Calc 8E Liesmycomp Stu

LIES MY CALCULATOR AND COMPUTER TOLD ME
■ See Section 1.4 for a
Sixth Edition. ISBN:0495011606. © 2008 Brooks/Cole. All rights

discussion ofAppendix
G
graphing calculators
and computers with
graphing software.
reserved.
A wide variety of pocket-size calculating devices are

currently marketed. Some can run programs prepared
by the user; some have preprogrammed packages for
frequently used calculus procedures, including the
display of graphs. All have certain limitations in
common: a limited range of magnitude (usually less
than 10100 for calculators) and a bound on accuracy
(typically eight to thirteen digits).
A calculator usually comes with an owner’s manual.
Read it! The manual will tell you about further
limitations (for example, for angles when entering
trigonometric functions) and perhaps how to overcome
them.
Program packages for microcomputers (even the
most fundamental ones, which realize arithmetical
operations and elementary functions) often suffer from
hidden flaws. You will be made aware of some of them
in the following examples, and you are encouraged to
experiment using the ideas presented here.
PRELIMINARY EXPERIMENTS WITH YOUR CALCULATOR OR

COMPUTER
To have a first look at the limitations and quality of

your calculator, make it compute 23. Of course, the
answer is not a terminating decimal so it can’t be
represented exactly on your calculator. If the last
displayed digit is 6 rather than 7, then your calculator
approximates by truncating instead of rounding, so be
prepared for slightly greater loss of accu racy in longer
calculations.
Now multiply the result by 3; that is, calculate 2 3
3. If the answer is 2, then subtract 2 from the result,
thereby calculating 2 3 3 2. Instead of obtaining 0 as
the answer, you might obtain a small negative number,
which depends on the construction of the circuits. (The
calculator keeps, in this case, a few “spare” digits that
Stewart:Calculus,
Stewart: Calculus, Seventh Edition. ISBN: 0538497815. (c) 2012 Brooks/Cole. All rights reserved.
are remembered play on you is even larger, since not all terminating
but not shown.) decimal numbers are represented exactly. A recent
This is all right implementation of the BASIC language shows (in
because, as double precision) examples of incorrect conversion
previously from one number system into another, for example,
mentioned, the
finite number of 8
digits makes it
impossible to 0
represent 2 3 .
exactly. 1
A similar
0
situation occurs
.
when you calculate
7
( 9
s6)2 6. If you do
9
not obtain 0, the 9
order of magnitude 9
of the result will
tell you how many
9
digits the
9
calculator uses
9
internally. Next,
9
try to compute 15
9
using the yx key.
Many calculators
will indicate an 9
error because they 9
are built to attempt 9
e5ln1. One way to 9
overcome this is to 9
use the fact that 1k
9
cos k whenever k
is an integer. whereas 19 0.1 ? 1.90000 00000 00001
Calculators are
usually constructed Yet another implementation, apparently free of the
to operate in the preceding anomalies, will not calculate standard
decimal number functions in double precision. For example, the
system. In number 4 tan11, whose representation with sixteen
contrast, some decimal digits should be 3.14159 26535 89793,
microcomputer appears as 3.14159 29794 31152; this is off by more
packages of than 3 107. What is worse, the cosine function is
arithmetical programmed so badly that its “cos” 0 1 223. (Can you
programs operate invent a situation when this could ruin your
in a number calculations?) These or similar defects exist in other
system with base programming languages too.
other than 10
(typically 2 or 16). THE PERILS OF SUBTRACTION
Here the list of
unwelcome tricks
your device can
Stewart:Calculus,
LIES MY CALCULATOR AND COMPUTER TOLD ME ■ 3
You might have operation. The difficulty is similar to this thought

observed that exercise: Imagine that you walk blindfolded 100 steps
subtraction of two forward and then turn around and walk 99 steps. Are
numbers that are you sure that you end up exactly one step from where
close to each other you started?
is a tricky
1
2 ■ LIES MY CALCULATOR AND COMPUTER TOLD ME
The name of this phenomenon is “loss of significant digits.” To

illustrate, let’s calculate
8721s3 10,681s2
The approximations from my calculator are
8721s3 15105.21509 and

