Timeline for Newton-Raphson with multiple root [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 30, 2020 at 1:28 | history | closed |
Emil Jeřábek Michael Renardy Ben McKay user44191 Desiderius Severus |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Nov 28, 2020 at 0:42 | comment | added | David Handelman | Is there some reason that you cannot differeniate the polynomial, enough to reduce the multiplicity to one? Presumably, that is easier to deal with. | |
| Nov 27, 2020 at 23:08 | history | became hot network question | |||
| S Nov 27, 2020 at 16:18 | history | suggested | CommunityBot | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added MathJax
|
| Nov 27, 2020 at 16:00 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 27, 2020 at 16:18 | |||||
| Nov 27, 2020 at 16:00 | vote | accept | A_Pumpkin | ||
| Nov 27, 2020 at 15:49 | answer | added | Federico Poloni | timeline score: 4 | |
| Nov 27, 2020 at 15:47 | comment | added | A_Pumpkin | I am not sure what i do is correct because i have to prove that newton-raphson used on f to find the root 0 converges linearly, yet in my octave script the algorithm converges at 0.00009 in 31 steps instead of 0 in the long run. So i dont know how to prove that it converges linearly to 0 when it doesn't even converge to 0. | |
| Nov 27, 2020 at 15:35 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | Well, define "correct". This gives you an approximation with a certain number of significant digits. Switching to a variant may give you a better one. What is 'correct' and what is not? | |
| Nov 27, 2020 at 15:33 | review | Close votes | |||
| Nov 30, 2020 at 1:28 | |||||
| Nov 27, 2020 at 15:32 | comment | added | Carlo Beenakker | that is a machine precision limitation. | |
| Nov 27, 2020 at 15:11 | review | First posts | |||
| Nov 27, 2020 at 19:19 | |||||
| Nov 27, 2020 at 15:08 | history | asked | A_Pumpkin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |