Skip to main content

programming - Calculating an integral by the Romberg Algorithm



In my "Numerical Analysis" course, I learned the Romberg Algorithm to numerically calculate the integral.


The Romberg Algorithm as shown below:



tableau



$$T_{2n}(f)+\frac{1}{4^1-1}[T_{2n}(f)-T_{n}(f)]=S_n(f) \\ S_{2n}(f)+\frac{1}{4^2-1}[S_{2n}(f)-S_{n}(f)]=C_n(f) \\ C_{2n}(f)+\frac{1}{4^3-1}[C_{2n}(f)-C_{n}(f)]=R_n(f)$$


where $$T_n=\frac{h}{2}\left[ f(a)+ 2\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}f(x_i) +f(b)\right]$$ and $h=\frac{b-a}{n}$.


My code:


 trapezium[func_, n_, {a_, b_}] :=
With[{h = (b - a)/n},

1/2 h (func@a + 2 Sum[func[a + i h], {i, 1, n - 1}] + func@b)
]

rombergCalc[func_,iter_, {a_, b_}] :=
Module[{m = 1},
Nest[
MovingAverage[#, {-1,4^(m++)}] &,
Table[trapezium[func, 2^i, {a, b}], {i, 0., iter}], 3]
]


The calculation process comes from my textbook



enter image description here



Fixed one bug 1



enter image description here



Update


Fixed bug 2




enter image description here



Test


 rombergCalc[Exp, 5, {0, 1}]//InputForm


 {1.7182818287945305, 1.7182818284603885, 1.7182818284590502}

My Question update




  • In function rombergCalc, I utilized the usage m++ that I believe is not suitable in Mathematica Programming. Is there any other method to replace m++ or implement Romberg Algorithm?


- Why Block[{$MinPrecision = precision, $MaxPrecision = precision}..] cannot give the result that contain significance digit that I gave(seeing the graphic of textbook)?


(Thanks for @xzczd's solution for dealing with precision problem)


N[{a, b}, precision]

and replace


trapezium[func, 2^i, {a, b}], {i, 0., iter}]  


with


trapezium[func, 2^i, {a, b}], {i, 0, iter}]

- Except for SetOptions[SelectedNotebook[], PrintPrecision -> 16] or InputForm, is there other solutions to set precision conveniently?



Answer



Nice to meet you, Mr. Shu.


Bug fix first. Your function doesn't work under desired precision because:



Table[trapezium[func, 2^i, {a, b}], {i, **0.**, iter}]


Changing it to


Table[trapezium[func, 2^i, {a, b}], {i, 0, iter}]

still doesn't fix the problem, because all the numbers taking part in the calculation have infinite precision. Adding an


N[…, precision]

somewhere still doesn't fix the problem, because your utilization of m++ is not only unsuitable, but also wrong. Try changing your m++ into (Print[i = m++]; i) and see what will happen.


Fixed code:


trapezium[func_, n_, {a_, b_}] := 
With[{h = (b - a)/n},

1/2 h (func@a + 2 Sum[func[a + i h], {i, 1, n - 1}] + func@b)]

rombergCalc[func_, iter_, {a_, b_}, precision_] :=
Block[{$MinPrecision = precision, $MaxPrecision = precision},
Module[{m = 1},
NestList[
With[{n = 4^(m++)},
Flatten@(MovingAverage[#, {-1, n}] & /@ Partition[#, 2, 1])] &,
Table[trapezium[func, 2^(i - 1), N[{a, b}, precision]], {i,
iter}], 3]]]


It's so ugly now that I'd like to turn to:


trapezium[func_, n_, {a_, b_}] := 
With[{h = (b - a)/n},
Module[{f = Function[x, func@x, Listable]}, h (Total@f@Range[a, b, h] - 1/2 (f@a + f@b))]]

rombergCalc[func_, iter_, {a_, b_}, precision_] :=
FoldList[Rest@# + 1/(4^#2 - 1) Differences@# &,
trapezium[func, 2^(# - 1), N[{a, b}, precision]] & /@ Range@iter, Range@3]