10,681s2 15105.21506
and so we get 8721s3 10,681s2

0.00003. Even with three spare digits
exposed, the difference comes out as
0.00003306. As you can see, the two
ten-digit numbers agree in nine digits
that, after subtraction, become zeros
before the first nonzero digit. To make
things worse, the formerly small
errors in the square roots become
more visible. In this particular
example we can use rationalization to
write
8721s3 10,681s2
s
(work out the details!) and now the loss of

significant digits doesn’t occur:
1
0.000033
10115
to
seven
digits
s s
(It would take too much space to
explain why all seven digits are
reliable; the subject numerical
analysis deals with these and similar
situations.) See Exercise 7 for another
instance of restoring lost digits.
Stewart:Calculus,
Now you can see why in Exercises
2.2 (Exercise 38) your guess at the
limit ofExercises 1.5 (Exercise 42) tan x
xx3 was bound to go wrong: tan x
becomes so close to x that the values
will eventually agree in all digits that
the calculator is capable of carrying.
Similarly, if you start with just about
any continuous function f and try to
guess the value of
f x lim
fx
hl0
long enough using a calculator, you will end

up with a zero, despite all the rules in Chapter
3!Chapter 2!
WHERE CALCULUS IS MORE POWERFUL

THAN CALCULATORS AND COOMPUTERS
One of the secrets of success of calculus in

overcoming the difficulties connected with
subtraction is symbolic manipulation. For
instance, a b a is always , although the cal-b
culated value may be different. Try it with

a 107 and b s2 105. Another powerful tool
is the use of inequalities; a good example
is the Squeeze Theorem as demonstrated
in Section 2.3. Yet another method for
avoiding computational difficulties is

provided by the1.6. Mean Value Theorem
and its consequences, such as l’Hospital’s
Rule (which helps solve the
aforementioned exercise and others) and
Taylor’s Inequality.
The limitations of calculators and
computers are further illustrated by infinite
series. A common misconception is that a
series can be summed by adding terms
until there is “practically nothing to add” reserved.
and “the error is less than the first

neglected term.” The latter statement is
true for certain alternating series (see the
Alternating Series Estimation Theorem)
but not in general; a modified version is
true for another class of series (Exercise
10). As an example to refute these
misconceptions, let’s consider the series
Stewart:Calculus,
n1 n1.001
which is a convergent -series (p p 1.001

1). Suppose we were to try to sum this
series, correct to eight decimal places, by
adding terms until they are less than 5 in
the ninth decimal place. In other words,
we would stop when
1
0.00000 0005
n1.001
that is, when n N 196,217,284. (This
would require a high-speed computer
and increased precision.) After going
to all this trouble, we would end up
with the approximating partial sum
N
1
SN
1
.
0
0
1
1
9
.
5
n
1
n
But, from the proof of the Integral
Test, we have
1
dx
1.001 y 1.001 1000

n1 n
Thus, the machine result represents
less than 2% of the correct answer!
Suppose that we then wanted to
add a huge number of terms of this
series, say, 10100 terms, in order to
approximate the infinite sum more
closely. (This number 10100, called a
googol, is outside the range of pocket
calculators and is much larger than the
Stewart:Calculus,
number of elementary particles in our
solar system.) If we were to add 10 100
terms of the above series (only in
theory; a million years is less than 10 26
microseconds), we would still obtain a
sum of less than 207 compared with
the true sum of more than 1000. (This
estimate of 207 is obtained by using a
more precise form of the Integral Test,
known as the Euler-Maclaurin
Formula, and only then using a
calculator. The formula provides a
way to accelerate the convergence of
this and other series.)
If the two preceding approaches
didn’t give the right information about
the accuracy of the partial sums, what
does? A suitable inequality satisfied
by the remainder of the series, as you
can see from Exercise 6.
Computers and calculators are not
replacements for mathematical
thought. They are just replacements
for some kinds of mathematical labor,
either numerical or symbolic. There
are, and always will be, mathematical
problems that can’t be solved by a
calculator or computer, regardless of
its size and speed. A calculator or
computer does stretch the human
capacity for handling numbers and
symbols, but there is still considerable
scope and necessity for “thinking
before doing.”
EXERCISES
loss of significant digits destroys
your result. (The answer will
depend on your calculator.) Then
A Click here for answers. S
find the precise answer using an
solutions. appropriate calculus method.
1. Guess the value of
2. Guess the value of
ln1 h
x0 12 lim
hl0 h
1
lim and determine when to stop
l sin x x 2 guessing before the loss of
significant digits destroys your
and determine when to result. This time the detrimental
stop guessing before the subtraction takes place inside the
Stewart:Calculus,
reserved.
machine; explain how (assuming fa f cb a

