Tuesday, 23 August 2011

More on the Bisection Method

Error analysis and convergence for bisection method

Ok here is a basic summary of the error analysis associated with the bisection method. Let $$\delta$$ be the required tolerance and let $$e_{n}$$ be the error after the nth iteration.
Then as the bisection method  reduces the error by 1/2 at each iteration  interval, we have the basic recurrence relation $$e_{n+1}=\frac{1}{2}e_{n}$$



As this is linearly dependent  on the previous error the convergence is linear (unlike Newton Rhapshon) and can be comparatively slow to higher order methods as hopefully I will be able to show when I consider the Newton Rhapshon method.

So in terms of the original error e = |a-b|  (where a and b) are the points of the original interval, we have after n iterations
$$e_{n+1}=\frac{|a-b|}{2^n}$$    (2)
Now if $$\delta$$  is the desired tolerance then we can use equation 2 to get an estimate of how many iterations it will take to reach the tolerance call this N. So we have
$$\delta > \frac{|a-b|}{2^N}$$
Rearranging gives
$$2^N >\frac{|a-b|}{\delta}$$
Taking logarithms (it doesn't matter which)
gives$$N log2 > log|a-b| - log{\delta}$$ or
$$N>log|a-b|-log{\delta}$$
So if |a-b| = 1 say and $$\delta=0.5 . 10^{-5}$$
then $$N >\frac{log1-log{\delta}}{log2}$$
or N > 17.6

Hence the number of iterations it takes to converge to less than $$\delta$$  is 18.
I checked this for various intervals and amazingly it worked each time.
I love the way in this method it's the interval that determines the convergence it has nothing to do with the function at all. Simple and Brilliant.

3 comments:

  1. Hi Chris,

    Can you let me know how to integrate MathJax2 into blogger? It would be nice to write maths in a post, using it.

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'll send you an e-mail it's a bit fiddly and I'm
    not sure I've got it quite right I can't use inline equations so thats why say the delta in the above post appears on a separate line. Better than nothing though

    ReplyDelete
  3. Chris,

    You were spot on about the MST121 TMA04 Calculus section. Tut, Tut, Tut! I think the O.U have been very naughty there. They have mixed in some awful double angle formula manipulations, into the final required answer.

    I managed to solve it but it took 4hrs of graft and loads of algebra tricks, for just 4 marks. I'm sure I haven't answered it in the shortest way possible; but I can't see much alternative as it is not obvious on how to proceed.

    It just seems like a gross over complication that isn't really justified, in my opinion. Goodness knows what they are thinking in a level 1 course!

    ReplyDelete