1

Attached are scans from my book. One of my homework problems requires me to let $f(x)=(x^2-1)^2$ for $-1 \leq x \leq 1$. I am using the book's example (Example 5) as a guideline, but it is driving me crazy because it is skipping steps.

enter image description here enter image description here

I need to verify that $f(x)$ satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 2. How many terms of Fourier Series $f(x)$ suffice to approximate $f(x)$ to within an error of $.001$ according to theorem 2.

First I need to check that my $f(x)$ satisfies the theorem, by taking second order derivatives and finding my max.

$f(x) = (x^2-1)^2$

$f(1) = (1^2-1)^2 \rightarrow 0^2 = 0$

$f(-1) = ((-1)^2-1)^2 \rightarrow (1-1)^2 \rightarrow 0^2=0$

$f'(x) = (x^2-1)4x$

$f'(1) = (0)4(1)=0$

$f'(-1) = (1-1)(-4) =0$

$f''(x) = (x^2-1)(4)+4x(2x)$

$f''(x) = 4x^2-4+8x^2 \rightarrow 12x^2-4$

$f''(1) = 12-4 = 8$

$f''(-1) = 12(-1)^2 - 4 = 12(1)-4=12-4=8$

My max is 8, but I don't understand how the book calculated $N$. I want to use the second notion where the book has $N >$ some number but I don't see how they approximate it to be 244 in the example.

Can someone please explain what the book is doing?

usukidoll
  • 2,074
  • Curious: what is the title/author of this text? – JohnD Oct 17 '14 at 04:08
  • @JohnD it's called Basic Partial Differential Equations by Bleecker and Csordas. These two authors are doing pdes an entirely different way than other books. Every section of the book is painful to do....anyway the problem I'm doing is related to the example and I am using the example as a guideline. However, I don't understand how they got $N$ to be approximately 244 when it is singled out. I understand the theorem though...just not when it's being solved. >:/ – usukidoll Oct 17 '14 at 04:09
  • @JohnD Do you know what the book is doing or is it making you confused? Just curious...I know it's really one of those I'm skipping steps book ha ha things. grrrrr... – usukidoll Oct 17 '14 at 04:18

1 Answers1

1

So you are clear about the displayed equation that says $$ {4(1)^2\cdot 6\over \pi^2 N} <0.01 $$ ?

If so, they are simply solving the inequality for the smallest integer $N$ which makes it true:

\begin{align*} {4(1)^2\cdot 6\over \pi^2 N} <0.01 &\implies {24\over \pi^2 N}<0.01\\ &\implies {\pi^2 N\over 24}>100\\ &\implies N>{2400\over \pi^2}\approx 243.17\text{ so take } N>244. \end{align*}

Do the same with your inequality: \begin{align*} {4\cdot 1^2\cdot 8\over \pi^2 N}<0.001&\implies {32\over \pi^2 N}<0.001\\ &\implies {\pi^2 N\over 32}>1000\\ &\implies N>{32000\over \pi^2}\approx 3242.28\\ &\implies N>3243. \end{align*}

JohnD
  • 14,392
  • for 32,000... did you get it by multiplying 32 by .001? or did you convert the 0.001 to 1000 and then multiplying it? – usukidoll Oct 17 '14 at 04:22
  • See if the edit helps. – JohnD Oct 17 '14 at 04:26
  • ah I see where this is going.... on the second part when you have the 1000 by itself.. then I just have rearrange the formula to make N by itself and solve it, but I still don't understand how 0.001 becomes 1000 unless I multiply 0.001 by 1,000,000. – usukidoll Oct 17 '14 at 04:28
  • On the second implication on the bottom set of calculations, I took the reciprocal of both sides... Of course $1/.001=1000$. – JohnD Oct 17 '14 at 04:29
  • of course XD that's basic math! ha ha. ummm I was wondering are you also good at proof writing because I sort of got an idea on where this problem is going but at the same time I am kind of stuck... it is also based off of Theorem 1 and a proposition, but just typing it Latex style will take forever. Can I just scan it here? – usukidoll Oct 17 '14 at 04:33
  • here is the attempt I have in my notebook along with the question https://www.dropbox.com/s/ey3pthb6oi9gdm8/Scan-141016-0004.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/qj5g8396x09v0pv/Scan-141016-0005.jpg?dl=0 – usukidoll Oct 17 '14 at 04:50