Mark Scheme

Final Mark Scheme

1 (i)

(ii)

x
f(x)
q(x)

2623/01

1
0
0

2
-4
-4

3
-3
-3

4
???
3

June 2004

5
8
14

x
f(x)
()
2()
3()
1
0
3
-3
-3
5
8
11
14
7
108
100
89
75
p(x) = 0 - 3(x-1)/2 + 14(x-1)(x-3)/(22.2!) + 75(x-1)(x-3)(x-5)/(23.3!)
p(4) =
-3.9375

verify:
[M1A1]
estimate:
[A1]
[subtotal 3]

other methods
may be used

[M1A2]
[M1A2]
[A1]
[subtotal 7]

(iii) The quadratic extrapolates (bad).

The cubic interpolates (good).
(iv)

[E1 for 'good' and 'bad', E1, E1 for reasons]

[subtotal 3]
A quintic would, in general, be a bad idea (over fitting) unless there was
some reason to suppose the data were (truly or approximately) quintic.
OR: In this case a quintic fits the data well so it would give a good
estimate of f(4).
[E1 statement, E1 reason]
[subtotal 2]
[TOTAL 15]

(i) x = (x+k/x)/2
2x2 = x2 + k
x2 = k
Root found has same sign as initial value.

[M1A1]
[A1]
[E1]
[subtotal 4]

f '(x) = 2x
(ii) f(x) = x2 k
NR: xr+1 = xr - (xr2 - k)/(2xr) = xr - xr/2 +
k/(2xr)
= xr/2 + k/(2xr) = (xr + k/xr) / 2

[B1]
[M1A1]
[A1]
[subtotal 4]

f '(x) = 3x2
(iii) f(x) = x3 - k
NR: xr+1 = xr - (xr3 - k)/(3xr2)
= (2xr + k/xr2) / 3
r
xr

0
1

[B1]
[M1A1]
(not required)

1
2
3
4
5
3.3333333 2.4622222 2.0813412 2.0031374 2.0000049

(6)
(2)

[M1]
[A3]
[-1 each error]
[subtotal 7]
[TOTAL 15]

Final Mark Scheme

3 (i)

2623/01

g(1) = {5.55, 5.65}

mpre is 0.05/5.55 = 0.0090090
function
1/g(1)
sqrt(g(1))
mpre (-)0.009
0.0045

June 2004

[M1A1]
g(1)2
0.018

(all approx), (follow through)

(ii) S = (0.1/3)(5.3 + 4 x 5.6 + 5.5) =

Smax = S + (0.1/3)(0.05 + 4 x 0.05 + 0.05) = S + 0.01 =
Smin = S - 0.01 =
Mpre = 0.01/1.09667 =
0.0091185

1.1066666
1.1166666
1.0966666

1
1.5
0.5
1

(iii) central difference

g'(1) = (5.5 - 5.3)/0.2 =

g'(1)max = (5.55 - 5.25)/0.2 =
g'(1)min = (5.45 - 5.35)/0.2 =
Mpre = 0.5/0.5 =

(iv) forward difference

g'(1) = (5.5 - 5.6)/0.1 =

-1
massively inaccurate: true value {0.5, 1.5}

[B1B1B1]
[subtotal 5]
[M1]
[A1]
[A1]
[A1]
[subtotal 4]
[M1]
[A1]
[A1]
[A1]
[subtotal 4]
[B1]
[E1]
[subtotal 2]
[TOTAL 15]

(i) M1 = sqrt(cos(0.5)) =
M2 = (sqrt(cos(0.25)) + sqrt(cos(0.75)))/2 =
M4 = (sqrt(cos(0.125)) + )/4 =
M8 = (sqrt(cos(0.0625)) + )/8 =
(ii) M1
M2
M4
M8

0.9367937
0.9198608
0.9154692
0.9143569

0.9367937
0.9198608
0.9154692
0.9143569

diffs
ratio
-0.0169329
-0.0043915 0.2593483
-0.0011123 0.2532868
differences reducing by a factor of 4 at each step
process is of order h2

(iii) Hence integral is aproximately 0.914357 - 0.00111 ( 1/4 + (1/16 + 1/64 + ))

= 0.913987
= 0.914 to 3sf (by comparison with M8)

[M1A1]
[M1A1]
[M1A1]
[M1A1]
[subtotal 8]

[M1A1]
[E1]
[E1]
[subtotal 4]
[M1]
[A1]
[B1]
[subtotal 3]
[TOTAL 15]

Examiners Report

Report on the Units taken in June 2004

2623/01 Numerical Methods

General Comments
The paper attracted many well prepared candidates. However, there were more candidates
than usual showing a lack of preparation, an inadequate grasp of the material, or an inability
to cope with the technical demands of the subject. The poor quality of much of the algebra
was particularly disturbing.

