... % x(1) = a;, x(2) = b;, fa = f(a);, fb = f(b); for n = 2:nmax c = (a+b)/2;, x(n+1) = c;, fc = f(c); if fa*fc < 0 b = c;, fb = fc; else a = c;, fa = fc; end if ( abs(b-a) <= tol*abs(a) ) break end end x = x(:);

Problem 6.7.6. Implement Bisection and use it to compute a root of f (x) = x ex . Use the initial bracket [0, 1]. Produce a table of results similar to Table 6.8. Problem 6.7.7. Implement Bisection, Secant and Newton. Experimentally compare the convergence behavior of each method for the function f (x) = x ex . Problem 6.7.8. Use the false position method to compute an approximation to the root of f (x) = x ex starting with an initial bracket [0, 1] and nishing when you have converged to four signicant gures. Check the ratios of the errors in successive iterates as in Table 6.9 to determine if they are consistent with a linear rate of convergence. Problem 6.7.9. Use the false position bisection method described in the pseudocode in Fig. 6.7 to compute a bracket on the root of f (x) = x ex starting with an initial bracket [0, 1] and nishing with a bracket of length 104 . Produce an output as in Table 6.10.

6.7.4

fzero roots nds a root of f (x) = 0, where f (x) is a general function of one variable nds all roots of p(x) = 0, where p(x) is a polynomial

In this section we discuss in more detail how to use these built-in Matlab functions.

The Matlab function fzero is used to nd zeros of a general function of one variable The implementation uses a combination of bisection, secant and inverse quadratic interpolation. The basic calling syntax for fzero is: x = fzero(fun, x0) where fun can be an inline or anonymous function, or a handle to a function m-le. The initial guess, x0 can be a scalar (that is, a single initial guess), or it can be a bracket (that is, a vector containing two values) on the root. Note that if x0 is a single initial guess, then fzero rst attempts to nd a bracket by sampling on successively wider intervals containing x0 until a bracket is determined. If a bracket for the root is known, then it is usually best to supply it, rather than a single initial guess. Example 6.7.4. Consider the function f (x) = x ex . Because f (0) < 0 and f (1) > 0, a bracket for a root of f (x) = 0 is [0, 1]. This root can be found as follows: >> x = fzero(@(x) x-exp(-x), [0, 1]) We could have used a single initial guess, such as: >> x = fzero(@(x) x-exp(-x), 0.5) but as mentioned above, it is usually best to provide a bracket if one is known.

Problem 6.7.10. Use fzero to nd a root of f (x) = 0, with f (x) = sin x. For initial guess, use x0 = 1, x0 = 5, and the bracket [1, 5]. Explain why a dierent root is computed in each case.

1 Problem 6.7.11. Consider the function f (x) = x 1, and note that f (1) = 0. Thus, we might expect that x0 = 0.5 is a reasonable initial guess for fzero to compute a solution of f (x) = 0. Try this, and see what fzero computes. Can you explain what happens here? Now use the initial guess to be the bracket [0.5, 1.5]. What does fzero compute in this case?

If a root, x , has multiplicity greater than one, then f (x ) = 0, and hence the root is not simple. fzero can nd roots which have odd multiplicity, but it cannot nd roots of even multiplicity, as illustrated in the following example. Example 6.7.5. Consider the function f (x) = x2 ex , which has a root x = 0 of multiplicity 2. (a) If we use the initial guess x0 = 1, then >> f = @(x) x.*x.*exp(x); >> xstar = fzero(f, 1) computes x 925.8190. At rst this result may seem completely ridiculous, but if we compute >> f(xstar) the result is 0. Notice that lim x2 ex = 0, thus it appears that fzero nds x .

x

(b) If we try the initial guess x0 = 1, then >> f = @(x) x.*x.*exp(x); >> xstar = fzero(f, -1)

6.7. MATLAB NOTES then fzero fails because it cannot nd an interval containing a sign change. (c) We know the root is x = 0, so we might try the bracket [1, 1]. However, if we compute >> f = @(x) x.*x.*exp(x); >> xstar = fzero(f, [-1, 1])

195

an error occurs because the initial bracket does not satisfy the sign change condition, f (1)f (1) < 0.

