Sign up ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

For my own exercising I tried to find a closed form expression for the Newton-approximation algorithm, beginning with the simple example for getting the squareroot of some given $ \small z^2 $ by recursion according to $$ \small x_0 = 1 \qquad x_{k+1} = \left( {z^2 \over x_k}+x_k \right)/2 $$ where only $ \small z^2 $ is known and z is sought by $ \small z = \lim_{k \to \infty} x_k$.

After expanding some iterations in symbolic variables I got the pattern for a closed form $$ \small x_k = z{ (z+x_0)^{2^k} + (z-x_0)^{2^k} \over (z+x_0)^{2^k} - (z-x_0)^{2^k} } $$ which might further be compacted to $$ \small x_k = z \cdot \left(1 - { 2\over 1- \left({ z+x_0 \over z-x_0 }\right)^{2^k} } \right) $$ If z is known then this is a nice form for fractionally iterating the original recursion; given some $ \small x_0$ and $ \small \sqrt{z^2}$ I can plot the function and see the quality of approximation by a smooth curve (its logarithm shows a parabola), ... but the requirement is obviously from the statement of the problem (" find the squareroot of z ") that z should occur in even powers only.

Well, if I expand the first version of the two closed forms then only the binomial coefficients at even order in the numerator and at odd order in the denominator remain (where the z at the beginning of the formula cancels against one occurence in the denominator) and thus I've to deal with the given $ \small z^2$ only. However, then I have variable number of terms for varying k and for fractional k their number is even infinite, so this is not the final solution where I'm after.

I might overlook something trivial, but how could I reformulate this such that I get even powers of z only and still have an expression, where k can be taken fractional?

Just a short addendum Sep 18. The Kalantari-paper has the formula a bit different; significant is a sign-change(I'll have to check my other derivation again) such that I should assume the more correct form: $$ \small x_k = z{ (x_0+z)^{2^k} + (x_0-z)^{2^k} \over (x_0+z)^{2^k} - (x_0-z)^{2^k} } $$ This can be reformulated into the surprising form, where k is the index of iterations if the Newton-formula is employed: $$ \small {x_k-z \over x_k+z}= \left( {x_0-z \over x_0+z}\right)^{2^k}$$

This form has the interesting property, that -once $ \small \left| x_0-z \right| <1 $ - then it is immediately visible, that each iteration approximates zero with quadratic error reduction, simply because of the repeated squaring of the small numerator.

[update] While for integer-indexed iterations the sign-question is irrelevant (and the significant terms in the binomial expansions cancel, so the effect is invisible) this is not so for the 0'th iteration: then the numerators and denominators of the lhs and rhs should be equal, so the Kalantari-sign-scheme was the meaningful one.

share|cite|improve this question
I'll just note that your closed form is the same as what Kalantari derived in his paper (and also generalizes, e.g. the Halley iterates are obtained by replacing the $2^k$ with $3^k$ in the expression you gave). It doesn't look to me that there's a neat way to express the iterates such that you are dealing with $z^2$ instead of $z$... – J. M. Aug 31 '11 at 16:33
@J.M.:very nice! Unfortunately no access to the article further than the first page. (But the polynomial art at Professor Kalantari's site is marvelous!) – Gottfried Helms Aug 31 '11 at 18:48
Yeah, Polynomiography looks quite fun, and I'd probably be doing it if I had more time on my hands. On the article: I can hook you up with a copy; I've tried looking for your e-mail address in your home page yet I can't seem to find it... – J. M. Aug 31 '11 at 18:54
It's not really that different; remember that you're raising to an even exponent, and since $(-1)^{2n}=1$... ;) – J. M. Sep 18 '11 at 22:47
@J.M.:true; but remember, I'm considering fractional iteration (or: a continuous function in k), so 2^k is not always even. But setting k=0 gives a decisive answer. – Gottfried Helms Sep 18 '11 at 22:57

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.