Recurrence relation (numerical analysis/errors)












0














Let $p_{k+1}=a_kp_k+b_kp_{k-1}, k in mathbb{N}$ be a recurrence relation with coefficients $a_k, b_k in mathbb{R}$ and start values $p_0, p_1 in mathbb{R}$.



So the values of starting and the coefficients are bugged:



$tilde{p}_0=p_0(1+delta_0), tilde{p}_1=p_1(1+delta_1), tilde{a}_k=a_k(1+alpha_k), tilde{b}_k=b_k(1+beta_k)$



So bugged values $tilde{p}_k$ emerge.



How to find a recurrence relation for the absolute and relative error:



$Delta_{Abs}(p_{k+1}):=tilde{p}_{k+1}-p_{k+1}, Delta_{Rel}(p_{k+1}):=frac{Delta_{abs}(p_{k+1})}{p_{k+1}}$?



I used this for the absolute error:



$Delta(p_{k+1})=a_kDelta p_k+b_kDelta p_{k-1}$



So with the start values $Delta p_0=delta_0 p_0$ and $Delta p_1= delta_1p_1$ I get the recursion:



$alpha_ka_ktilde{p}_{k-1}+beta_kb_ktilde{p}_{k-1}=alpha_ka_kp_k+beta_kb_kp_{k-1}$



Same for the relative error.



Is this recurrence relation correct or has it to be done differently?






proof-verification numerical-methods recurrence-relations







share|cite|improve this question





























    0














    Let $p_{k+1}=a_kp_k+b_kp_{k-1}, k in mathbb{N}$ be a recurrence relation with coefficients $a_k, b_k in mathbb{R}$ and start values $p_0, p_1 in mathbb{R}$.



    So the values of starting and the coefficients are bugged:



    $tilde{p}_0=p_0(1+delta_0), tilde{p}_1=p_1(1+delta_1), tilde{a}_k=a_k(1+alpha_k), tilde{b}_k=b_k(1+beta_k)$



    So bugged values $tilde{p}_k$ emerge.



    How to find a recurrence relation for the absolute and relative error:



    $Delta_{Abs}(p_{k+1}):=tilde{p}_{k+1}-p_{k+1}, Delta_{Rel}(p_{k+1}):=frac{Delta_{abs}(p_{k+1})}{p_{k+1}}$?



    I used this for the absolute error:



    $Delta(p_{k+1})=a_kDelta p_k+b_kDelta p_{k-1}$



    So with the start values $Delta p_0=delta_0 p_0$ and $Delta p_1= delta_1p_1$ I get the recursion:



    $alpha_ka_ktilde{p}_{k-1}+beta_kb_ktilde{p}_{k-1}=alpha_ka_kp_k+beta_kb_kp_{k-1}$



    Same for the relative error.



    Is this recurrence relation correct or has it to be done differently?






    proof-verification numerical-methods recurrence-relations







    share|cite|improve this question



























      0












      0








      0







      Let $p_{k+1}=a_kp_k+b_kp_{k-1}, k in mathbb{N}$ be a recurrence relation with coefficients $a_k, b_k in mathbb{R}$ and start values $p_0, p_1 in mathbb{R}$.



      So the values of starting and the coefficients are bugged:



      $tilde{p}_0=p_0(1+delta_0), tilde{p}_1=p_1(1+delta_1), tilde{a}_k=a_k(1+alpha_k), tilde{b}_k=b_k(1+beta_k)$



      So bugged values $tilde{p}_k$ emerge.



      How to find a recurrence relation for the absolute and relative error:



      $Delta_{Abs}(p_{k+1}):=tilde{p}_{k+1}-p_{k+1}, Delta_{Rel}(p_{k+1}):=frac{Delta_{abs}(p_{k+1})}{p_{k+1}}$?



