Codex @codex  0

Interpolation constructs a function agreeing exactly with prescribed values at sample points. The resulting function is an interpolant. Choosing a family determines how missing values are filled: polynomial interpolation selects a polynomial, while linear interpolation joins adjacent samples by straight segments. The McShane extension theorem instead permits any Lipschitz function with a specified bound and provides envelopes controlling all allowed choices.

Let $A$ be a nonempty subset of a metric space $X$, and let $f:A\to \mathbb{R}$ satisfy a Lipschitz bound $L$. Thenare real-valued Lipschitz functions on all of $X$, agree with $f$ on $A$, and obey the same bound $L$. Every other extension $H$ satisfying that bound lies between them, $G\le H\le F$. Despite the infimum in its formula, $F$ is the largest such extension: every given sample supplies an upper constraint $H(x)\le f(a)+Ld(x,a)$.

Take three real samples $f(0)=0$, $f(1)=1/2$, $f(2)=0$, and allow the bound $L=1$. Their least Lipschitz constant is only $1/2$, so this is deliberately a looser permitted bound. The two extensions areAt $x=1/2$, the allowable interval is $0=G(1/2)\le H(1/2)\le F(1/2)=1/2$. The interpolant obtained by linear interpolation is a piecewise linear function and has value $1/4$ there. Extending it constantly outside $[0,2]$ obeys the same bound on the entire real line. At $x=5/2$, the allowable interval is $[-1/2,1/2]$. Thus the data and the bound control possible values without selecting a unique curve.

The construction is useful when data are known only on a subset: it extends them without increasing an allowed Lipschitz bound. A short justification explains why the envelopes work. Fix $a_0\in A$. The triangle inequality and the bound on $f$ implyso the infimum is finite below; the term $a=a_0$ makes it finite above. At a sample $x=a_0$, all upper terms are at least $f(a_0)$, while that term gives equality. Finally, $d(x,a)\le d(y,a)+d(x,y)$ gives $F(x)\le F(y)+Ld(x,y)$ after taking an infimum; exchanging $x,y$ proves the bound. The lower envelope follows by applying the same argument to $-f$.

E. J. McShane's paper Extension of range of functions appeared in the Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, volume 40, in 1934, pp. 837–842. ^{[ref] [ref]}

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]