HW 3 Soln

Math 5334: Homework 3 Solutions
March 6, 2009
Problem 3.3
x = [-1 -0.96 -0.65 0.1 0.4 1]’;
y = [-1 -0.1512 0.3860 0.4802 0.8838 1]’;
u = (-1:0.01:1)’;
v1 = piecelin(x,y,u);
v2 = polyinterp(x,y,u);
v3 = splinetx(x,y,u);
v4 = pchiptx(x,y,u);
% plot the data points

plot(x,y,’o’)
% plot the 4 interpolations on the same graph
hold on
plot(u,v1)
plot(u,v2,’r’)
plot(u,v3, ’g’)
plot(u,v4, ’k’)
% label the four plots and label the graph

legend(’(x,y)’, ’piecelin’, ’polyinterp’, ’splinetx’, ’pchiptx’)
title(’HW2, problem 3.3’);
xlabel(’u’);
ylabel(’v = P(u)’);
Copyright 2009, Victoria Howle and Department of Mathematics & Statistics, Texas Tech 1
University. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, redistributed, or
transmitted in any manner without the permission of the instructor.
Math 5334 — HW03 Solutions March 6, 2009
% evaluate each interpolant at x = -0.3

piecelin(x,y,-0.3)
ans = 0.4300
polyinterp(x,y,-0.3)
ans = -0.9990
splinetx(x,y,-0.3)
ans = -0.1957
pchiptx(x,y,-0.3)
ans = 0.4322
I prefer the value at x = −0.3 given by pchiptx. The point x = −0.3 lies in the interval between x3 =
−0.65 and x4 = 0.10, but the values of P (−0.3) given by polyinterp and splinetx lie significantly
below y3 and y4 . In fact, the given y values of data are monotonically increasing with x. So we
have no reason to suspect that the true function actually oscillates as polyinterp and splinetx do.
That leaves pchiptx and piecewise linear, which give very similar answers for P (−0.3). Since
pchiptx also produces a smooth function, I prefer pchiptx for this data.
To estimate the coefficients of the low-degree polynomial used to generate the date, we can
try using a Vandermonde matrix. In general, it is a bad idea to compute using the Vandermonde
matrix. But since cond(vander(x)) isn’t too large (≈ 222), we will try it.
format long
c = vander(x)\y
c =
16.001760721584741
0.000671813407319
-20.002172969527788
-0.000679471509077
5.000412247943046
0.000007658101757
This is an inaccurate computation, so we will guess the actual coefficients to be these coefficients
rounded to the nearest integer. That gives the polynomial:
y = 16x5 − 20x3 + 5x
which appears again in problem 3.8 as the power form of the Chebyshev polynomial of degree five.
We can check if our guess is right by evaluating this polynomial at the 6 given data points:
testy = 16*x.^5 - 20*x.^3 + 5*x
testy =
-1.000000000000000
-0.151243161600001
0.386035000000000
0.480160000000000
0.883840000000000
1.000000000000000
which equals our given y data values to the four digits of accuracy given.
Problem 3.4
The pchiptx interpolation seems to make a smoother, nicer looking, version of a hand. The
splinetx version has some unrealistic looking sharp turns.
For the same reasons, I’d would think that the hand picture in the book was done with pchiptx.
Problem 3.8
See prob3 8.m for the Matlab code. All six representations are plotted here. We can see that they
represent the same function since the plots are identical.
Problem 4.2
(a) Skipped
(b) The roots function computes the roots of a polynomial.
% C = [cubic coeff, quad coeff; linear coeff, const coeff]
C = [1 0 -2 -5];
roots(C)
ans =
2.0946
-1.0473 + 1.1359i
-1.0473 - 1.1359i
The roots function found all three roots.

(c) fzerotx takes an anonymous function f and an interval on which to look for the root. We know
that the real root lies in [2, 3], so we’ll use that for the interval.
% make an anonymous function for the polynomial

f = @(x) x.^3 - 2*x - 5
f =
@(x)x.^3-2*x-5
x = fzerotx(f,[2,3])
x =
2.0946
√
(d) For Newton’s method, we need f (x), f 0 (x), and an initial guess. I’ll use i = −1 as the
initial guess in order to find a complex root.
f = @(x) x.^3 - 2*x - 5
f =
@(x)x.^3-2*x-5
fprime = @(x) 3*x.^2 - 2
fprime =
@(x)3*x.^2-2
help mynewton2
function x = mynewton2(f,fprime,x0)
define funtions f and fprime as inlines or m-files

finds a root of f using initial guess x0
x = mynewton2(f,fprime,i)
-1
-0.5627487397187583
-0.7783722615045087
-1.042308494125078
-1.046911787596
-1.047274787446181
-1.047275740770723
-1.047275740771163
-1.047275740771163
x =
-1.0473 + 1.1359i
My Newton code is:
function x = mynewton2(f,fprime,x0)
% function x = mynewton2(f,fprime,x0)
%
% define functions f and fprime as inlines or m-files
% finds a root of f using initial guess x0
%
% [Note that anything I put in the initial comment lines
% after the function definition will show up when I type
% "help mynewton2"]
x = x0;
xprev = rand(1);
while abs(x - xprev) > eps*abs(x)
xprev = x;
x = x - f(x)/fprime(x);
disp(sprintf(’%5.16g’, x));
end
(e) There is no notion of ordering on the complex numbers. So we cannot use the bisection
method to find a complex root. There is no notion of one complex number being greater than
zero and another being less than zero.
Problem 4.14
For both of the forward interpolation methods (a) and (b), we need to define a function as the
interpolant minus 60, then find a zero of that function.
For each of the methods, we need v and d vectors:
v = 0:10:60
v =
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
d = [0 5 20 46 70 102 153]
d =
0 5 20 46 70 102 153
(a) Define f 1 as the piecewise linear interpolant minus 60, then find a zero:
f1 = @(x) piecelin(v,d,x) - 60;

fzerotx(f1,[30,40])
ans =
35.8333
(b) Define f 2 as a piecewise cubic interpolant minus 60, then find a zero:
f2 = @(x) pchiptx(v,d,x) - 60;

fzerotx(f2,[30,40])
ans =
36.0007
(c) For reverse piecewise cubic interpolation, we note that the distance measurements are mono-
tonically increasing and switch the roles of v and d. In this case, we do not need to use a zero
finder, but simply evaluate the reverse piecewise cubic interpolant at 60:
% reverse piecewise cubic

pchiptx(d,v,60)
ans =
35.9876
As noted in the problem, because the data are well-behaved, the three values obtained are close
to each other, but not identical.
BF Problem 6.1 #4
(a)
(b)
BF Problem 7.1 #5
(a) A = [1/2 1/3; 1/3 1/4];
b = [1/63; 1/168];
x = [1/7; -1/6];
xtilde = [0.142; -0.166];
norm(x - xtilde, inf)

ans =
8.5714e-04
norm(A*xtilde - b, inf)
ans =
2.0635e-04
(b) A = [1 2 3; 2 3 4; 3 4 6];
b = [1; -1; 2];
x = [0; -7; 5];
xtilde = [-0.33; -7.9; 5.8];

ans =
0.900000000000000
ans =
0.270000000000000
(c) A = [1 2 3; 2 3 4; 3 4 6];
b = [1; -1; 2];
x = [0; -7; 5];
xtilde = [-0.2; -7.5; 5.4];
ans =
0.500000000000000
ans =
0.299999999999997
(d) A = [0.04 0.01 -0.01; 0.2 0.5 -0.2; 1 2 4];

x = [1.827586; 0.6551724; 1.965517];
xtilde = [1.8; 0.64; 1.9];

ans =
0.065517000000000
b = [0.06; 0.3; 11]
ans =
0.320000000000000
BF Problem 2.2 #6
For a fixed point iteration to find a solution of x3 − x − 1 = 0, we first need to convert the equation
to a fixed point equation x = g(x). The simplest to try might be x = x3 − 1 = g(x), but when we
iterate with this form, the solution diverges. Another version to try is
x3 − x − 1 = 0
x3 = x + 1
√
x = 3x+1
= g(x)
This leads to a successful fixed point iteration.

I wrote a simple Matlab function to do a fixed point iteration on a function until |f (p)−p| < tol,
where tol is a given tolerance.
function p = myfixedpt(f, p0, tol)

% function p = myfixedpt(f, p0, tol)
%
% fixed point iteration on f until |f(p) - p| < tol
p = f(p0);
count = 1;
while abs(p - p0) > tol

p0 = p;
p = f(p0)
count = count + 1;
end
We can write g(x) as a Matlab anonymous function and iterate.
g = @(x) (x + 1)^(1/3);
p0 = 1;
tol = 1e-2;
p = myfixedpt(g,1,1e-2)
p =
1.312293836683289
We can compare this with the Matlab roots function to make sure we got a root of the original
equation:
roots([1 0 -1 -1])
ans =
1.324717957244745
-0.662358978622373 + 0.562279512062301i
-0.662358978622373 - 0.562279512062301i
The fixed point method did locate a real root of the original equation, and got it to within the two
digits of accuracy we asked for.

HW 3 Soln

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

HW 3 Soln

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Math 5334: Homework 3 Solutions

% plot the data points

% label the four plots and label the graph

% evaluate each interpolant at x = -0.3

represent the same function since the plots are identical.

The roots function found all three roots.

% make an anonymous function for the polynomial

f = @(x) x.^3 - 2*x - 5

fprime = @(x) 3*x.^2 - 2

define funtions f and fprime as inlines or m-files

My Newton code is:

f1 = @(x) piecelin(v,d,x) - 60;

f2 = @(x) pchiptx(v,d,x) - 60;

% reverse piecewise cubic

norm(x - xtilde, inf)

norm(x - xtilde, inf)

(d) A = [0.04 0.01 -0.01; 0.2 0.5 -0.2; 1 2 4];

norm(x - xtilde, inf)

b = [0.06; 0.3; 11]

This leads to a successful fixed point iteration.

function p = myfixedpt(f, p0, tol)

while abs(p - p0) > tol

We can write g(x) as a Matlab anonymous function and iterate.

Potrebbero piacerti anche