The trapezium and Simpson's methods are widely used for numerical integration. In most circumstances, Simpson's method is more accurate than the trapezium method but only applicable to cases with equal intervals of even numbers. This technical note reports the formulation of two modified Simpson's methods, the trapezium-corrected Simpson's method (TCSM) and cubic-corrected Simpson's method (CCSM), as general-purpose symmetric formulas to solve numerical integrations with equal intervals of odd numbers (n ≥ 5) with the same level of accuracy as that of Simpson's method applied to the even number near n. Error analysis in terms of the order of error bound and case studies in this note demonstrate and validate the usefulness of the proposed formulas for solving different types of theoretical problems and real-world applications. In terms of accuracy of approximation for cases with equal intervals of odd numbers, CCSM performs better than TCSM by at least one order in error bound whereas TCSM performs better than the trapezium method by at least one order in error bound.
Citation: William Guo. Solving problems involving numerical integration (Ⅱ): Modified Simpson's methods for equal intervals of odd numbers[J]. STEM Education, 2023, 3(3): 171-189. doi: 10.3934/steme.2023011
The trapezium and Simpson's methods are widely used for numerical integration. In most circumstances, Simpson's method is more accurate than the trapezium method but only applicable to cases with equal intervals of even numbers. This technical note reports the formulation of two modified Simpson's methods, the trapezium-corrected Simpson's method (TCSM) and cubic-corrected Simpson's method (CCSM), as general-purpose symmetric formulas to solve numerical integrations with equal intervals of odd numbers (n ≥ 5) with the same level of accuracy as that of Simpson's method applied to the even number near n. Error analysis in terms of the order of error bound and case studies in this note demonstrate and validate the usefulness of the proposed formulas for solving different types of theoretical problems and real-world applications. In terms of accuracy of approximation for cases with equal intervals of odd numbers, CCSM performs better than TCSM by at least one order in error bound whereas TCSM performs better than the trapezium method by at least one order in error bound.
| [1] | Stewart, J., Calculus: Concepts and Contexts, 4th ed. 2019. Boston, USA: Cengage. |
| [2] | Guo, W.W., Essentials and Examples of Applied Mathematics, 2nd ed. 2020, Melbourne, Australia: Pearson. |
| [3] | Larson, R. and Edwards, B., Calculus, 12th ed. 2023, Boston, USA: Cengage. |
| [4] | Trim, D., Calculus for Engineers. 4th ed. 2008, Toronto, Canada: Pearson. |
| [5] | Sauer, T., Numerical Analysis, 2nd ed. 2014, Harlow, UK: Pearson. |
| [6] | Chapra, S.C., Applied Numerical Methods with MATLAB for Engineers and Scientists. 2005, Boston, USA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. |
| [7] | Wheatley, G., Applied Numerical Analysis, 7th ed. 2004, Boston, USA: Pearson. |
| [8] | Stroud, K.A. and Booth, D.J., Engineering Mathematics. 7th ed. 2013, London, UK: Palgrave McMillian. |
| [9] |
Guo, W., Solving problems involving numerical integration (Ⅰ): Incorporating different techniques. STEM Education, 2023, 3(2): 130–147. https://doi.org/10.3934/steme.2023009 doi: 10.3934/steme.2023009
|
| [10] |
Kalambet, Y., Kozmin, Y. and Samokhin, A., Comparison of integration rules in the case of very narrow chromatographic peaks. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 2018,179: 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemolab.2018.06.001 doi: 10.1016/j.chemolab.2018.06.001
|
| [11] | Wolfram MathWorld, Newton-Cotes Formulas. Retrieved from: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Newton-CotesFormulas.html |
| [12] | Tebeest, K.G., Combined Simpson's 1/3 and Simpson's 3/8 Examples, 2000. Kettering University. Retrieved from: https://paws.kettering.edu/~ktebeest/math305/simp38b.pdf |
| [13] | Rozema, E., Estimating the error in the trapezoidal rule. The American Mathematical Monthly, 1980, 87(2): 124–128. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2321991 |
| [14] |
Fazekas E.C. and Mercer, P.R., Elementary proofs of error estimates for the midpoint and Simpson's rules. Mathematics Magazine, 2009, 82(5): 365–370, https://doi.org/10.4169/002557009X478418 doi: 10.4169/002557009X478418
|
| [15] | Cruz-Uribe, D. and Neugebauer, C.J., Sharp error bounds for the trapezoidal rule and Simpson's rule. Journal of Inequalities in Pure and Applied Mathematics, 2002, 3(4): Article 49. http://eudml.org/doc/123201 |
| [16] |
Cruz-Uribe, D. and Neugebauer, C.J., An elementary proof of error estimates for the trapezoidal rule. Mathematics Magazine, 2003, 76(4): 303–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/0025570X.2003.11953199 doi: 10.1080/0025570X.2003.11953199
|
| [17] |
Guo, W., A guide for using integration by parts: Pet-LoPo-InPo. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(10): 3572–3585. https://doi.org/10.3934/era.2022182 doi: 10.3934/era.2022182
|
| [18] |
Guo, W., Streamlining applications of integration by parts in teaching applied calculus. STEM Education, 2022, 2(1): 73–83. https://doi.org/10.3934/steme.2022005 doi: 10.3934/steme.2022005
|
Figures(6) / Tables(18)
William Guo. Solving problems involving numerical integration (Ⅱ): Modified Simpson's methods for equal intervals of odd numbers[J]. STEM Education, 2023, 3(3): 171-189. doi: 10.3934/steme.2023011
DownLoad: