Improving the rate of convergence of some Newton-like methods for the solution of nonlinear equations containing a nondifferentiable term

Abstract

Authors

Ioannis K. Argyros
(Cameron University, USA)

Emil Cătinaş
(Tiberiu Popoviciu Institute of Numerical Analysis, Romanian Academy)

Ion Păvăloiu
(Tiberiu Popoviciu Institute of Numerical Analysis, Romanian Academy)

Keywords

chord/secant method; semilocal convergence; r-convergence order.

Cite this paper as:

I. Argyros, E. Cătinaş, I. Păvăloiu, Improving the rate of convergence of some Newton-like methods for the solution of nonlinear equations containing a nondifferentiable term, Rev. Anal. Numér. Théor. Approx., 27 (1998) no. 2, pp. 191-202.

PDF

Scanned paper: on the journal website.

Latex-pdf version of the paper.

About this paper

Print ISSN

1222-9024

Online ISSN

2457-8126

MR

?

ZBL

?

Google Scholar citations

[1] K. Argyros, On the solution of equations with nondifferentiable operators and the Ptak error estimates, BIT, 30 (1990), pp. 752-754.

[2] I. K. Argyros, On the solution of nonlinear equations with a nondifferentiable term, Rev. Anal. Numer. Theor. Approx., 22 (1993) 2, pp. 125-135.

[3] I. K. Argyros, On some iterative methods for solving nonlinear equations with a nondifferentiable term of order between 1.618… and 1.839. (submitted to this joumal).

[4] I. K. Arglros, and F. Szidarovszky, The Theory and Application of lteration Method, CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, 1993.

[5] E. Cătinaș, On some iterative methods for solving nonlinear equations, Rev. Anal. Numer. Theor. Approx., 23, I (1994), pp. 47-53.

[6] G. Goldner, and M. Balazs, Remarks on divided differences and method of chords, Rev. Anal. Numer. Theor. Approx., 3, I (1974), pp. 19-30.

[7] L. V. Kantorovich, The method of successive approximation for functional equations, Acta Math. 71 (1939), pp. 63-97.

[8] J. M. Ortega and W. C. Rheinboldt, Iterative Solution of Nonlinear Equations in Several Variables, Academic Press, New York, 1970.

[9] I. Păvăloiu, Sur une generalisation de la methode de Steffensen, Rev. Anal. Numer. Theor. Approx., 21, 1 (1992), pp. 59-65.

[10] I. Păvăloiu, A convergence theorem concerning the chord methods, Rev. Anal. Numer. Theor. Approx., 22, 1 (1993), pp. 83-85.

[11] F. A, Potra, On an iterative algorithm of order 1.839 . . . for solving nonlinear equations, Numer. Funct. Anal. Optimiz. 7, I (1984-1985), pp. 75-106.

[12] T. Yamamoto and X. Chen, Convergence domains of certain iterative methods for solving nonlinear equations, Numer. Funct. Anal. Optimiz. 10, 1 and 2 (1989), pp.37-48.

Paper (preprint) in HTML form

Improving the rate of convergence of some Newton-Like methods for the solution of nonlinear equations containing A nondifferentiable term

Improving the rate of convergence of some Newton-Like methods for the solution of nonlinear equations containing A nondifferentiable term

Ioannis K. Argyros, Emil Cătinaş, Ion Păvăloiu

subsol: AMS (MOS) Subject Classification: 65J15, 65G99, 47H15, 49D15.

1 Introduction

In this study we are concerned with the problem of approximating a locally unique solution x of a nonlinear equation

F(x)+G(x)=0 (1)

where F,G are defined on a closed convex subset D of a Banach space E1 with values in a Banach space E2. The operator F is Fréchet-differentiable on D whereas G is only continuous there.

We use the Newton-Like method given by

xn+1=xn+An1(F(xn)+G(xn))(n0) (2)

to generate a sequence {xn}(n0) converging to x. Here An is a linear operator approximating F(xn)(n0). Sufficient conditions for the convergence of (2) to x have given by several authors ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5],[7], [8], [11] and [12]). Recently, Cătinaş in [5] has used (2) for

An=F(xn)+[xn1,xn;G](n1), (3)

where [x,y;G] denotes a divided difference of order one of G on D for x,yE1. This way Cătinaş has managed to show that the order of convergence denoted by λlies in [1+52,2]. Cătinaş has also showed that iteration (2) is faster than iterations appearing in [1],[2], [4], [5], [7], [8],[11] and [12] for choices of An other than the one given by (3).

In [3] we used (2) for

An=[xn,xn1;F]+[xn2,xn;F][xn2,xn1;F]+[xn1,xn;G](n0). (4)

We showed that λ[1+52,1.839]. Sufficient conditions were also provided under which our error bounds are sharper than all previous ones (in particular those in [5]). We also note that our method is cheaper to use than that in [5].

In this study we have made a further attempt to improve the rate of convergence of iteration (2) by choosing An appropriately. Sufficient convergence conditions as well as an error analysis have been provided.

Finally we show that our error bounds are smaller than all earlier ones ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and[12]).

2 Convergence analysis

We need the following definitons on divided differences [4], [9], [10].

Definition 1

An operator denoted by [x0,y0;H] belonging to the space L(D,E2),DE1 (the Banach space of bounded linear operators from E1 to E2 is called the first order divided difference of the operator H:DE2 at the points x0,y0D if the following hold:

(a)
[x0,y0;H](y0x0)=H(y0)H(x0),forx0y0. (5)
(b)

If H is Fréchet-differentiable at x0D, then [x0,x0;H]=H(x0).

Definition 2

An operator denoted by [x0,y0,z0;H] belonging to the space L(D,L(D,E2)) is called the second order divided difference of the operator H:DE1E2 at the points x0,y0,z0D if the following hold:

(a)
[x0,y0,z0;H](z0x0)=[y0,z0;H][x0,y0;H]. (6)
(b)

If H is twice Fréchet-differentiable at x0D, then

[x0,x0,x0;H]=12H′′(x0).

We can prove the following semilocal result concerning the convergence of iteration (2).

Theorem 3

Assume that there exist points x0,x1D and nonnegative real numbers R, ε and m such that:

(a)

U(x1,R)={xE1|xx1R}D;

(b)

the operators F,G have divided differences of order one denoted by [x,y;F] and [x,y;G] respectively for all x,yU(x1,R);

(c)

the linear operators An are invertible for all n0 and

An1Bnpnxn1xn2+qxnxn1=εn(n1),

for some nonnegative sequences {pn}, {qn}(n1) with

pn+qnε(n1),

where

Bn=[xn1,xn;F]+[xn1,xn;G]An1(n1),
(d)

the points x0,x1 satisfy x1x0m;

(e)

the following conditions hold:

x2x1x1x2, (7)

with x2 given by (2) for n=1,

r=mε<1, (8)
Rmrk=1rk, (9)
rk=rsk,(k0), (10)

where {sk} is the Fibonacci’s sequence

s0=s1=1,sk+1=sk+sk1,(k0). (11)

Then

(i)

the sequence {xn}(n0), generated by (2) is well defined, remains in U(x0,R) and converges to a solution xU(x0,R) of the equation F(x)+G(x)=0;

(ii)

the following a priori error estimated hold

xxnmtnr(1tn1),(n1), (12)

where

tn=r5,(n1)and =1+52; (13)
(iii)

moreover, if there exists a nonnegative number g such that

An1Bng<1,(n1), (14)

where

Bn=[y,xn;F]+[y,xn;G]An,(n1), (15)

with y satisfying

F(y)+G(y)=0and yU(x0,R),

then

x=y.

Proof. We shall show by induction that, for all n2

xnU(x1,R), (16)
xnxn1xn1xn2 (17)

and

xnxn1mrrn1. (18)

For n=2 relations (16)-(18) follow from hypothses (d) and (e). Suppose relations (16)-(18) hold for n=2,3,k, where k2. Since xk,xk1U(x1,R) and Ak is invertible, via (2) we can compute xk+1. Using (2), we can obtain the approximation

F(xk)+G(xk) =F(xk)+G(xk)F(xk1)G(xk1)Ak1(xkxk1)= (19)
=([xk1,xk;F]+[xk1,xk;G]Ak1)(xkxk1)=
=Bk(xkxk1)by (16))

By (2), (7??), (8???) and (19) we get

xk+1xkεkxkxk1εxk1xk2xkxk1. (20)

From the induction hypothese, (20) give on the one hand, that

xn+1xkεrrk2mxkxk1=rk2xkxk1<xkxk1,

that is, (17) for n=k+1, and, on the other hand

xk+1xkrk2xkxk1rk2rk1mr=mrrk,

which shows (18) for n=k+1.

We must also show that xk+1U(x1,R). Indeed, from the induction hypotheses and the triangle inequality we get

xk+1x1x2x1+x3x2++xk+1xkmrj=1krk<R.

We must show that sequence {xn}(n0) is Cauchy. We have that the Fibonacci’s sequence {sk}(k0) given by (11) can also be written as

sk=15[(1+52)k+1(152)]15(1+52)κ=k5(k1).

Therefore, for any k1,j1 we get

xk+jxk xk+1xk+xk+2xk+1++xk+jxk+j1
mrj=kk+j1rimri=kk+j1rl5.

Moreover, by Bernoulli’s inequality we get

xk+jxk mrrk5[1+rk+1k5+rk+25++rk+j1k5] (21)
mrrk5[1+rl(1)5+rk[1+2(1)1]5++r[1+(j1)(1)1]5]
=mrrk51rvk15j1rl(1)5(k1).

By (8)and (21) it follows that the sequence {xn}(n0) is Caucchy in a Banch space E1, and so it converges to some point xU(x1,R) (since U(x1,R) is a closed set). By letting n in (2), we obtain F(x)+G(x)=0; that is, xU(x1,R) is a solution of equation (1). Moreover, by letting j in (21) we obtain (12).

Furhermore, to show that x is the unique solution of equation (1) in U(x1,R), let us assume that yU(x1,R) is a solution of equation (1) too.

xk+1y =xkyXk1(F(xk)+G(xk))= (22)
=Ak1[F(xk)F(y)+G(xk)GyAk(xky)]=
=Ak1Bk(xky),

and hypothesis (14), we get

xk+1y Ak1Bkxky (23)
gxkygkx1ygkR.

Since 0g<1, by letting k in (23) we get limkxk=y. But we have also showed that limkxk=x. Hence, we deduce x=y.

That completes the proof of the Theorem.  

Remark 4

Let us consider some special choices for the linear operators An. Set

An=[xn,yn;F]+[hn,zn;F][hn,zn1;F]+[vn,xn;G](n0), (24)

where the sequences {yn}, {zn}, {vn}, {hn}U(x1,R)(n0) are given by

yn =xn+αn(xn1xn),zn=zn1βn(xn1xn),z1=x1U(x1,R),
vn =xn+yn(xn1xn)(n0),

for some linear operator sequence {αn}, {βn} and {γn}(n0) with γn0 (n0). Assume that there exist nonnegative numbers a,b,c and a real sequence {an} (n0) such that for all x,y,v,w,zU(x1,R)

A01([x,y;F][v,w;F])v(xv+yw) (25)
An1A0ana(n0), (26)

and

An1[x,y,z;G]c, (27)

where [x,y,z;G] is the divided difference of order two of G on U(x1,R). Then form the approximation

G(xn)G(xn1)[vn1,xn1;G](xnxn1)=
=([xn1;G][vn1,xn1;G])(xnxn1)=
=[vn1,xn1,xn;G](xnvn1)(xnxn1),

hypotheses (25), (26) and (27) we get

A01(G(xn)G(xn1)[vn1,xn1;G](xnxn1))
cxnvn1xnxn1
c(xnvn1+γnxn1xn2)xnxn1(n0).

The sequence {an}(n1) can be computed as follows. Let us assume that there exist c¯0 such that

A01([x,y;G][v0,x0;G])c¯(xv0+yx0), (28)

for all x,y,v0,x0U(x1,R). Then from the approximation

A01(AnA0)=A01{[xn,yn;F]+[hn,zn;G][hn,zn1;G]+
+[vn,xn;G][x0,y0;F][h0,z0;F]+[h0,z1;F][v0,x0;G]},

we can get as before

A01(AnA0)a¯n(n1),

where

a¯n =b(xnx0+yny0+2hnh0+znz0+zn1z1)+
+c¯(vnx0+xnx0)(n1),

and a¯n<1 if the function a(r)=(11b+2c¯)r+(b+2c¯)m satisfies

a(R)<1, (29)

since

a¯na(R)(n1).

It follows from the Banach lemma on invertible operators that An1 exists (n1) and

An1A0(1a¯n)1.

