Timeline for Fast root finding for strictly decreasing function
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 20, 2018 at 13:31 | history | edited | Federico Poloni |
edited tags
|
|
| Oct 16, 2011 at 2:31 | answer | added | Nilima Nigam | timeline score: 6 | |
| Oct 8, 2011 at 5:04 | answer | added | Aaron Meyerowitz | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 7, 2011 at 19:31 | answer | added | Robert Israel | timeline score: 8 | |
| Oct 7, 2011 at 17:22 | comment | added | Christopher A. Wong | I agree with Pietro, the question may be poorly phrased but is certainly something a mathematical researcher would be interested in knowing (including myself, tbh). | |
| Oct 7, 2011 at 16:34 | comment | added | Pietro Majer | Maybe the question is naively expressed, but I don't think it is trivial at all. I think that clarifying a non-trivial question, and putting it in the right setting is within the scope of this site, as well as giving an answer. Can anybody give a precise meaning to the statement: "in order to approximate the root of a continuous decreasing function the faster algorithm is the bisection method". | |
| Oct 7, 2011 at 14:47 | comment | added | Brendan McKay | Without some type of smoothness property, monotonicity won't help. Agree that closing is correct. | |
| Oct 7, 2011 at 14:10 | comment | added | Igor Rivin | This is not mathematics research, is too vague, and I am voting to close it. | |
| Oct 7, 2011 at 13:11 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | I've tried googling for "root finding monotonic functions", and found boost.org/doc/libs/1_35_0/libs/math/doc/sf_and_dist/html/… and iamlasun8.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de/alefeld/publications/… with little effort. | |
| Oct 7, 2011 at 11:59 | comment | added | Pietro Majer | The Newton method has quadratic convergence provided e.g. the function $C^2$ and convex. In you only know that your function is continuous and monotone, I think one can't do better than bisection. | |
| Oct 7, 2011 at 11:30 | comment | added | user16416 | Actually according to the wikipedia bisection is slow. | |
| Oct 7, 2011 at 11:30 | comment | added | user16416 | Faster than the iterative dumb method would be fine :-) Bisection is ok. | |
| Oct 7, 2011 at 11:17 | comment | added | Dirk | How fast? Is the derivative available? What is wrong with bisection? | |
| Oct 7, 2011 at 10:57 | history | asked | user16416 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |