Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Comparison of absolute percentage error of Algorithms 1, 2 and 3 in hitting right BCs f (1) = 0_4, f″(1) = 0 and θ′(1) = 0_
| Algo | Ab err (%) f | Ab err (%) f″ | Ab err (%) θ′ |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5.999999999950489 × 10−4 | 0.0041000 | 0.0168000 |
| 2 | 2 × 10−4 | 0.0014000 | 0.0013000 |
| 3 | 0.0000000000 | 0.0000000 | 0.0000000 |
Comparison of Algorithms 1, 2 and 3 and their absolute percentage error and number of iterations in hitting conditions θ (10) = 0_
| Algo | t | s | θ | IT | CPU time [s] | Abs err (%) θ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.414213562373132 | 1.350383812070473 | 0.0000031736 | 69 | 4.173 | 3.1736 ×10−4 |
| 2 | 2.414213562373139 | 1.350376073781895 | 0.0000001639 | 32 | 2.039 | 1.6390 ×10−5 |
| 3 | 2.414213562373149 | 1.350375652724329 | 0.0000000000 | 12 | 1.113 | 0.0000000000 |
Comparison of Algorithms 1, 2 and 3 in hitting right BCs f (1) = 0_4, f″(1) = 0 and θ′(1) = 0_
| Algo | t | s | f | f″ | θ′ | No. of IT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −2.6809589589908 | −3.5959727116775 | 0.400006 | 0.000041 | 0.000168 | 21 |
| 2 | −2.6809636175929 | −3.5959908500960 | 0.400002 | 0.000014 | 0.000013 | 10 |
| 3 | −2.6809659852767 | −3.5959915546254 | 0.400000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 4 |
Comparison of Algorithms 1, 2 and 3 and their absolute percentage errors and number of iterations (IT) in hitting conditions f′(10) = 0_
| Algo | t | s | f′ | IT | Abs err (%) f′ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.414213562379738 | 1.350433988415789 | 0.0000000059 | 4 | 5.90000000×10−7 |
| 2 | 2.414213558978872 | 1.350423606035475 | −0.0000030464 | 2 | 3.0464000×10−4 |
| 3 | 2.414213562373149 | 1.350401422589242 | 0.0000000000 | 1 | 0.0000000000 |