Finally "visualize" the result:


TableForm[Flatten[rombergCalc[Exp, 6, {0, 1}, 13], {{2}, {1}}], 
TableHeadings -> {2^Range[0, 5],
{"\!\(\*SubscriptBox[\(T\), \(n\)]\)",
"\!\(\*SubscriptBox[\(S\), \(n\)]\)",
"\!\(\*SubscriptBox[\(C\), \(n\)]\)",
"\!\(\*SubscriptBox[\(R\), \(n\)]\)"}}, TableAlignments -> Center]

enter image description here





For completeness, here's a compiled version of the function above. Notice that it only speeds up Listable compilable internal functions or pure functions formed by Listable compilable internal function.


trapezium[f_, n_, {a_, b_}] := 
With[{h = (b - a)/n},
h (Total[f@Range[a, b, h]] - 1/2 (f@a + f@b))]

compiledrombergCalc[f_, {a_, b_}] :=
ReleaseHold[
Hold@Compile[{{i, _Integer}},
Fold[Rest@# + 1/(4^#2 - 1) Differences@# &,
trapezium[f, 2^(# - 1), {a, b}] & /@ Range@i, Range@3]] /.

DownValues@trapezium]

g = Exp[#] &
NumberForm[compiledrombergCalc[g, {0, 1}][18], 13] // AbsoluteTiming

enter image description here


It's a 23X speedup compared to the uncompiled version.


Also notice that inside the compiled function, the calculation is under MachinePrecision so the Precision of the result is also MachinePrecision, though its appearance is changed by NumberForm. However, I think this treatment may be closer to what your text book has done: as said in the comment below, significance arithmetic is the secret recipe of Mathematica anyway.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - How to draw lines between specified dots on ListPlot?

I would like to create a plot where I have unconnected dots and some connected. So far, I have figured out how to draw the dots. My code is the following: ListPlot[{{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4,13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full] I have thought using ListLinePlot command, but I don't know how to specify to the command to draw only selected lines between the dots. Do have any suggestions/hints on how to do that? Thank you. Answer One possibility would be to use Epilog with Line : ListPlot[ {{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4, 13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full, Epilog -> { Line[ ...

equation solving - Invert and fit implicitly defined curve

I need to fit an implicitly defined curve. I thought I could get some data out of Solve , and then using FindFit . Therefore, I would like to find the relation the parametric curve defined by $F(x,y)=0$: Solve[-(1/2) + 1/2 (0.41202 BesselK[0, 0.1 Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]] + (0.101483 x BesselK[1, 0.1 Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]])/Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]) == 0, y] But I can't get an output: Solve was unable to solve the system with inexact coefficients or the system obtained by direct rationalization of inexact numbers present in the system. Since many of the methods used by Solve require exact input, providing Solve with an exact version of the system may help. >> Edit: In particular, I would like to fit the data coming from the curve with the expression of another curve, and not with a function $f(x)$. In particular, since this clearly looks like a cardioid , I would like it to fit to something like it. What other strategies could I try?

dynamic - How can I make a clickable ArrayPlot that returns input?

I would like to create a dynamic ArrayPlot so that the rectangles, when clicked, provide the input. Can I use ArrayPlot for this? Or is there something else I should have to use? Answer ArrayPlot is much more than just a simple array like Grid : it represents a ranged 2D dataset, and its visualization can be finetuned by options like DataReversed and DataRange . These features make it quite complicated to reproduce the same layout and order with Grid . Here I offer AnnotatedArrayPlot which comes in handy when your dataset is more than just a flat 2D array. The dynamic interface allows highlighting individual cells and possibly interacting with them. AnnotatedArrayPlot works the same way as ArrayPlot and accepts the same options plus Enabled , HighlightCoordinates , HighlightStyle and HighlightElementFunction . data = {{Missing["HasSomeMoreData"], GrayLevel[ 1], {RGBColor[0, 1, 1], RGBColor[0, 0, 1], GrayLevel[1]}, RGBColor[0, 1, 0]}, {GrayLevel[0], GrayLevel...