We can now set an=(1a¯n)(n1) and a=(1(R))1. Moreover, from the approximation

F(xn)F(xn1)
([xn1,yn1;F]+[hn1,zn1;F][hn1,zn1;F])(xnxn1)
=([xn1,xn;F][xn1,yn1;F][xn1,zn1;F])+[xn1,zn2;F])(xnxn1),

hypothese (25), (26), and (27) and (28) we also get

||A01{F(xn)F(xn1) (30)
([xn1,yn1:F]+[hn1,zn1;F][hn1,zn2;F])(xnxn1)}||
b(xnyn1+zn1zn2)xnxn1
b(xnxn1+αn1+βn1xn2xn1)xnxn1(n1).

Define the sequences {dn}, {δn} (n1) by

dn=(b+c)anand δn=an(c||γn||+b(||αn||+||βn||)](n0). (31)
xn+1xn(dnxnxn1+δnxn1xn2)xnxn1(n1). (32)

Hence we can set

pn=δnand dn=qn(n0). (33)

We can impose additional conditions on the sequences {αn}, {βn} and {γn} (n0)that will guarantee that {yn}, {zn}, {vn}U(x1,R). Let us assume that there exist nonnegative numbers α, β, and γ such that

αna,βnβand γnγ(n0).

Then, from the approximations

ynx1 =(xnx1)+αn(xn1xn)
vnx1 =(xnx1)+γn(xn1xn)
znx1 =(xn1x1)+βn(xn1xn),

we can have

xnx1+αnxn1xnmri=1n1ri+mαrrn1, (34)
vnx1+γnxn1xnmri=1n1ri+mγrrn1, (35)

and

znx1z1x1+βi=0n1xixi1z1x1+βmri=0n1ri. (36)

Hence yn,vn,znU(x1,R)(n0) if the right hand sider of the last three inequalities are respectively bounded above by R.

Finally, the uniqueness of the solution x can be extended in the ball U(x1,R1) for R1R provided that the following inequality holds

g=(5(b+c¯)R+(b+c)R1+2mc¯)(1a(R))1<1. (37)

Indeed, as in (22) we get

Bn =([y,xn;F][xn,yn;F])+([y,xn;G][x0,v0;G])+
+([x0,v0;G][vn,xn;G])+([hn,zn1;F][hn,zn;F]).

Composing both sides of the above approximation by A01, we easily deduce that A01Bk (in norm) is bounded above by the expression in the bracket of inequality (37). Hence, as in the proff of the Theorem, we deduce x=y.

Concluding, we note that we have showed: if hypotheses (c) of the Theorem are replaced by (24), (25), (26), (27), (28) and (37), then the conclusions of the Theorem hold in the ball U(x1,R1).

Remark 5

Iteration (2) reduces to (4) considered in [5] if the linear operators {An}(n0) are given by (24) for αn=0, γn=I, βn=0, zn=0 (n0).

Using the notation introduced in [5], we can set

εn1=MKxn1xn2+M(2+K)xnxn1(n2). (38)

Hence our error bounds (12) will be smaller than those in [5] , say if (see also (33)).

pnMKand qn(M2+K)(n2) (39)

and our initial error bounds x1x0 are not greater than those in [5]. The choice of pn,qn given by (33) shows that conditions (39) will be true if an,αn,βn and γn(n0) are ”small” enough.

Remark 6

Moreover, iteration (2) reduces to (1) considered in [11] if the linear operators {An}(n0) are given by (24) for G=0, αn=I, βn=I, zn=xn and hn=xn2(n0). Using the notation introduced in [11] we can set

εn2=q0xn3xn1xn2xn1+p0xnxn1(n1). (40)

Hence our error bounds (12) will be smaller in this case, say if

pnxn3xn1and qnp0(n1). (41)

Observations similar to those made at the end of Remark 2 can now follows.

Remark 7

Furthermore, iteration (2) reduces to (5) considered in [3] if the linear operators {An}(n0) are given by (24) for

αn=I,βn=0,γn=I,zn=xn,hn=xn2(n0).

Using the notation introduced in [3], we can set

εn3=(c4+c2xn3xn1)xn1xn2+(x1+c4)xnxn1(n1). (42)

Hence our bounds will be smaller in this case say if

pnc4+c2xn3xn1and qnc1+c4(n1). (43)
Remark 8

Our results extend to included perturbed Newton-like methods of the form

xn+1=xnAn1(F(xn)+G(xn))wn(n0). (44)

The points {wn}(n0) are determined in such a way that interation {xn} (n0) converges to a solution x of equation (1). The import;ance of studying perturbed Newton-like methods comes from the fact that many commonly used variants of Newton’s method can be considered procedures of this type. Indeed, approximation (44) characterizes any iterative process in which corrections are taken as approximate solutions of Newton equations. We also note that if, for example, an equation on the real is solved, F(xn)>0(n0), and A(xn)(n0) overestimates the derivative xnAn1F(xn), is always larger than the corresponding Newton iterate. In such cases, a positive wn(n0) correction term is appropriate. Let us assume that there exists a real sequence {u}(n0) such that

An(wn)An(wn1)un(n1). (45)

Moreover, there exist real sequences {n}, {mn} (n0) such that

un(nxn1xn2+mnxnxn1)xnxn1(n1). (46)

Set

p¯n=pn+nand q¯n=qn+mn(n1).

Furthermore, assume that sequence {wn}(n0) is null. Finally, assume that the rest of the hypotheses of the Theorem are true with p¯n,q¯n replacing pn, qn (n1), respectively. Then it can easily be seen that the conclusions of the Theorem will hold for the perturbed Newton-Like method generated by (44). Indeed, for example, approximation (19) will read

F(xk)+G(x)+Ak(wk)=[Bk+(Ak(wk)Ak1(wk1))](xkxk1)(n1)

and by using the proof of the theorem, (45) and (46) we can arrive at (20). The rest is left to the motivated reader.

Remark 9

The selection of the points {yn}, {zn}, {vn} (n0) can be generalized to include a wider range of problems. Let T1, T2, T3:DE1E2 begiven operators. Define for all n0 yn=T1(xn), znzn1=T2(xn), z1=x1U(x1,R)D and vn=T3(xn). For this choice of T1,T2and T3 iteration (2)becomes a Steffensen-like method ([8], [9] and [10]). Moreover, operators T1, T2 and T3 must be chosen so that estimte (7??) be true. See how this is done, for example, in Remark 1.

References

  • [1] I. K. Argyros, On the solution of equations with nondifferentiable operators and the Ptak error estimates, BIT, 30 (1990), 752-754.
  • [2] I. K. Argyros, On the solution of nonlinear equations with a nodifferentiable term, Rev. Anal. Numér. Théorie Approximation 22, 2(1993), 125-135.
  • [3] I. K. Argyros, On some iterative methods for solving nonlinear equations with a nondifferentiable term of order between 1.618…and 1.839…(sumitted to this journal).
  • [4] I. K. Argyros, and F. Szidarovszky, The Theory and Application of Iteration Methods, C.R.C., Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, 1993.
  • [5] E. Cătinaş, On some iterative method for solving nonlinear equations, Rev. Anal. Numér. Theorie Approximation 23, 1 (1994), 47-53.
  • [6] G. Goldner, and M. Balazs, Remarks on divided differences and method of chords, Rev. Anal. Numér Theorie Approximation 3, 1 (1974), 19-30.
  • [7] L. V. Kantorovich, The method of succesive approximation for functional equations, Acta. Math. 71 (1939), 63-97.
  • [8] J. M. Ortega and W. C. Rheinboldt, Iterative Solution of Nonlinear Equations in Several Variables, Academic Press, New York, 1970.
  • [9] I. Păvăloiu, Sur une généralisation de la méthod de Steffensen, Rev. Anal. Numér. Theorie Approximation 21, 1 (1972), 59-65.
  • [10] I. Păvăloiu, A convergence theorem concerning the chord methods, Rev. Anal. Numér. Theorie Approximation 22, 1 (1993), 83-85.
  • [11] F. A. Potra, On an iterative algorithm of order 1.839…for solving nonlinear equations, Numer. Funct. Anal. Optimiz. 7, 1 (1984-1985), 75-106.
  • [12] T. Yamamoto and X. Chen, Convergence domains of certain iterative methods for solving nonlinear equations, Numer. Funct. Anal. Optimix. 10, 1 and 2 (1989), 37-48.

Received August 10, 1996      Ioannis K. Argyros

Cameron University

Department of Mathematics

Lawton, OK 73505, U.S.A.

Emil Cătinaş and Ion Păvăloiu

Institutul de Calcul ”Tiberiu Popoviciu”

Str. Republicii Nr.37

C.P. 68, 3400 Cluj-Napoca, Romania

1998

Related Posts