Comments on Individual Questions

Q.1

In part (i), candidates generally had little difficulty verifying the given results and
estimating f(4). A number chose to obtain the quadratic from the data rather than
check the data fitted the polynomial. This is a perfectly correct approach, but
somewhat more work than was intended.
Part (ii) attracted many good attempts, but there were quite a few elementary errors.
Amongst the most common were taking x0 as zero and taking h as 1.
In parts (iii) and (iv) there was some rather vague discussion offered in hope rather
than expectation. The essential points were to do with interpolation and extrapolation
in part (iii), and some consideration of using all the available data in part (iv).

Q.2

Very large numbers of candidates were unable to tackle the algebra in this question.
In part (i) the requirement was to reduce x = (x + k/x) to x2 = k, but this proved
beyond many. Even fewer could derive the Newton-Raphson formula in part (ii), the
usual error being to write (x2 k) as x2 k. Surely AS/A2 candidates should be
doing better than this.
In part (iii) some did very well, but others were totally adrift, apparently unable to see
the simple link with previous parts.
It was surprising that so few did this question well as it might be thought an obvious
teaching topic when dealing with the Newton-Raphson method.

Q.3

The obvious mistake, using the wrong denominator for maximum possible relative
error, was prevalent right from the start in this question.
In parts (i) and (ii) most candidates chose to recalculate everything at every stage
rather than to rely on knowledge and efficient methods. In part (i), it was enough to
quote results regarding relative error in reciprocals, squares and square roots. In
part (ii), it was quite easy to find the error in Simpsons rule without recalculating the
integral.
In part (iii) the estimate of g(1) and hence the true value lies between 0.5 and
1.5. In part (iv) the estimate comes to 1. It is therefore a little weak to suggest that
the latter might be wrong.

Q.4

Most, but by no means all, were able to evaluate the mid-point rule estimates in part
(i). In part (ii) the requirement was to look at the differences and the ratios of
differences. The fact that the ratios are about indicates that the mid-point rule has
second order convergence. Many candidates seemed to know this but expressed
themselves poorly.
In part (iii) the extrapolation and the rounding (to 3 s.f.) was usually done well.
1

Report on the Units taken in June 2004

Coursework: Numerical Methods

Most candidates chose numerical integration as the syllabus area for their task. In general,
candidates were proficient in applying the appropriate techniques, although they did not
always make it clear why they had chosen their selected method(s). A brief explanation is
expected if both marks are to be awarded in domain 2. Most applications were sufficiently
substantial to score full marks in Domain 3. However, some candidates stopped at, say T16
or T32, and then extrapolated to produce solutions which were quoted to unjustifiable levels
of accuracy. This was particularly noticeable with functions such as xx over the interval from
0 to 1, when the ratio of differences converges only slowly to 0.0625. In domain 4, an
annotated print-out of spreadsheet formulae is sufficient to score full marks. The last two
domains are still the most problematical for most candidates. Those who compare their
results with the real value (whether obtained analytically, by Derive/graphics calculator or is
simply their best estimate) do not generally deserve much credit. An attempt to improve
accuracy either by iteration or extrapolation is expected here, and the level of accuracy
quoted should be justified without reference to known values.
Some candidates chose an equation and solved it using one or more of the algorithms
studied in this unit. Whilst some of these tasks were both interesting and in context, it is
important for candidates to move substantially beyond Pure 2 work there is an inherent
danger of only nominally meeting the assessment criteria. Investigating the convergence
rate of the secant method gives enough scope in the error analysis section to score well.
A small number of candidates chose polynomial interpolation. Some very good work was
seen, but candidates need to be reminded that simply taking a set of points and fitting a
quintic, say, is unlikely to be worth very high marks unless there is a compelling argument
that the data are indeed quintic by nature.