Unit 4 – Approximations

We have now reached the last unit of our Calculus course, a unit that you should find both interesting
and relatively easy. The broad topic under discussion is Numerical Methods, our work
concentrating on solving equations and evaluating definite integrals. As the name of the topic implies,
the solutions we find will not be exact (though the degree of accuracy could be very great indeed). For
this reason we will first concentrate on determining the size of the errors involved (both absolute ands
relative), together with the bounds of these errors.

Errors Using Taylor’s (or Maclaurin’s) Series

Suppose, for example, that we estimate the value of e1.2 by using the first 8 terms of the expansion of
ex. Clearly this result will not give the exact answer, as we have ignored the terms coming after x7/7!.
To find the size of the error involved (at least approximately) we can find the value of the next (9th)
term, i.e. x8/8!, and conclude that the error will be approximately (1.2)8/8! ≈ 0.000107. Taking the
first 8 terms would then give the correct answer to 3 decimal places, i.e. 3.320. Obviously it is
important to be sure that if we give an answer as ‘correct to 3 significant figures’, then that is indeed a
true statement !

Remainder Using Taylor’s Series

If we take the nth-degree Taylor polynomial
Example 1

For f(x) = √(x + 1), find the second degree Taylor Polynomial for c = 0 (i.e. centred at x = 0). Use this
expansion to approximate √(1.1) and determine the accuracy of this approximation.

[ Note that at this point, without checking with a calculator, we do not know the degree of accuracy of
this answer. This is where the calculation of the remainder term R2 comes into the picture. ]

As this contains 4 zeroes after the decimal point (also, added to 1.04875 we obtain an answer of
1.04881), we can safely conclude that √(1.1) = 1.0488 to 4 decimal places.

Example 2

The function f is given by f(x) = tan x, where – π/2 < x < π/2. Obtain the power series expansion of
f(x) up to and including the term in x³. The series is to be used to obtain approximate values of f(x) for
x ε [ -0.3, 0.3 ]. By considering the remainder term

If f(x) = tan x, f '(x) = sec²(x) = 1 + tan²x = 1 + [f(x)]².

Therefore f ''(x) = 2f(x)f '(x) and f '''(x) = 2[f '(x)]² + 2f(x)f ''(x).
Therefore f(0) = 0, f '(0) = 1, f ''(0) = 0 and f '''(0) = 2 x 1² = 2.

Further, f ''(x) = 2tan x sec²x and f '''(x) = 2sec4x + 4tan²x sec²x .

Therefore f (4)(x) = 8sec³x. sec x tan x + 8tan x sec4x + 4tan²x (2sec²x tan x)

= 16tan x sec4x + 8tan³x sec²x.

We then find f (4)(x) using the value of x ε [ - 0.3, 0.3 ] which maximizes R3 (and also,

of course, f (4)(x)). This value would be 0.3, giving

16tan(0.3).(sec 0.3)4 + 8 (tan 0.3)³(sec 0.3)² ≈ 6.2014.

[ Similarly, if we substitute x = - 0.3, we obtain f (4)(x) ≈ - 6.2014.]

Example 3

What degree of Taylor Polynomial for f(x) = ln x, centred at c = 1, would be required to

approximate ln 1.2 correctly to five decimal places ?

This time we will use the Taylor Series format

Errors and the Total Differential
Suppose that y = f(x) and ∆x is a small increase in the value of x. How can we

estimate the corresponding small change in y ?

if ∆x is small, to consider dy/dx in fractional form, with ∆x = dx and dy ≈ ∆y. When

interpreted in this form, dx and dy are called differentials. Putting the result another way,

as dy/dx = f '(x) [ where y = f(x) ], then

dy = f '(x) dx

where dx and dy are treated as differentials.

Written in this form, dx can be taken as a small change in x and dy as the corresponding

approximate small change in y.

Example 4

If A = πr² and r increases from 4 to 4.1, what is the approximate small increase in A ?

We write dA/dr = 2πr and put dA = 2πr dr. Taking dr as the increase in the value of r, i.e.

0.1, we then have dA = 0.2πr.

Therefore, putting r = 4, dA = 0.8π, which gives the approximate change in A.