that the Taylor series with center a
1 is used to approximate ln x). fc
Then find the precise answer using
where a c b. Since f is
an appropriate calculus method.
3. Even innocent-looking calculus
decreasing, we have f a f c f
problems can lead to numbers b. Use this to estimate the
beyond the calculator range. Show value of
that the maximum value of the D.
function (b) Use the Mean Value Theorem a
second time to discoverwhy the
x quantities f a and f b in part (a)
2
are so close to each other.
f
x 6. For the series n1.001, studied in
n1
the text, exactly how many terms

do we need (in theory) to make the
error less than 5 in the ninth
1.0001x
decimal place? You can use the
is greater than 10124. [Hint: Use inequalities from the proof of the
logarithms.] What is the limit of fx Integral Test:
as x l ?
4. What is a numerically reliable

y fx dx n
expression to replace fx dx
N1 N1
s1 cos x, especially when x is a

7. Archimedes found an
small number? You will need to use
approximation to 2 by
trigonometric identities. (Recall that
considering the perimeter p of a
some computer packages would
regular 96-gon inscribed in a circle
signal an unnecessary error
of radius 1. His formula, in modern
condition, or even switch to
notation, is
complex arithmetic, when x 0.)
5. Try to evaluate p 96s2 s2 s2 s2 s3

D ln ln109 1 ln (a) Carry out the calculations and
ln109 compare with the value ofp
from more accurate sources,
on your calculator. These numbers
say p 192 sin96.
are so close together that you will
How many digits did you lose?
likely obtain 0 or just a few digits of
(b) Perform rationalization to
accuracy. However, we can use the
avoid subtraction of
Mean Value Theorem to achieve
approximate numbers and
much greater accuracy.
count the exact digits again.
4 ■ LIES MY CALCULATOR AND COMPUTER
TOLD ME 8. This exercise is related to Exercise
2. Suppose that your computing
device has an excellent program
(a) Let fx ln ln x, a 109, and b 109 for the exponential function expx
1. Then the ex but a poor program for ln x. Use
Mean Value the identity
Theorem
gives fb
ln a b ln 1
eb
Stewart:Calculus,
and Taylor’s Inequality to improve 27q s729q2 108p3
the accuracy of ln x. where a
2
9. The cubic equation
Hint: Use the factorization
x 3 px q 0 formula
where we assume for simplicity A3 B3
that p 0, has a classical solution A
formula for the real root, called
Cardano’s formula: B
1
27q s729q2 108p3 13 2
x A AB B2
3 2 (b) Evaluate
4
27q s729q2 108p3 13 u
2 (2 s5)
2 3
1 (2 2 3
For a user of a pocket-size If the result is simple,

calculator, as well as for an relate it to part (a), that
inexperienced programmer, the is, restore the cubic
solution presents several stumbling equation whose root is u
blocks. First, the second radicand written in this form.
is negative and the fractional 10. (a) Consider the power series
power key or routine may not
handle it. Next, even if we fix the
fx
negative radical problem, when q
is small in magnitude and p is of
moderate size, the small number x x
is the difference of two numbers
n
close to sp3.
(a) Show that all these troubles are n
avoided by the formula 1
9
q 1
0
0
x
1
It is easy to show
a
that its radius of
2
3 convergence is r
100. The series will
converge rather
3 slowly at x 99:
p find out how many
terms will make
the error less than
9 5 107.
p (b) We can speed up
2 the convergence of
a the series in part
2
(a). Show that
3
x
Stewart:Calculus,
fx f further calculations (after

