eercelik@[Link].
tr
▪ This lesson on roots of equations deals with methods that exploit the fact that a
function typically changes sign in the vicinity of a root. These techniques are
called bracketing methods because two initial guesses for the root are required.
As the name implies, these guesses must “bracket,” or be on either side of, the
root. The particular methods described herein employ different strategies to
systematically reduce the width of the bracket and, hence, home in on the
correct answer.
▪ MATHEMATICAL BACKGROUND
−𝑏∓ 𝑏2 −4𝑎𝑐
▪ We use the quadratic formula 𝑥= to solve 𝑓 𝑥 = 𝑎𝑥 2 + 𝑏𝑥 + 𝑐 = 0.
2𝑎
▪ The values calculated with quadratic formula are called the “roots” of 𝑓(𝑥). We can define the
root of an equation as the value of x that makes 𝑓 ( 𝑥 ) = 0. For this reason, roots are
sometimes called the zeros of the equation.
▪ Some definitions:
A function given by 𝑦 = 𝑓 ( 𝑥) is algebraic if it can be expressed in the form
where 𝑓𝑖 is an ith-order polynomial in x. Polynomials are a simple class of algebraic functions
that are represented generally by
where n is the order of the polynomial and the a ’s are constants.
▪ Some specific examples are
▪ A transcendental function is one that is nonalgebraic. These include trigonometric, exponential,
logarithmic, and other, less familiar, functions. Examples are
▪ GRAPHICAL METHODS
▪ A simple method for obtaining an estimate of the root of the equation 𝑓(𝑥) = 0 is to
make a plot of the function and observe where it crosses the 𝑥 axis. This point, which
represents the 𝑥 value for which 𝑓(𝑥) = 0, provides a rough approximation of the root.
▪ Example 5.1
▪ From Newton’s second law, for the parachutist’s velocity can be calculated using
where velocity y is the dependent variable, time t=the independent variable, the gravitational
constant g is the forcing function, and the drag coefficient c and mass m are parameters. If the
parameters are known, this equation can be used to predict the parachutist’s velocity as a
function of time. If we write
(*)
Then, the value of c that makes 𝑓 ( 𝑐 ) = 0 is the root of the equation.
▪ Solution: This problem can be solved by determining the root of Eq. (*) using the
parameters t =10, g=9.81, y = 40, and m =68.1:
(**)
▪ Various values of c can be substituted into the right-hand side of this equation to compute
Remark: True value of the root can be found using MATLAB:
▪ Solution cont.
▪ These points are plotted in Fig. 5.1. The resulting curve crosses the c axis between 12 and
16. Visual inspection of the plot provides a rough estimate of the root of 14.75. The validity of
the graphical estimate can be checked by substituting it into Eq. (**) to yield
which is close to zero. It can also be checked by substituting it into
which is very close to the desired fall velocity of 40 m/s.
Solution cont.
▪ Solution cont.
▪ Termination Criteria and Error Estimates
We ended Example 5.3 with the statement that the method could be continued to obtain
a refined estimate of the root. We must now develop an objective criterion for deciding
when to terminate the method. An initial suggestion might be to end the calculation when the
true error falls below some prespecified level. For instance, in Example 5.3, the relative error
dropped to 2.0 percent during the course of the computation. We might decide that we should
terminate when the error drops below, say, 0.1 percent. This strategy is flawed because
the error estimates in the example were based on knowledge of the true root of the
function. This would not be the case in an actual situation because there would be no
point in using the method if we already knew the root.
Therefore, we require an error estimate that is not contingent on foreknowledge of
the root. An approximate percent relative error 𝜀𝑎 can be calculated,
Eq. 5.2
where 𝑥𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑤 is the root for the present iteration and 𝑥𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑑 is the root from the previous iteration.
The absolute value is used because we are usually concerned with the magnitude
of 𝜀𝑎 rather than with its sign. When 𝜀𝑎 becomes less than a prespecified stopping criterion 𝜀𝑠 ,
the computation is terminated.
Remark:
14.9309
Solution cont:
A feeling for the relative efficiency of
the bisection and false-position methods
can be appreciated by referring to Fig.
5.13, where we have plotted the true
percent relative errors for Examples 5.4
and 5.5. Note how the error for false
position decreases much faster than for
bisection because of the more efficient
scheme for root location in the
false-position method.
▪ Pitfalls of the False-Position Method
Although the false-position method would seem to always be the
bracketing method of preference, there are cases where it performs
poorly. In fact, as in the following example, there are certain cases
where bisection yields superior results.
▪ SUMMARY