[ Note that the actual change in A would be 4.1²π - 4²π = (4.1 + 4)(4.1 – 4)π

= 8.1 x 0.1π = 0.81π. Our approximate answer is therefore out by an amount 0.01π. ]

Example 5

Given that y = 1√x, find the approximate change in y when x increases from 9 to 9.1.

Hence estimate the value of 1/√(9.1).

i.e. as x increases from 9 to 9.1, 1/√x decreases by approximately 0.00185.

Therefore 1/√ (9.1) ≈1/3 - 0.00185 ≈ 0.3315. [ Note that the calculator gives 0.3315 also

(to 4 decimal places). ]

Similar to the work in examples 4 and 5 above, if dx is a small error in x, then dy gives

the corresponding approximate small error in y.

Example 6

A manufacturer of ball bearings has determined that his machine produces ball

bearings of radius 3 cm with a maximum error of 0.02 cm in the radius. Since the

weight of a ball bearing is sometimes important, it is necessary to control the volume

of the ball bearings. What will be the maximum error for the volume ?

As V = 4 πr³/3, dV/dr = 4 πr², giving dV = 4πr²dr.

Therefore, if dr = 0.02, dV = 0.08πr². Taking r = 3, dV = 0.72 π.

The maximum error in the volume, corresponding to a maximum error of 0.02 cm in the

radius, is therefore approximately 0.72 πcm³.

Errors (cont'd)
Relative and Percentage Errors
Our previous work was concerned with absolute changes, or errors, in variables. It is

clear, however, that whilst an error of size 0.1 is relatively unimportant when the original

value of the variable is 100, the same size of error becomes critical when the original

value is 0.5 ! It is therefore not so much the absolute value of the error, but the percentage

(or relative) error that is the deciding factor.

Example 7

An error of 3% is made in measuring the radius of a sphere. Find (i) the relative error,

and (ii) the percentage error, in its volume.

As V = 4πr³/3, dV/dr = 4πr² and dV = 4πr² dr.

The Total Differential

We will complete this section on errors by expanding our work to cover functions of

more than one variable. For example, if z = f(x, y) = x² + y², what would be the

percentage error in z if x is subject to an error of ± 1% and y is subject to an error of

± 0.5%, where we are given specific values of x and y ?

First of all, however, we will state the result for the total differential dz, where

z = f(x, y). As you will see, this is quite a simple extension of the previous result for one

variable (i.e. dy = f '(x) dx), excepting that in the two variable (or more) situation we use
partial derivatives. The result is

[ This result can be easily extended to functions of more than two variables. ]

Example 8

Find the total differential dz in the following cases.

(i) f(x, y) = x²/y², x = 2, y = 2, dx = 0.1, dy = 0.3,

(ii) f(x, y) = x²e y , x = 1, y = 0, dx = 0.05, dy = 0.01.

Therefore, if x = 2, y = 2, dx = 0.1 and dy = 0.3, dz = 1 x 0.1 - 1 x 0.3 = - 0.2.

(ii) If z = x²e y , dz = 2x eydx + x² eydy.

Therefore, if x = 1, y = 0, dx = 0.05, dy = 0.01, dz = 2 x 0.05 + 0.01 = 0.11.

Example 9

If w = f(x, y, z) = x³ + 3xy² + 2yz³, x = 2, y = 1, z = 4, dx = 0.1, dy = - 0.1 and dz = 0.2,

find dw.

= (12 + 3) x 0.1 + (12 + 128) x (- 0.1) + 96 x 0.2 = 1.5 - 14 + 19.2 = 6.7.

Our last few questions involve two or more variables together with percentage (rather

than absolute) errors.

Example 10

(i) The area E of triangle ABC is to be calculated using the formula E = ½ bc sin A.

δE is the corresponding error in E.

(ii) If b = 10cm ± 0.5cm, c = 12cm ± 0.5cm and A = 30º ± 1º, show, using the above

result, that the maximum error in E is about 3.7cm².

(iii) If A = π/6 radians ± 0.02 radians, and the possible percentage error in measuring

each of b and c is ± 3%, find, to 2 significant figures, the greatest possible percentage

error in the calculated value of E.

Finding a root of f(x) = 0 ; the first estimate
The next topic we will discuss in this unit is finding a root of an equation of the form

f(x) = 0. This root will, in general, not be found exactly − in fact, an exact solution could

be well-nigh impossible. Consider, for example, equations of the form e2x = x + 2 or

ln (2x + 1) = x − 2. Whichever method we adopt to find a solution (to any degree of

accuracy), life will be made much easier if we can determine a good first estimate of the

root in question.

You will see later that we can use various iterative techniques to obtain a solution.

However, we must start with a first estimate x1 of the root [ of f(x) = 0 ]. If the first

estimate is good, fewer iterations (and therefore less work) will be needed. Furthermore,

some methods could break down if the first estimate is poor.

Graphical Method
Consider, for example, the equation ln (2x + 1) = x − 2 given above. If the graphs of

y = ln (2x + 1) and y = x − 2 are drawn, the roots of ln (2x + 1) = x − 2 will be given by

the intersections of these graphs, i.e.

As long as the graphs are drawn reasonably accurately, a good approximation to either

the negative or the positive root of ln (2x + 1) = x − 2 can be found. In this case, we could

use x1 = 4 as our first approximation to the positive root. Clearly, also, the negative root

is between x = 0 and x = - ½ (our first approximation could be x1 = - 0.4).

The Intermediate Value Theorem
This concept is very simple to understand. If we have a continuous function f(x) such that

f(a) and f(b) have different signs, then f(x) = 0 when x = α , such that a < α < b.

Looking at the above diagram (Fig. 2), where f(a) < 0 and f(b) > 0, clearly the curve

y = f(x) must cross the x-axis somewhere between a and b if both (i) f is a function and

(ii) f is continuous. Thus, for example, if f(x) = e2x − x − 2 (as in Activity 1), then

f (-1) = e-2 + 1 − 2 < 0, and f (-2) = e-4 + 2 − 2 > 0. Therefore the required root lies

between x = - 1 and x = - 2.

Notice that we could zero in on this root by repeated use of the Intermediate Value

Theorem, e.g. as f (- 1.5) < 0 and f (- 2) > 0, the root lies between − 1.5 and − 2. Further,

as f (- 1.75) is also < 0, the root lies between − 1.75 and − 2, etc.

Linear Interpolation
This concept can be easily explained by reference to Fig. 2. If we take the curve PQ to be

approximately linear, we can find the equation of the straight line PQ and hence

calculate where this line crosses the x-axis. This should give a reasonably good first

approximation to α.
Example 1
Show that the positive root of the equation ln (2x + 1) = x − 2 lies between x = 4 and

x = 5. Find a closer approximation to this root by using linear interpolation.

Let f(x) = ln (2x + 1) − x + 2 [ remember that we need to write the equation in the form

f(x) = 0. ]

As f (4) = ln 9 − 4 + 2 ≈ 0.197 and f (5) = ln 11 − 5 + 2 ≈ - 0.602, and f is a continuous

function, there must be a root of f(x) = 0 between x = 4 and x = 5.

To find a closer approximation by linear interpolation, we first need to find the equation

of the line joining the points P(4, 0.197) and Q(5, - 0.602).

As we have now established various methods of locating a first approximation to a root

of f(x) = 0, our next step is to devise some iterative means of locating this root to any

degree of accuracy that a question may specify.

Iteration
We have hinted at the idea of iteration before, in our work on sequences. For example,

the sequence 2, ¾ , 9/32, …, 2 x (3/8) n-1 , … is such that the nth term un = 3/8 un-1 (for n ≥ 2).

The result un = 3/8 un-1 is an example of an iterative formula . By using an iterative

formula for a sequence, and given the first term, we can develop all the terms of the

(putting n = 1), u 3 = ¾ u2 (putting n = 2), and so on. Therefore u2 = 2/3 x 3 = 2, u3 = ¾ x 2

= 3/2, etc.

Solving f(x) = 0 using an iterative formula

The question now arises, "Can we always derive an iterative formula for the solution of

an equation and, if so, will it always work ?" I'm not sure about the answer to the first

question (the word 'always' rather frightens me !), but the answer to the second question

is definitely "No".

