`CHAPTER 3

THE INTERVAL REPEATED MIDPOINT SYMMETRIC SINGLE-STEP

PROCEDURE IRMSS1

3.1 Introduction
An extension of the procedure IRSS1 (see Monsi (1988)) is the interval repeated
midpoint symmetric single-step procedure IRMSS1. This procedure is considered as a
new procedure which is based on the interval midpoint symmetric single-step procedure
IMSS1 (see Rusli (2011)) and it can be called as the repeated version of IMSS1. The
idea is to introduce inner iteration to the procedure IMSS1. It also can be achieved by
using the updated midpoint in every step in the IRSS1 procedure.

3.2 The Algorithm IRMSS1

The repeated midpoint symmetric single-step procedure IRMSS1 consists of generating

the sequences

(k)

X i (i=1, , n) from

X (1,0)
= X(0)
i
i (3.2 .1 a)
For ( l=1, , m )( k 1 ) ;
x(ki ,2 l2) =m ( X (ik , 2l 2 ) ) ( i=1, ,n ) ,(3.2 .1 b)

( k ,2 l1)
i

= x

( k ,2 l2 )
i

i1

p ( x (ik , 2l 2 ))
n

( x (ik, 2 l2)X (jk ,2 l1) ) ( x (ik, 2 l2)X (jk ,2 l2) )

j=1

j=i+1

x(ki ,2 l1)=m ( X (ik , 2l 1 )) (i=1, , n )( 3.2.1 d)

34

X (ik , 2l 2 ) ( i=1, , n ) ,(3.2 .1c )

(k ,2 l)
i

= x

( k , 2l1 )
i

i1

p ( x(ik ,2 l1) )
n

( x (ik ,2 l1)X (jk ,2 l1 )) ( x (ik ,2 l1)X (jk ,2 l ))

j =1

j=i+1

,2 l1)
X (k
( i=n , ,1 ) ,(3.2 .1e )
i

X (ik+1) =X (ik , 2 r) ( i=1, , n ) .(3.2.1 f )

( k+ 1 )
If W ( X i )<

then stop otherwise k =k +1 and go to step (3.2.1a)

The above procedure consists of two steps of calculating the new intervals in every
inner iteration. The value of inner iteration depends on the value of

where we can

set the value of at the beginning of the procedure. In this research, for IRMSS1
procedure, three values of inner iteration m are set initially and to be tested numerically.
The values are m=2, m=3 and m=4 . Among these three values of m , the best
value of m that gives us the most outstanding result is chosen. In addition, in this
procedure, each time before we compute new intervals in the step (3.2.1e), the new

midpoints

( k ,2 l1)

Xi

(i=1, , n ) (k 1) are calculated.

35

3.3 The Analysis of R-Order of Convergence of IRMSS1

By using the analysis method by Ortega and Rheinboldt (1970), we introduce the
following theorem.

Theorem 3.3.1
If (i)

x i X (i0) (i=1, , n)

( k)
sequences (X i ) ( i=1, , n )

X (i0) X (j0 )=(i , j=1, , n ;i j)

and

are

generated

( a ) ( k 0 ) x i X(ki +1) X(k)

i ( i=1, , n ) . If also (iii)

from

holds; (ii) the

(3.2.1),

then

0 Di I ( R ) is such that

di
1
( k +1)
w ( X (ik ) ) and
p' ( x ) D i ( x X (i0) ) ( i=1, , n ) , then ( b ) w ( X i ) 1
2
di

( )
I

( k)

X i x i ( k )(i=1, ,n) holds.

Finally

(c)

for

( i=1, , n ) ,O R ( IRMSS 1, xi ) 4 m.

Proof
The proof of (a) and (b) are almost identical with the corresponding proofs in Alefeld
and Herzberger (1983). The proofs are as follow:
36

p
Let

be defined by

p ( x )= (xx j )

and by step (3.2.1b) - step (3.2.1e) of the

j=1

IRMSS1 procedure above, we have

l2)
x(1,2
=midpoint ( X (i1,2l2) )
i

(1,2l 1 )
i

=x

( 1,2l 2 )
i

p( x (i1,2l2) )

i1

( x(i1,2l2)X (i1,2 l1) ) ( x (i1,2 l2 )X (i1,2l2 ))

j=1
j =1 +1

( X (i1,2l2) ) (3.3.1)

( i=1, n ) ,
l1)
x(1,2
=midpoint ( X (i1 ,2 l1) )
i

p (x (i1,2l1))

)
X (1,2l
= x(i1,2l1) i1
i

( X (i1,2l1 )) (3.3 .2)

( x (i1,2l1) X (i1,2 l1) ) ( x (i1,2l1 )X (i1,2l ))

j=1
j=1+1

( i=n , , 1 ) .
( 1)
Let X i ( i=1, , n ) be defined by;

For l=1 ,
x(1,0)
=midpoint ( X (i1,0 ) )
i

X (1,1)
= x (i1,0 ) i1
i

p (xi(1,0) )

( X (i1,0 )) (3.3 .3)

(x (i1,0 ) X (i1,1 )) ( x(i1,0) X (i1,0 ))

j=1
j=1+1

( i=1, n ) ,

37

x(1,1)
=midpoint ( X (i1 , 1) ) ( i=1, ,n )
i

(1,2)
i

= x

( 1,1)
i

p(x (i1,1))

i 1

( X (i1,1) ) (3.3 .4)

(x (i1,1 )X (i1,1) ) ( x (i1,1 )X i(1,2) )

j=1
j=1+1

( i=n , , 1 ) .