      I used this for the absolute error:



      $Delta(p_{k+1})=a_kDelta p_k+b_kDelta p_{k-1}$



      So with the start values $Delta p_0=delta_0 p_0$ and $Delta p_1= delta_1p_1$ I get the recursion:



      $alpha_ka_ktilde{p}_{k-1}+beta_kb_ktilde{p}_{k-1}=alpha_ka_kp_k+beta_kb_kp_{k-1}$



      Same for the relative error.



      Is this recurrence relation correct or has it to be done differently?






      proof-verification numerical-methods recurrence-relations







      share|cite|improve this question















      Let $p_{k+1}=a_kp_k+b_kp_{k-1}, k in mathbb{N}$ be a recurrence relation with coefficients $a_k, b_k in mathbb{R}$ and start values $p_0, p_1 in mathbb{R}$.



      So the values of starting and the coefficients are bugged:



      $tilde{p}_0=p_0(1+delta_0), tilde{p}_1=p_1(1+delta_1), tilde{a}_k=a_k(1+alpha_k), tilde{b}_k=b_k(1+beta_k)$



      So bugged values $tilde{p}_k$ emerge.



      How to find a recurrence relation for the absolute and relative error:



      $Delta_{Abs}(p_{k+1}):=tilde{p}_{k+1}-p_{k+1}, Delta_{Rel}(p_{k+1}):=frac{Delta_{abs}(p_{k+1})}{p_{k+1}}$?



      I used this for the absolute error:



      $Delta(p_{k+1})=a_kDelta p_k+b_kDelta p_{k-1}$



      So with the start values $Delta p_0=delta_0 p_0$ and $Delta p_1= delta_1p_1$ I get the recursion:



      $alpha_ka_ktilde{p}_{k-1}+beta_kb_ktilde{p}_{k-1}=alpha_ka_kp_k+beta_kb_kp_{k-1}$



      Same for the relative error.



      Is this recurrence relation correct or has it to be done differently?






      proof-verification numerical-methods recurrence-relations




      proof-verification numerical-methods recurrence-relations






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 24 at 14:57

























      asked Nov 24 at 13:15









      Nekarts

      234




      234






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0














          You forgot to consider the absolute error of the coefficients:
          $$Delta(p_{k+1})=a_kDelta p_k +b_kDelta p_{k-1}+p_kDelta a_k+p_{k-1}Delta b_k.$$



          The problem with the relative error is the possible cancellation hidden in the addition (while for the single summands, the relative error of $a_kp_k$ is just the sum of the relative errors of the factors). If we knew for example that all numbers involved are positive, we'd be in a much better shape, namely, $max{Delta_{rel}(a_k)+Delta_{rel}(p_k),Delta_{rel}(b_k)+Delta_{rel}(p_{k-1})}$, and this is readily bounded by $(k+1)delta$ (induction on $k$) if all involved numbers have relative error $ledelta$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3011544%2frecurrence-relation-numerical-analysis-errors%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            0














            You forgot to consider the absolute error of the coefficients:
            $$Delta(p_{k+1})=a_kDelta p_k +b_kDelta p_{k-1}+p_kDelta a_k+p_{k-1}Delta b_k.$$



            The problem with the relative error is the possible cancellation hidden in the addition (while for the single summands, the relative error of $a_kp_k$ is just the sum of the relative errors of the factors). If we knew for example that all numbers involved are positive, we'd be in a much better shape, namely, $max{Delta_{rel}(a_k)+Delta_{rel}(p_k),Delta_{rel}(b_k)+Delta_{rel}(p_{k-1})}$, and this is readily bounded by $(k+1)delta$ (induction on $k$) if all involved numbers have relative error $ledelta$.






            share|cite|improve this answer


























              0














              You forgot to consider the absolute error of the coefficients:
              $$Delta(p_{k+1})=a_kDelta p_k +b_kDelta p_{k-1}+p_kDelta a_k+p_{k-1}Delta b_k.$$