Example 1

Show that the equation x² - 5x + 1 = 0 can be arranged as x = (x² + 1)/5 or, alternatively,

solve the quadratic equation.

Starting with x1 = 0.2, find the values of x2 , x3 and x4 which are produced by each of
these iterative formulae. Which formula appears to give a sequence that converges to one

of the roots ? Can we state this root to 3 (or even 4) significant figures ? If so, why ?

If x² − 5x + 1 = 0, then x² + 1 = 5x, hence x = (x² + 1)/5.

Also, we could write x² = 5x − 1, giving x = 5 − 1/x.

From the first equation, we can now write xn+1 = (xn² + 1)/5. Taking x1 = 0.2,

Clearly the first formula gives the sequence beginning 0.2, 0.208, 0.2087, 0.2087, and

certainly appears to be converging to one of the roots. Also, as the answer 0.2087 is

repeated, we can safely conclude that we have found a root to 4 significant figures .

When will an iterative formula work ?

We have seen (in example 1) that, regarding the equation x² − 5x + 1 = 0, the iterative

formula xn+1 = (xn² + 1)/5 converged to a root, whilst the formula x n+1 = 5 − 1/xn did

not. The question then arises, "Do we need to go through the task of finding u2 , u3 , u4 ,

etc. in order to determine whether a sequence of solutions appears to converge ? Or

could we make the decision quite easily by some other means ?

Consider the general iterative formula xn+1 = f (xn), which in turn is derived from

x = f(x). Diagrammatically, this equation would be solved by the intersection of the

line y = x and the curve y = f(x), i.e.

Let the x−coordinate of P1 be x1 , making the coordinates of P1 equal to [ x1 , f(x1) ]

= (x1, x 2 ). If P1 T is now drawn parallel to the x−axis and TP2 parallel to the y−axis,

(meeting the line y = x at T and the curve y = f(x) at P2), then the x−coordinate of P2

is x2 and the y−coordinate would be x3 . Similarly, the coordinates of P3 are (x3 , x4 ).

The sequence x1, x2, x3,… is therefore seen to converge to the root α. This

convergence is possible as long as the (positive) gradient of the curve y = f(x) is less

than the gradient of the line y = x in the region of the root, i.e. 0 < f '(x) < 1.

If f '(x) > 1 (see Fig. 2), the sequence clearly diverges.

Similarly, if the gradient of y = f(x) is negative in the region of the root (see Fig. 3), then

the sequence would converge as long as − 1 < f '(x) < 0.

If f '(x) < − 1, (see Fig. 4), the sequence would again fail to converge.

We can see therefore that the iteration formula x n+1 = f (x n ) would converge if either

0 < f '(x) < 1 or − 1 < f '(x) < 0

in the region of the root, i.e. | f '(x) | < 1, if the trivial result f '(x) = 0 is ignored.

Example 2

Which of the following iterative formulae would produce a convergent sequence in the
region of the indicated value of x ?

Example 3

The quadratic equation x² - 10x + 1 = 0 is being used as an illustration of solving an

equation by an iterative method. Show that the equation has a root in [ 0, 1 ] and a root

in [ 9, 10 ].

Using the iteration xr+1 = (1 + xr²)/10, calculate x2 , x3 and x4 taking (i) x1 = 0, (ii) x1 = 10.

Show, graphically or otherwise, that (i) produces a sequence converging to the smaller

root, but (ii) produces a diverging sequence. Explain this behaviour and find an iteration

which produces a sequence converging to the larger root.

Let g(x) = x² - 10x + 1. Therefore g(0) = 1 and g(1) = - 8.

Therefore, as g is a continuous function and g(0), g(1) have different signs, there is a root

of g(x) = 0 in the interval [ 0, 1 ].

Similarly, g(9) = 82 − 90 = - 8, and g(10) = 101 − 100 = 1. Therefore, as g(9), g(10) have

different signs, there is also a root in the interval [ 9, 10 ].

Using the iteration xr+1 = (1 + xr²)/10,

(i) if x1 = 0, x2 = 0.1, x3 = 1.01/10 = 0.101 and x4 = (1 + 0.101²)/10 = 0.1010201.

