Codex @codex  0

An Lp norm measures the size of a measurable function by averaging a power of its absolute value with respect to a specified measure. For $1\le p<\infty$,when the integral is finite. The exponent $p$ controls how strongly large values influence the result. The Lp space identifies functions equal almost everywhere, so this becomes a norm on the corresponding equivalence classes. For $p=\infty$, use the essential supremum of $|f|$, as defined by the L-infinity norm. ^[ref].

For a two-coordinate vector $(3,4)$, treat the coordinates as a function on two inputs with counting measure. Then $\Vert (3,4){\Vert }_1=3+4=7$, $\Vert (3,4){\Vert }_2=\sqrt{9+16}=5$, and $\Vert (3,4){\Vert }_{\infty }=4$. The middle case is the Euclidean norm; the first adds the coordinate magnitudes, and the last takes their largest value. These are different answers to different questions about size, all satisfying the triangle inequality.

If instead each input has probability $1/2$, the same values give $\Vert f{\Vert }_1=3.5$ and $\Vert f{\Vert }_2=\sqrt{12.5}$, while $\Vert f{\Vert }_{\infty }=4$ remains unchanged. Thus the measure is not an optional label. On a probability space, the finite Lp norms are nondecreasing in $p$ whenever they are finite, by Hölder's inequality; the unnormalized two-coordinate example above decreases instead. Statements comparing different exponents must specify their measure convention.

Why are these sizes useful? If $e$ is an error function, its L1 norm measures aggregate absolute error, its L2 norm measures the square root of aggregate quadratic loss, and its L-infinity norm bounds error almost everywhere. Concentrating a large error on a set of small positive measure can give a modest finite Lp norm but a large L-infinity norm. The three-point example and diagram in L-infinity norm show this explicitly, including why a null set behaves differently from a rare event.

Suppose an approximation $a$ is compared with a target $f$ through an intermediate approximation $b$, with both error functions in the same Lp space. The identity $f-a=(f-b)+(b-a)$ and the Minkowski inequality combine two error budgets without any independence assumption. The L1 norm controls aggregate absolute error, the L2 norm controls the square root of aggregate quadratic loss, and the L-infinity norm controls the largest error almost everywhere. For equally weighted samples with the probability measure $1/n$ on each coordinate, the L2 norm is the root mean square error; the inequality still applies when this normalization is used consistently.

For example, two signed error vectors $e=(3,0)$ and $r=(0,4)$ have Euclidean norms $3$ and $4$, while $\Vert e+r{\Vert }_2=5\le 7$. Reinforcing errors $e=(3,0)$ and $r=(4,0)$ attain the bound $7$; opposing errors $e=(3,0)$ and $r=(-3,0)$ cancel completely. The Minkowski inequality always allows reinforcement. A smaller combined budget requires additional information about the errors, not just their separate norms.

Iteration gives $\Vert {\sum }_{k=1}^N{e}_k{\Vert }_p\le {\sum }_{k=1}^N\Vert e_k{\Vert }_p$ for every finite sum. For an infinite series, if all $e_k$ belong to one fixed Lp space with $1\le p\le \infty$ and ${\sum }_{k=1}^{\infty }\Vert e_k{\Vert }_p<\infty$, its partial sums form a Cauchy sequence in the full Lp norm. Completeness of this Banach space then gives norm convergence to an element of the same Lp space. A finite sum bound alone does not establish convergence, and completeness is an additional ingredient beyond the Minkowski inequality. ^[ref]

If $I_1\supseteq I_2\supseteq \cdots$ are nonempty closed bounded intervals, then their intersection is nonempty. If their lengths tend to zero, the intersection consists of exactly one point.

Numerical integration approximates a definite integral using finitely many sampled function values. For an integrand $f$ on a finite interval $[a,b]$, $a<b$, a quadrature rule has the formThe quadrature nodes $x_j$ tell us where to evaluate $f$; the quadrature weights $w_j$ turn those values into an approximation to the accumulated signed area. The exact definite integral depends on the integrand throughout the interval, whereas the quadrature rule sees only these samples. Integrating a chosen interpolant exactly still generally approximates the original integrand's integral.^[ref]

The fundamental theorem of calculus evaluates $I(f)$ as $F(b)-F(a)$ when an antiderivative $F$ is available. Numerical integration is useful when no convenient antiderivative is known, or each evaluation of the integrand requires an expensive computation. The task then becomes choosing informative quadrature nodes and controlling the quadrature error with as few evaluations as possible. Fixed data also permit a quadrature rule, but refinement cannot supply new information between observations.^[ref]

For an exact comparison, take the polynomial $f(x)=x^2$ on $[0,1]$. Its antiderivative $x^3/3$ gives $I(f)=1/3$. On a partition of an interval into $n\ge 1$ equal panels, the composite midpoint quadrature rule uses $n$ midpoint samples, each with quadrature weight $1/n$; the composite trapezoidal rule uses $n+1$ endpoint samples, with outer quadrature weights $1/(2n)$ and interior quadrature weights $1/n$. The existing derivations under these two quadrature rules giveIn particular, $M_1=1/4$ and $T_1=1/2$ already bracket $1/3$; two panels give $M_2=5/16$ and $T_2=3/8$. The convex function $x^2$ explains the opposite signs. A midpoint rectangle can cross the curve within its panel, so its total signed area, rather than pointwise ordering, determines the underestimate.

Define the signed approximation error as $E_n=Q_n(f)-I(f)$. In this example the absolute errors are $1/(12n^2)$ and $1/(6n^2)$: doubling $n$ reduces each by exactly four. A plot with both axes on a logarithmic scale therefore has slope $-2$, expressing order two with respect to panel refinement. This is an exact calculation for this polynomial, including $n=1$, rather than an observed rate extrapolated from a few computed answers.

For a general integrand, the composite midpoint quadrature rule and composite trapezoidal rule give second-order quadrature error bounds when $f$ has two continuous derivatives on $[a,b]$ and a known bound on $|f^{\prime \prime }|$. These hypotheses describe behavior between samples. A formal error formula containing an unknown derivative is not a numerical accuracy certificate or a justified sample count. Finite samples do not certify quadrature accuracy makes the missing information explicit. Errors in the evaluations and roundoff error must also be considered; noise sensitivity of a quadrature rule treats the former.

More elaborate choices exploit other information: Gaussian quadrature obtains high polynomial exactness from carefully chosen quadrature nodes, and Simpson's rule uses a quadratic interpolant. Adaptive numerical integration compares approximations and concentrates samples where they disagree, often saving evaluations. Such a difference is an error estimate, not a certified bound without further assumptions: both approximations can miss the same feature.^[ref]

For a nonzero reference value $x$, the relative error is the absolute error divided by the reference's absolute value:It is dimensionless and expresses the size of the error compared with the quantity being approximated. Approximating $1/3$ by $0.33$ has absolute error $1/300$ and relative error $1/100=1\%$. The definition is unavailable when the reference is zero; use an absolute error or a separately stated scale in that case.

For $|r|<1$, let $S_N$ contain the first $N$ terms, with $S_0=0$. The remainder after those terms isThis is the exact absolute error. A convenient bound replaces the denominator by $1-|r|$, giving $|R_N|\le |a||r{|}^N/(1-|r|)$ through the triangle inequality. The exact denominator is preferable when the sign or complex phase of $r$ is known.

For $a>0$ and $0<r<1$, the omitted fraction of the entire sum is $R_N/(a/(1-r))=r^N$. Capturing at least $99$ percent therefore means $r^N\le 0.01$. Taking logarithms and applying the ceiling function gives the smallest integer $N$:This gives $7,21,90,$ and $459$ terms for $r=0.5,0.8,0.95,$ and $0.99$, respectively. The difference is a concrete reason to care about the common ratio, even when all four series converge.

An absolute target has a different scale. For $a=1$, $r=0.8$, and required absolute error at most $0.01$, the total sum is $5$ andThe first acceptable term count is $N=28$: the remainder is approximately $0.0096714$, while at $N=27$ it is approximately $0.0120893$. Counting terms and checking the tail avoids an ambiguous instruction to stop when a term merely looks small.

Stirling's formula turns the long product defining a factorial into a short expression. For positive integers $n$, putThen $n!\sim S_n$ as $n\to \infty$. This is asymptotic equivalence: $S_n/n!\to 1$, so the relative error tends to zero. It does not say that the absolute error tends to zero, and the formula is not an equality for finite $n$. The Gamma function extends this approximation beyond integer inputs. ^[ref]

For $n=10$,The leading estimate is about $0.830\%$ low. Multiplying by the first correction factor giveswhich is about $0.003176\%$ low. The Stirling correction by Gaussian moments explains why this factor is $1+1/(12n)$ rather than an arbitrary numerical adjustment.

The usefulness is in ratios as well as in enormous numbers. Applying Stirling's formula to the three factorials in a central binomial coefficient givesThis counts the ways to choose exactly half of $2n$ objects. Equivalently, for $2n$ independent fair coin tosses, the binomial distribution assigns probability $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{2n}{n}\right)/4^n\sim 1/\sqrt{\pi n}$ to exactly $n$ heads. An exponentially large count becomes a simple probability scale after cancellation.

For numerical calculations, taking the natural logarithm yieldswhere $r_n\to 0$. Computing a logarithm of a large factorial avoids representing the factorial itself. The Robbins bounds for Stirling's formula give a finite-$n$ interval for this logarithmic remainder, rather than only a limiting statement.

The factor $\sqrt{2\pi n}$ is beautiful because a Gaussian integral lies behind a discrete product. The Gaussian peak behind Stirling's formula displays this connection through the Gamma integral and Laplace's method. A rigorous proof must also control the tails of the integral; the local expansion explains the geometry but is not by itself a complete proof.

James Stirling published Methodus differentialis in 1730, a treatise on summation and interpolation of infinite series. This setting connects the formula with a practical calculation problem: taking logarithms turns a long product into a sum, whose growth can be approximated. ^[ref]