100 x entering a0) were performed
without errors, the initial
and find the number
inaccuracy would cause the
of the terms of this
computed sequence an to
transformed series
diverge.
that leads to an
error less than 5 12. (a) A consolation after the
107. [Hint: catastrophic outcome of Exercise
Compare with the 11: If we rewrite the reduction
series n1 formula to read
xn100n, whose sum
you know.] 1 an
an1
11. The positive numbers
n
an y01 e1xxn dx we can use the inequality
used in the squeeze
can, in theory, be calculated argument to obtain
from a reduction formula improvements of the
obtained by integration by parts: approximations of an. Try
a0 e 1, an nan1 1. Prove, using 1 a20 again using this reverse
e1x e and the Squeeze Theorem, approach.
that limn l an 0. Then try to (b) We used the reversed
calculate a20 from the reduction reduction formula to
formula using your calculator. calculate quantities for
What went wrong? which we
The initial term a0 e 1 can’t have elementary
be represented exactly in a formulas. To

calculator. Let’s call the see that the idea
is even more
powerful,
develop it
for the integrals
approximation of c e 1
that we can enter. Verify from
the reduction formula (by
observing the pattern after a few
steps) that
reserved.
n 1
ac n! 1!
2!
n!
and recall from our study of
Taylor and Maclaurin series that
1 1
1! 2!
converges to e 1 as nl . The
expression in square
brackets
converges to c e 1, a nonzero
number, which gets multiplied
by a fast-growing factor n!.
We conclude that even if all
Stewart:Calculus,
reserved.
where
n 0, 1, . . . . For
such the integrals are no
longer elementary (not
solvable in “finite terms”), but
the numbers can be calculated
quickly. Find the integrals for
the particular choice and n
0, 1, . . . , 5 to five digits of
accuracy.
13. An advanced calculator has a

key for a peculiar function:
1
E
x
e
x
1
if x 0
x
After so many warnings about the
subtraction of close numbers, you
may appreciate that the definition
sinh x e ex
1 x
2
gives inaccurate results for small ,

where x sinh x is close to .x
Show that the use of the accurately
evaluated function Ex helps restore
the accuracy of sinh x for small .x
n
1 1x
xe
dx
0
Stewart:Calculus,
ANSWERS
S Click here for

solutions.
1.3. 0 5. (a) 4.82549424 1011
9. (b) 1, x 3 3x 4 0

reserved.
Stewart:Calculus,
SOLUTIONS
1. The computer results are from Maple, with Digits:=16. The last column shows the values of the sixth-degree
Taylor polynomial for near . Note that the second arrangement of Taylor’s polynomial is
easier to use with a calculator:
computer
calculator Taylor
100 or 200
10,000 or
20,000
1,000,000 0
We see that the calculator results start to deteriorate seriously at , and for smaller , they are entirely
meaningless. The different results “100 or 200” etc. depended on whether we calculated or
. With Maple, the result is off by more than 10% when (compare with the calculator
result!) A detailed analysis reveals that the values of the function are always greater than , but the computer
eventually gives results less than .
The polynomial was obtained by patient simplication of the expression for , starting with
, where . Consequently, the exact

value of the limit is . It can also be obtained by several applications of l’Hospital’s Rule to the expression
with intermediate simplications.
Sixth Edition. ISBN:0495011606. © 2008 Brooks/Cole. All rights reserved.

3. From (We may assume ; Why?), we have and
. This derivative, as well as the derivative itself, is positive for
, and negative for . Hence the maximum value of is

Stewart:Calculus,
, a number too large to be calculated directly. Using decimal logarithms,
, so that . The actual value of the limit is ;
it would be wasteful and inelegant to use l’Hospital’s Rule twenty-ve times since we can transform into
, and the inside expression needs just one application of l’Hospital’s Rule to give 0.
5. , we need .
, where .
(b) Let’s estimate . Since 00 increases (its absolute value decreases), we

have .
7. (a) The 11-digit calculator value of , while the value (on the same device) of before
rationalization is , which is less than the trigonometric result.
but of course we can avoid repetitious calculations by storing intermediate results in a memory:
, and so
According to this formula, a calculator gives , which is within of the trigonometric
result. With Digits:=16;, Maple gives before rationalization (off the trig result by
about after rationalization (error of about ), a gain of
about one digit of accuracy for rationalizing. If we sets Digits:=100;, the difference between Maple’s
Stewart:Calculus,
calculation of and the radical is only about .
9. (a) Let .
Then . Substitute into the formula
where we replace :
which almost yields the given formula; since replacing results in replacing , a simple discussion of
the cases allows us to replace in the denominator, so that it involves only positive
numbers. The problems mentioned in the introduction to this exercise have disappeared.
(b) A direct attack works best here. To save space, let , so we can rationalize, using
and (check it!):
and we cube the expression for ,

, so that the only real root is . A check using the formula
from part (a): , and
, which simplies to the given form.