(ii) if x1 = 10, x2 = 101/10 = 10.1, which already lies outside the interval [ 9, 10 ].

To show that in (i) we have a sequence that converges to the smaller root, we will first

use the method of determining whether | f '(x) | < 1, where f(x) = (1 + x²)/10

from the given iteration formula. But f '(x) = 2x/10 = x/5, giving 0 < f '(x) < 1 in the

interval [ 0, 1 ]. However, f '(x) > 1 in the interval [ 9, 10 ].

Therefore the iteration formula gives a convergent sequence when the root lies in the

interval [ 0, 1 ], but a divergent sequence when the root lies in the interval [ 9, 10 ].

Looking once more at the case concerning the larger root, we can illustrate the divergent

sequence using the diagram below

Taking the equation x² - 10x + 1 = 0, we could put x² = 10x − 1, hence x = 10 − 1/x.

This leads to the iterative formula xn+1 = 10 − 1/xn .

We now take the function f(x) = 10 − 1/x, which gives f '(x) = 1/x².

Therefore 0 < f '(x) < 1 in the interval [ 9, 10 ], hence the iterative sequence converges.

Our next session continues the idea of solving an equation f(x) = 0 by means of iteration.

This time, however, we will concentrate on one particular result , i.e. the

Newton - Raphson iteration formula .

The Newton-Raphson Iterative Formula
In our last session we showed that using an iterative formula to solve an equation could

prove very useful indeed. However, the technique employed certainly had its drawbacks,

mainly (i) the degree of ingenuity that was often needed to derive a formula, and (ii) the

possibility that such a formula may not even work ! Clearly life would be a lot easier if

we had a given formula that we could apply in every situation. This is why the Newton−

Raphson result proves so useful.

Like many brilliant ideas, the Newton−Raphson formula is base on a very simple notion.

This is illustrated in the diagram below.

If a root of the equation f(x) = 0 is at x = α, and a first approximation to this root is x = x1 ,

a second (and, in general, better) approximation is obtained by drawing the tangent to the

curve at the point (T) where x = x1 . This gives (see Fig. 1) the second approximation

x = x2 . If we continue this process by drawing the tangent at S, we already end up with a

result that is very close indeed to the actual root α.

Our next question is "How can we devise a formula that implements this process ?"
This is the Newton−Raphson iterative formula.

Before we look at a couple of examples, however, let us stress again that a good first

approximation goes a long way ! Firstly, it requires fewer iterations to achieve the

required degree of accuracy. Secondly, it reduces the possibility of a breakdown in the

method (a possibility which we will examine later in the session).

Example 1
Show that the equation ex + x − 2 = 0 has one and only one real root. Use the Newton−

Raphson process to find this root correct to three decimal places.

A graphical method would adequately answer the first part of the question.
Example 2

(i) Show by calculation that the equation 2x − tan x = 0 has a root, α, between x = 1 and

x = 1.2, where x is in radians.

(ii) Use linear interpolation to find a first approximation to this root.

(iii) Find α, correct to 2 decimal places, using the Newton−Raphson method.

(i) Let f (x) = 2x − tan x. Therefore f (1) = 2 − tan 1 ≈ 0.4426,

f (1.2) = 2.4 − tan 1.2 ≈ - 0.1722. Therefore, as f is a continuous function in the range

x = 1 to x = 1.2 (clearly there is a discontinuity when x = π/2 !), and f (1), f (1.2) have

different signs, then there is a root of f (x) = 0 in the interval [ 1, 1.2 ].

Example 3

Show that the Newton-Raphson approximation can be derived from the Taylor expansion

of f (a + h).

Breakdown of the Newton-Raphson Method

If the curve y = f (x) is such that the point T (where x = x1 ) lies close to a turning point, then the
tangent at T could intersect the x-axis at a point where x = x2 and the second approximation x2 is
worse than the first. This is an unusual occurrence (and could have been avoided if x1 were even closer
to α), but we will now look at an example involving such a breakdown of the method.
Example 4

By considering the graphs of y = x and y = tan x, or otherwise, show that the smallest

positive root of the equation x = tan x lies between π and 3π/2.