Problem 6.7.12. The functions f (x) = x2 4x + 4 and f (x) = x3 6x2 + 12x 8 satisfy f (2) = 0. Attempt to nd this root using fzero. Experiment with a variety of initial guesses. Why does fzero have trouble nding the root for one of the functions, but not for the other? It is possible to reset certain default parameters used by fzero (such as stopping tolerance and maximum number of iterations), and it is possible to obtain more information on exactly what is done during the computation of the root (such as number of iterations and number of function evaluations) by using the calling syntax [x, fval, exitflag, output] = fzero(fun, x0, options) where x is the computed approximation of the root. fval is the function value of the computed root, f (x ). Note that if a root is found, then this value should be close to zero. exitflag provides information about what condition caused fzero to terminate; see doc fzero for more information. output is a structure array that contains information such as which algorithms were used (e.g., bisection, interpolation, secant), number of function evaluations and number of iterations. options is an input parameter that can be used, for example, to reset the stopping tolerance, and to request that results of each iteration be displayed in the command window. The options are set using the built-in Matlab function optimset. The following examples illustrate how to use options and output. Example 6.7.6. Consider f (x) = x ex . We know there is a root in the interval [0, 1]. Suppose we want to investigate how the cost of computing the root is aected by the choice of the initial guess. Since the cost is reected in the number of function evaluations, we use output for this purpose. (a) Using the initial guess x0 = 0, we can compute: >> [x, fval, exitflag, output] = fzero(@(x) x-exp(-x), 0); >> output we see that output displays the information: intervaliterations: iterations: funcCount: algorithm: message: 10 6 27 bisection, interpolation Zero found in the interval [-0.64, 0.64]

196

CHAPTER 6. ROOT FINDING The important quantity here is funcCount, which indicates that a total of 27 function evaluations was needed to compute the root.

(b) On the other hand, if we use x0 = 0.5, and compute: >> [x, fval, exitflag, output] = fzero(@(x) x-exp(-x), 0.5); >> output we see that 18 function evaluations are needed. (c) Finally, if we use the bracket [0, 1], and compute: >> [x, fval, exitflag, output] = fzero(@(x) x-exp(-x), [0, 1]); >> output we see that only 8 function evaluations are needed. Notice from this example that when we provide a bracket, the term intervaliterations, which is returned by the structure output, is 0. This is because fzero does not need to do an initial search for a bracket, and thus the total number of function evaluations is substantially reduced. Example 6.7.7. Again, consider f (x) = x ex , which has a root in [0, 1]. Suppose we want to investigate how the cost of computing the root is aected by the choice of stopping tolerance on x. To investigate this, we must rst use the Matlab function optimset to dene the structure options. (a) Suppose we want to set the tolerance to 104 . Then we can use the command: >> options = optimset(TolX, 1e-4); If we then execute the commands: >> [x, fval, exitflag, output] = fzero(@(x) x-exp(-x), [0, 1], options); >> output we see that only 5 function evaluations are needed. (b) To increase the tolerance to 108 , we can use the command: >> options = optimset(TolX, 1e-8); Executing the commands: >> [x, fval, exitflag, output] = fzero(@(x) x-exp(-x), [0, 1], options); >> output shows that 7 function evaluations are needed to compute the approximation of the root. Example 6.7.8. Suppose we want to display results of each iteration when we compute an approximation of the root of f (x) = x ex . For this, we use optimset as follows: >> options = optimiset(Display, iter); If we then use fzero as: >> x = fzero(@(x) x-exp(-x), [0, 1], options); then the following information is displayed in the Matlab command window:

6.7. MATLAB NOTES Func-count 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 x 1 0.6127 0.56707 0.567144 0.567143 0.567143 0.567143 f(x) 0.632121 0.0708139 -0.000115417 9.44811e-07 1.25912e-11 -1.11022e-16 -1.11022e-16 Procedure initial interpolation interpolation interpolation interpolation interpolation interpolation

197

Zero found in the interval [0, 1] Notice that a total of 8 function evaluations were needed, which matches (as it should) the number found in part (c) of Example 6.7.6.