              The problem with the relative error is the possible cancellation hidden in the addition (while for the single summands, the relative error of $a_kp_k$ is just the sum of the relative errors of the factors). If we knew for example that all numbers involved are positive, we'd be in a much better shape, namely, $max{Delta_{rel}(a_k)+Delta_{rel}(p_k),Delta_{rel}(b_k)+Delta_{rel}(p_{k-1})}$, and this is readily bounded by $(k+1)delta$ (induction on $k$) if all involved numbers have relative error $ledelta$.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                0












                0








                0






                You forgot to consider the absolute error of the coefficients:
                $$Delta(p_{k+1})=a_kDelta p_k +b_kDelta p_{k-1}+p_kDelta a_k+p_{k-1}Delta b_k.$$



                The problem with the relative error is the possible cancellation hidden in the addition (while for the single summands, the relative error of $a_kp_k$ is just the sum of the relative errors of the factors). If we knew for example that all numbers involved are positive, we'd be in a much better shape, namely, $max{Delta_{rel}(a_k)+Delta_{rel}(p_k),Delta_{rel}(b_k)+Delta_{rel}(p_{k-1})}$, and this is readily bounded by $(k+1)delta$ (induction on $k$) if all involved numbers have relative error $ledelta$.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                You forgot to consider the absolute error of the coefficients:
                $$Delta(p_{k+1})=a_kDelta p_k +b_kDelta p_{k-1}+p_kDelta a_k+p_{k-1}Delta b_k.$$



                The problem with the relative error is the possible cancellation hidden in the addition (while for the single summands, the relative error of $a_kp_k$ is just the sum of the relative errors of the factors). If we knew for example that all numbers involved are positive, we'd be in a much better shape, namely, $max{Delta_{rel}(a_k)+Delta_{rel}(p_k),Delta_{rel}(b_k)+Delta_{rel}(p_{k-1})}$, and this is readily bounded by $(k+1)delta$ (induction on $k$) if all involved numbers have relative error $ledelta$.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Nov 25 at 11:22









                Hagen von Eitzen

                275k21268495




                275k21268495






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3011544%2frecurrence-relation-numerical-analysis-errors%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    -

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Quarter-circle Tiles

                    Image
                    up vote 0 down vote favorite I have $99$ identical square tiles, each with a quarter-circle drawn on it like this: [asy] size(1.5cm); draw(Arc((2,0),1,90,180),red+1); draw((0,0)--(2,0)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,0)); [/asy] When I arrange the tiles in a $9times 11$ rectangular grid, each with a random orientation, what is the expected value of the number of full circles I form? I think this problem has to do with finding the chance any given 2x2 square has a circle, but I can't find it. expected-value share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 20 at 15:03 6minecraftninja 1 2
                    Read more

                    build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

                    Image
                    0 I think it's similiar to NFAs. I replace the finite states of the given automaton for start-states for my new automaton. I do it with $epsilon$ -transition from the start state to the actual finite states of the given automaton. The start state of the given automaton will be my accepting(finite) state of my new one. All transitions will be reversed of course to recognize the reversed word. But how do I have to change the stack of the pushdown automaton? That's tricky. formal-languages automata context-free-grammar share | cite | improve this question edited Nov 29 '18 at 14:20 joee
                    Read more

                    Mont Emei

                    Image
                    Mont Emei.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Vue du sommet Wanfo du mont Emei Géographie Altitude 3 099  m , Wanfo Coordonnées 29° 31′ 11″ nord, 103° 19′ 57″ est Administration Pays   Chine Province Sichuan Ville-préfecture Leshan Géolocalisation sur la carte : Sichuan Mont Emei Géolocalisation sur la carte : Chine Mont Emei modifier   Paysage panoramique du mont Emei, incluant le paysage panoramique du grand Bouddha de Leshan *   Patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO Passerelle en bois sur le versant ouest Pays   Chine Subdivision Sichuan Type Mixte Critères (iv) (vi) (x) Superficie 15 400 ha Numéro d’identification 779 Zone géographique Asie et Pacifique  ** Année d’inscription 1996 (20 e session) * Descriptif officiel UNESCO ** Classification géog
                    Read more