This smallest positive root is denoted by α. An attempt to calculate the value of α is made

by using the Newton-Raphson method applied to the equation tan x − x = 0, with the

initial approximation given by x1 = 4. Calculate x2 and x3 and explain, with the aid of a

sketch, why, in this case, x2 is a worse approximation to α than x1 .

Use the Newton-Raphson method with a suitable initial approximation to find the value

of α correct to 3 significant figures.

If y = tan x, dy/dx = sec²x. Therefore, when x = 0, dy/dx = 1, i.e. the line y = x is a

tangent to the curve y = tan x at the origin.

Therefore the smallest positive root of the equation x = tan x is clearly in the interval

[ π, 3π/2 ] and close to 3π/2.

As 3π/2 ≈ 4.7, taking a first approximation of x 1 = 4 certainly seems reasonable.

However, as we shall soon see, this does not prove to be the case.
Why have we ended up in this very strange situation ? A sketch would certainly help to

explain this oddity.

To draw the curve y = f (x), where f (x) = x − tan x and f '(x) = 1 − sec²x, we note that

f '(π) = 0. The curve therefore has a stationary point at (π, π). As the gradient of the curve

y = f (x) has the same sign when x is just < π and when x is just > π, we can also

conclude that there is a point of inflexion when x = π. Further, f (5π/4) ≈ 2.93.

The shape of the curve in the region x = π/2 to x = 3π/2 is therefore

The tangent that is drawn where x = 4 is seen to cross the x−axis where x ≈ 6 (more

exactly, 6.12). The second approximation is therefore clearly worse than the first.

To obtain a sequence that converges to the root, we need to obtain a better first

approximation − in this case one that is a little less than 3π/2 ( ≈ 4.7).
Simpson's Rule
Here we are at last − the final topic of our course ! You will be pleased to know also that

the topic is an easy one. If you can think back to the work we did on the trapezium rule

(in Calculus 2), you will have a good idea of what our current session involves.

Just to refresh your memory, however, let us briefly recap our work on the trapezium

rule. The idea is to estimate the area 'under' a curve (and hence the value of the

corresponding definite integral) by dividing the area into several trapezia (the more the

better !).

You can see also that in the example we have illustrated (in Fig. 1), the estimated result

using the trapezium rule should be a very good one. In fact, if enough trapezia are used,

the resulting approximation will always be good.

Example 1

Obviously the sum of the three trapezia is greater than the required area by a fairly

substantial amount. Looking at one particular trapezium, i.e.

the fact that we have joined BC by a straight line has caused the error given by the shaded

region. You might therefore be asking yourself, "What if we joined BC by a suitable

curve instead of a straight line ?" This is where Simpson's Rule comes in !

Simpson's Rule
The essence of Simpson's Rule is that, if three points on the curve are taken, e.g.

then we can approximate the curve ABC [ in our example, given by the function

√(1 + x³) ] by a section of a parabola given by a function of the form ax² + bx + c.

This is not too surprising as you should remember that many different functions were

approximated by polynomial expressions when we dealt with the topic of Taylor

Polynomials.
In our previous example, the coordinates of A, B and C (Fig. 4) were (0, 1), (1, 1.4142)

and (2, 3) respectively. If these three points lie on the curve y = ax² + bx + c, then

1 = c , 1.4142 = a + b + c , and 3 = 4a + 2b + c . Clearly, a, b and c could be calculated

from this system of equations.

We can, however, make life easier by generalizing the result instead of finding a, b and c

numerically in every single instance. This is the formula we will now develop.

Formula for Simpson's Rule

If the given curve y = f (x) passes through the points (x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 ) and (x3 , y3 ), where

x2 − x1 = x3 − x2 , the curve y = f (x + x2 ) would pass through (x1 − x2 , y1 ), (0, y2 ) and

(x3 − x2 , y3 ), as the curve just moves a distance of x 2 units in the direction of the negative

x− axis.

Therefore, if x3 − x2 = d, the curve passes through the points (− d, y1 ), (0, y2 ) and (d, y3 ).

If, using the hypothesis of Simpson's Rule, the curve y = f (x + x2 ) is approximated by

y = ax² + bx + c, then

y1 = ad² − bd + c ,
y2 = c and
y3 = ad² + bd + c.

But the area between the parabola y = ax² + bx + c, the x− axis and the lines x = − d, x = d

Our next task is to give this result (i.e. 2/3 ad³ + 2cd) in terms of y1 , y2 , y3 and d.

But dy1 = ad³ − bd² + cd ,

dy2 = cd and
dy3 = ad³ + bd² + cd.

Therefore dy 1 + dy 3 = 2ad³ + 2cd, hence dy 1 + dy 3 + 4dy 2 = 2ad³ + 6cd.

Therefore 1/3 (dy1 + dy3 + 4dy2 ) = 2/3 ad³ + 2cd.

This result then gives the Simpson approximation

Example 2
General Result
In order to use Simpson's Rule, we need to divide the required area into n equally

spaced subintervals, where n is even (i.e. the number of ordinates must be odd ).

The required area, using Simpson's Rule, then follows the same pattern that we

established in Example 2 and Activity 1, and is approximated by

1/3 d {y1 + 4y2 + 2y3 + 4y4 + 2y5 + … + 2yn-2 + 4yn-1 + yn }

Note carefully that the middle ordinates are multiplied by 4 and 2 alternately, beginning

with 4y2 and ending with 4yn-1 .

Example 3

Compare your answer with the result obtained in Example 1 (using the Trapezium

Rule).

In this case d = (3 − 0)/4 = ¾.

≈ ¼ {1 + 4 x 1.19242 + 2 x 2.09165 + 4 x 3.52003 + 5.29150}

= 7.33 (to 3 significant figures).

This compares with the Trapezium Rule approximation of 7.56. Remember, however,

that Fig. 2 clearly showed that this answer was an over-estimate, suggesting that the

Simpson's Rule approximation is superior.

An interesting practical example is given below

Example 4

The area in square centimetres of the cross-section of a model boat 28cm long at

intervals of 3.5 cm is as follows :

0
11.5
15.3
16.3
16.2
13.4
9.3
4.9
0

Estimate the volume of the boat.

If the cross-sectional area of a strip is A cm², and the length is divided into thin strips,

each of width δx, then the volume of the boat ≈ ΣA δx cm³. As the number of strips is

increased indefinitely, the volume → ∫ A dx cm³.

We can then estimate this volume using Simpson's Rule with d = 3.5, y 1 = 0, y 2 = 11.5,

etc.

Example 5

Prove that the approximation is exact if f (x) is any polynomial of degree 3.

A new approximation to the integral is f (− p) + f (p), where p = 1/√3. Prove that this is

also exact if f (x) is any polynomial of degree 3, but that if f (x) is any polynomial of
degree 4, then the error in the new approximation is less than the error in Simpson's

approximation.

Simpson's approximation gives 1/3 {f (− 1) + 4f (0) + f (1)}

= 1/3 {(− a + b − c + d) + 4d + (a + b + c + d)} = 1/3{2b + 6d} = 2b/3 + 2d, i.e. Simpson's

approximation gives the exact answer.

Also, f (− 1/√3) + f (1/√3) = a[− 1/(3√3)] + b/3 − c/√3 + d + a[1/(3√3)] + b/3 + c/√3 + d

= 2b/3 + 2d, i.e. again exact.

If f (x) = ax 4 + bx³ + cx² + dx + e (i.e. of degree 4), then

Simpson's approximation gives 1/3{(a − b + c − d + e) + 4e + (a + b + c + d + e)}

= 1/3 (2a + 2c + 6e) = 2/3 a + 2/3 c + 2e. The error in using Simpson's approximation is

therefore 2a/3 − 2a/5 = 4a/15 (or 12a/45).

The approximation f (− 1/√3) + f (1/√3) gives an answer of

a/9 − b/(3√3) + c/3 − d/√3 + e + a/9 + b/(3√3) + c/3 + d/√3 + e = 2a/9 + 2c/3 + 2e.

The error is therefore 2a/5 − 2a/9 = 8a/45, which is clearly less than 12a/45, i.e. the error

made in using this method is less than the error using Simpson's Rule.