11. Proof that : From it follows that , and integration gives
, that is, , and since
, it follows from the Squeeze Theorem that . Of course, the expression

on the left side could have been replaced by 0 and the proof would still be correct.
Calculations: Using the formula ! with an 11-digit calculator:
0 7 14
1 8 15
2 9 16
3 10 17
4 11 18
5 12 19
6 13 20
It is clear that the values calculated from the direct reduction formula will diverge to . If we instead calculate
using the reduction formula in Maple (with Digits:=16), we get some odd results: ,
, for examples. But for larger , the results are at least small and positive (for example,
, we get the delightful objecttoolarge error message. If, instead of using the
reduction formula, we integrate directly with Maple, the results are much better.
13. We can start by expressing in terms of ), where to make

continuous at 0 (by l’Hospital’s Rule). Namely, and
, where the addition involves only positive numbers
, thus presenting no loss of accuracy due to subtraction.
Another form, which calls the function only once:
We write , taking advantage of the fact
that is an even function, so replacing does not change its value.

Stewart:Calculus,

Calc 8E Liesmycomp Stu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Calc 8E Liesmycomp Stu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Calc 8E Liesmycomp Stu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LIES MY CALCULATOR AND COMPUTER TOLD ME

■ See Section 1.4 for a

Sixth Edition. ISBN:0495011606. © 2008 Brooks/Cole. All rights

A wide variety of pocket-size calculating devices are

PRELIMINARY EXPERIMENTS WITH YOUR CALCULATOR OR

To have a first look at the limitations and quality of

You might have operation. The difficulty is similar to this thought

The name of this phenomenon is “loss of significant digits.” To

The approximations from my calculator are

8721s3 15105.21509 and

and so we get 8721s3 10,681s2

(work out the details!) and now the loss of

long enough using a calculator, you will end

WHERE CALCULUS IS MORE POWERFUL

One of the secrets of success of calculus in

culated value may be different. Try it with

Sixth Edition. ISBN:0495011606. © 2008 Brooks/Cole. All rights

and “the error is less than the first

which is a convergent -series (p p 1.001

1.001 y 1.001 1000

machine; explain how (assuming fa f cb a

the text, exactly how many terms

4. What is a numerically reliable

s1 cos x, especially when x is a

5. Try to evaluate p 96s2 s2 s2 s2 s3

For a user of a pocket-size If the result is simple,

fx f further calculations (after

be represented exactly in a formulas. To

13. An advanced calculator has a

gives inaccurate results for small ,

S Click here for

Sixth Edition. ISBN:0495011606. © 2008 Brooks/Cole. All rights

eventually gives results less than .

, where . Consequently, the exact

with intermediate simplications.

Sixth Edition. ISBN:0495011606. © 2008 Brooks/Cole. All rights reserved.

. This derivative, as well as the derivative itself, is positive for

, and negative for . Hence the maximum value of is

, a number too large to be calculated directly. Using decimal logarithms,

, so that . The actual value of the limit is ;

(b) Let’s estimate . Since 00 increases (its absolute value decreases), we

Sixth Edition. ISBN:0495011606. © 2008 Brooks/Cole. All rights reserved.

about after rationalization (error of about ), a gain of

calculation of and the radical is only about .

and we cube the expression for ,

, which simplies to the given form.

, that is, , and since

, it follows from the Squeeze Theorem that . Of course, the expression

Calculations: Using the formula ! with an 11-digit calculator:

13. We can start by expressing in terms of ), where to make

, where the addition involves only positive numbers

We write , taking advantage of the fact

that is an even function, so replacing does not change its value.

You might also like