Problem 6.7.13. Note that we can use optimset to reset TolX and to request display of the iterations in one command, such as: options = optimset(ToxX, 1e-7, Display, iter); Use this set of options with f (x) = x ex , and various initial guesses (e.g., 0, 1 and [0,1]) in fzero and comment on the computed results.

Roots of polynomials The Matlab function fzero cannot, in general, be eectively used to compute roots of polynomials. For example, it cannot compute the roots of f (x) = x2 because x = 0 is a root of even multiplicity. However, there is a special purpose method, called roots, that can be used to compute all roots of a polynomial. Recall from our discussion of polynomial interpolation (section 4.5) Matlab assumes polynomials are written in the canonical form p(x) = a1 xn + a2 xn1 + + an x + an+1 , and that they are represented with a vector (either row or column) containing the coecients: a= a1 a2 an an+1 .

If such a vector is dened, then the roots or p(x) can be computed using the built-in function roots. Because it is beyond the scope of this book, we have not discussed the basic algorithm used by roots (which computes the eigenvalues of a companion matrix dened by the coecients of p(x)), but it is a very simple function to use. In particular, execution of the statement r = roots(a); produces a (column) vector r containing the roots of the polynomial dened by the coecients in the vector a. Example 6.7.9. Consider x4 5x2 + 4 = 0. The following Matlab commands: >> a = [1 0 -5 0 4]; >> r = roots(a) compute a vector r containing the roots 2, 1, -2 and -1.

198

The Matlab function poly can be used to create the coecients of a polynomial with given roots. That is, if r is a vector containing the roots of a polynomial, then a = poly(r); will construct a vector containing the coecients of a polynomial whose roots are given by the entries in the vector r. Basically, poly multiplies out the factored form p(x) = (x r1 )(x r2 ) (x rn ) to obtain the canonical power series form p(x) = xn + a2 xn1 + + an x + an+1 .

1 Example 6.7.10. The roots of (2x + 1)(x 3)(x + 7) = 0 are obviously 2 , 3 and 7. Executing the Matlab statements

>> r = [-1/2, 3, -7]; >> a = poly(r) constructs the vector a = [1, 4.5, -19, -10.5].

Problem 6.7.14. Consider the polynomial given in Example 6.6.5. Use the Matlab function poly to construct the coecients of the power series form of p12 (x). Then compute the roots using the Matlab function roots. Use the format command so that computed results display 15 digits. Problem 6.7.15. Consider the polynomial p20 (x) given in Example 6.6.6. Compute the results shown in that example using the Matlab functions poly and roots. Use the format command so that computed results display 15 digits. Problem 6.7.16. Consider the polynomial p22 (x) given in Example 6.6.7. Compute the results shown in that example using the Matlab functions poly and roots. Use the format command so that computed results display 15 digits.

- 360 Problems for Mathematical ContestUploaded byMonette Cortez
- Chap2Uploaded bySharif M Mizanur Rahman
- COEB223 Numec Assignment 1Uploaded byAnanthan Ramesh
- Bisection MethodUploaded byWadudur Rahman Faisal
- Bisection Method LectureUploaded byRyry Lee
- January 2008Uploaded byHarrys Oustapasidis
- NULecture3.pdfUploaded byAtifAliBukhari
- Part Solution of Dummit and FooteUploaded byShubham
- Calculus Review FormulasUploaded byZetta Datta
- Numerical MethodsUploaded byHakan Ayaz
- Final 06Uploaded byAlex Voll
- Roots Finding Techniques for Non Linear EqUploaded bypaivensolidsnake
- A MODIFIED NEWTON'S METHOD FOR SOLVING NONLINEAR PROGRAMING PROBLEMSUploaded byjhon jairo portilla
- A set of new Smarandache functions, sequences, and conjectures in number theory, by Felice RussoUploaded bymarinescu
- Carl Benjamin Boyer - Cardan and the Pascal triangleUploaded bylagatadezinc5733
- Exercises 2Uploaded byJuan Romero-Requejo Gesto
- KKWIEER Nashik.docxUploaded byAmit Bhagure
- Burns Hasselblat-The Sarkoviskii TheoremUploaded byGabriel Crestani
- SQLUploaded byhimcstech
- yr 12 maths hl sow - studentUploaded byapi-241068594
- January 2008Uploaded byBilal Malik
- quotients in monomials l pUploaded byapi-249308009
- quotients in monomials l pUploaded byapi-249308009
- Put ExamUploaded byMarco Marck Castro
- حل معادلات درجه ۲و۳و۴.xlsUploaded bysaital
- 7.pdfUploaded byShekhar Sharma
- lesson plan -- 3Uploaded byapi-453817826
- zmym.pdfUploaded byZaid Luna Lopez
- Rational TheoremUploaded byJose_Colella_1708
- notes.pdfUploaded bykr d

- Ijarah agreementUploaded byAbid Kilyani
- chap2Uploaded byUzma Azam
- chap0Uploaded byUzma Azam
- chap3Uploaded byUzma Azam
- Ending the War Between Sales and Marketing - PortfolioUploaded byUzma Azam
- Manual8-HowtoWriteABusinessPlanforaSelf-SufficientSchoolUploaded byArpit Setya
- Empowerment InstrumentUploaded bychaingang123
- Quranic VersesUploaded byUzma Azam
- Economics Gold PricesUploaded byUzma Azam

- Linear Buckling AnalysisUploaded byvarshasdm1987
- 1Uploaded byAnditha Namira
- Psychological Incapacity in Marriage Cases - P&FUploaded byJulian Paul Cacho
- Pgdm Syllabus NewUploaded bybkpanda20065753
- Microbiology slides 02 bacterial geneticsUploaded byhamza jassar
- HerbicidesUploaded byPauly Muñoz
- Sample Professional Student Manual-ProfessionalUploaded byAlex
- NPD draftUploaded byYu-Ting Wang
- Industrialization BibliographyUploaded byBlackbeard73
- PPT17- Biot Savart's Law & ApplicationsUploaded byOky Ikhramullah
- AWARD RECOGNITION POLICY SAMPLEUploaded byAnkur
- Real Conditionals (1)Uploaded byaspired
- 10 23 m Entrepreneurship WestUploaded byMiftahul Rizky Cahya Putra
- Sw7 Teste 1aUploaded byMónica Barbosa
- HooponoponoUploaded byIrina Alexandra
- 48617.pdfUploaded byNaresh Babu
- Entering the Portal of Peak States of ConsciousnessUploaded byImmalight
- Rare Diseases How Europe Meeting Challenges EnUploaded bymuji7
- 142 International Corporate Bank vs Gueco 351 Scra 516Uploaded byAlan Gultia
- Suvarnaprashan Sanskar EnglishUploaded byLifecare Ayurveda Drnikul Patel
- gangguan juwa bunuh diri.pdfUploaded bydanang
- Detailed SSC CGL Syllabus (Tier I) - Based on New Pattern 2017 - Testbook Blog.pdfUploaded byKabir Sai Prasanna Suryavansh
- Chapter 07Uploaded bycharlenecleoeiben
- Degenesis Rebirth Edition – Interview With Marko DjurdjevicUploaded byfoxtrout
- Geltner-reading-07-08.pdfUploaded byY'moon Zahra
- mechanical engUploaded byRazia Farzana
- strategyUploaded byashrafalam1986
- Shiwam_InternshipProgramReportUploaded byShiwam Sharma
- Extract from Estacode-2011 KPK.docxUploaded byHumayun Khan
- Kalman FilterUploaded byhubble86