MHB Nodes and weight of Gauss Quadrature

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the node \( x_0 \) and weight \( a_0 \) for Gauss Quadrature with the weight function \( w(x) = 1 + \sqrt{x} \). Initially, \( a_0 \) was calculated as 3, but after further analysis, it was corrected to \( \frac{5}{3} \) by properly integrating the weight function. The node \( x_0 \) was also recalculated and found to be \( \frac{27}{50} \) or 0.54. Participants confirmed that the correct interpretation of the polynomial degree for integration involved \( f(x) = 1 \) and \( f(x) = x \). The final calculations were validated as correct.
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :giggle:

Calculate the node $x_0$ and the weight $a_0$ of Gauss Quadrature so that $$\int_0^1w(x)f(x)\, dx\approx I_0(f)=a_0f(x_0)$$ where $w(x)=1+\sqrt{x}$.

I have done the following:

The Gauss quadrature formula with $(n + 1)=1$ node (i.e. $n=0$) integrates polynomials of degree $2n + 1=1$ exactly.
\begin{align*}\int_0^1w(x)\cdot 1\, dx=a_0 &\Rightarrow \int_0^1\left (1+\sqrt{x}\right )\cdot 1\, dx=a_0 \\ & \Rightarrow \int_0^1\left (1+\sqrt{x}\right )\, dx=a_0 \\ & \Rightarrow \int_0^1\left (1+x^{\frac{1}{2}}\right )\, dx=a_0 \\ & \Rightarrow \left [x+2x^{\frac{1}{2}+1}\right ]_0^1=a_0 \\ & \Rightarrow \left [x+2x^{\frac{3}{2}}\right ]_0^1=a_0 \\ & \Rightarrow 1+2 =a_0 \\ & \Rightarrow a_0 =3 \\ \int_0^1w(x)\cdot x\, dx=a_0\cdot x_0 &\Rightarrow \int_0^1\left (1+\sqrt{x}\right )\cdot x\, dx=3x_0 \\ & \Rightarrow \int_0^1\left (x+x\sqrt{x}\right )\, dx=3x_0 \\ & \Rightarrow \int_0^1\left (x+x^{\frac{3}{2}}\right )\, dx=3x_0 \\ & \Rightarrow \left [\frac{x^2}{2}+\frac{2}{3}x^{\frac{3}{2}+1}\right ]_0^1=3x_0 \\ & \Rightarrow \left [\frac{x^2}{2}+\frac{2}{3}x^{\frac{5}{2}}\right ]_0^1=3x_0 \\ & \Rightarrow \frac{1}{2}+\frac{2}{3} =3x_0 \\ & \Rightarrow \frac{7}{6} =3x_0 \\ & \Rightarrow x_0=\frac{7}{18} \end{align*}

Is that correct? Or if we say that it integrates polynomials of degree $1$ do we mean that $w(x)f(x)=1$ and $w(x)f(x)=x$ instead of $f(x)=1$ and $f(x)=x$ ?

:unsure:
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Or if we say that it integrates polynomials of degree $1$ do we mean that $w(x)f(x)=1$ and $w(x)f(x)=x$ instead of $f(x)=1$ and $f(x)=x$ ?

Hey mathmari!

I believe it is indeed intended that $f(x)=1$ and $f(x)=x$. (Nod)

mathmari said:
$$ \int_0^1\left (1+x^{\frac{1}{2}}\right )\, dx=a_0 \Rightarrow \left [x+2x^{\frac{1}{2}+1}\right ]_0^1=a_0$$

If we take the derivative of $2x^{\frac{1}{2}+1}$, then we don't get $x^{\frac{1}{2}}$ do we? :oops:

mathmari said:
$$\int_0^1\left (x+x^{\frac{3}{2}}\right )\, dx=3x_0 \Rightarrow \left [\frac{x^2}{2}+\frac{2}{3}x^{\frac{3}{2}+1}\right ]_0^1$$

If we take the derivative of $\frac{2}{3}x^{\frac{3}{2}+1}$, then we don't get $x^{\frac{3}{2}}$ do we? :oops:
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
If we take the derivative of $2x^{\frac{1}{2}+1}$, then we don't get $x^{\frac{1}{2}}$ do we? :oops:

If we take the derivative of $\frac{2}{3}x^{\frac{3}{2}+1}$, then we don't get $x^{\frac{3}{2}}$ do we? :oops:

Oh yes... :oops:

It should be:
\begin{align*}\int_0^1w(x)\cdot 1\, dx=a_0 &\Rightarrow \int_0^1\left (1+\sqrt{x}\right )\cdot 1\, dx=a_0 \\ & \Rightarrow \int_0^1\left (1+\sqrt{x}\right )\, dx=a_0 \\ & \Rightarrow \int_0^1\left (1+x^{\frac{1}{2}}\right )\, dx=a_0 \\ & \Rightarrow \left [x+\frac{1}{\frac{1}{2}+1}x^{\frac{1}{2}+1}\right ]_0^1=a_0 \\ & \Rightarrow \left [x+\frac{2}{3}x^{\frac{3}{2}}\right ]_0^1=a_0 \\ & \Rightarrow 1+\frac{2}{3} =a_0 \\ & \Rightarrow a_0 =\frac{5}{3}\approx 1.6667 \\ \int_0^1w(x)\cdot x\, dx=a_0\cdot x_0 &\Rightarrow \int_0^1\left (1+\sqrt{x}\right )\cdot x\, dx=\frac{5}{3}x_0 \\ & \Rightarrow \int_0^1\left (x+x\sqrt{x}\right )\, dx=\frac{5}{3}x_0 \\ & \Rightarrow \int_0^1\left (x+x^{\frac{3}{2}}\right )\, dx=\frac{5}{3}x_0 \\ & \Rightarrow \left [\frac{x^2}{2}+\frac{1}{\frac{3}{2}+1}x^{\frac{3}{2}+1}\right ]_0^1=\frac{5}{3}x_0 \\ & \Rightarrow \left [\frac{x^2}{2}+\frac{2}{5}x^{\frac{5}{2}}\right ]_0^1=\frac{5}{3}x_0 \\ & \Rightarrow \frac{1}{2}+\frac{2}{5} =\frac{5}{3}x_0 \\ & \Rightarrow \frac{9}{10} =\frac{5}{3}x_0 \\ & \Rightarrow x_0=\frac{27}{50}=0,54 \end{align*}
:geek:
 
mathmari said:
It should be:
:geek:
It looks correct to me now. (Nod)
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
It looks correct to me now. (Nod)

Great! Thank you! 👏
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top