( 1)

( 1,1)
x i X i ( i=1, , n ) , because x i X i (i=1, , n ) .

By (3.3.4),
X

so,

(1,2)
n

= x

( 1,1)
n

n1

p ( x (n1,1 ) )

} {
X

( x (n1,1 )X (j1,1) )
j=1

( 1,1)
n

( 1,1)
n

n 1

p ( x (n1,1 ) )

=x n ,

( x (i1,1 )x j )
j=1

( 1,2 )

(1,2 )
x n X n . Suppose that for some i^ n , xi X i ( i=n , , i^ ) . Then by (3.3.4),

(1,2)
^
i1

= x

( 1,1)
^i1

i2
^

1,1 )
p ( x (i1
^
)

1,1 )
1,1 )
)
X (j1,1) ) ( x (^i1
X (1,2
( x (i1

^
j )
^
j=1
j= i

so, by finite induction on i ,

} {
X

( 1,1)
^i1

( 1,1)
i^ 1

i2
^

( 1,2)

x i X i (i=n , , 1).

x(1,2)
=midpoint ( X (i1,2 ) )
i

= x

( 1,2 )
i

i1

p (xi(1,2) )
n

(x (i1,2 )X (j1,3 )) ( x(i1,2) X (j1,2 ))

j=1
j=i+1

38

1,1 )
1,1 )
x j ) ( x (^i1
x j )
( x (^i1

^
j=1

For l=2 , we have

(1,3)
i

1,1 )
p ( x (i1
^
)

( X (i1,2 )) (3.3.5)

j=i

=x ^i1 .

( i=1, n ) ,
x(1,3)
=midpoint ( X (i1 , 3) ) ( i=1, , n )
i

p(x (i1,3 ))

X (1,4)
= x (i1,3 ) i1
i

(x(i1,3) X (j1,3 )) ( x (i1,3 )X (j1,4 ) )

j=1
j=i +1

( X (i1,3 )) (3.3 .6)

( i=n , , 1 ) .
( 1,3)

xi Xi

( i=1, ,n ) because x i X (i1,2) (i=1, , n ) .

By (3.3.6),

so,

(1,4)
n

= x

( 1,3 )
n

n1

p ( x (n1,3 ))

} {
X

( x(n1,3) X (j1,3 ) )
j=1

( 1,3)
n

( 1,3)
n

n1

p ( x (n1,3 ) )

( x (i1,3 )x j )
j=1

=x n ,

(1,4 )

( 1,4 )
x n X n . Suppose that for some i^ n , xi X i ( i=n , , i^ ) . Then by (3.3.6),

(1,4)
^
i1

= x

( 1,3 )
^i1

1,3 )
p ( x (^i1
)

i2
^

1,3)
1,3)
X (j1,3 ) ) ( x(i1
X (j1,4 ) )
( x(i1

^
^
^
j=1
j= i

so, by finite induction on i ,

} {
X

( 1,3 )
^i1

( 1,3 )
^i1

^i2

( 1,4 )

x i X i (i=n , ,1).

l)
x(1,2
=midpoint ( X (i1,2 l ))
i

= x

( 1,2 l )
i

i1

p(x (i1,2l ))

( X (i1,2 l) ) (3.3 .7)

( x (i1,2 l )X (j1,2 l+1) ) ( x(i1,2l) X (j1,2l) )

j=1
j=i+1

39

1,3 )
1,3)
x j) ( x (i1
x j)
( x (i1

^
^
^
j =1

Suppose for some l 1 where l=l+1 ,

(1,2l +1)
i

1,3 )
p ( x (^i1
)

j=i

= xi1
.
^

( i=1, n ) ,
l+1)
x(1,2
=midpoint ( X (i1 , 2l +1) )
i

p ( x (i1,2l+1 ))

+2)
X (1,2l
= x (i1,2 l+ 2) i1
i

l +1)
(x(i1,2l+1 )X (1,2
) (x (i1,2l +1)X (j1,2 l+2 ))

j
j=1
j =i +1

( X (i1,2 l+1 )) (3.3 .8)

( i=n , , 1 ) .
( 1,2l+1)

xi X i

( 1,2l )

xi Xi

( i=1, ,n ) because

(i=1, , n ) .

By (3.3.8),
X

so,

(1,2l +2)
n

= x

( 1,2 l+1 )
n

j=1

xn X n

} {
X

( x (n1,2l+1) X (j1,2 l +1) )

( 1,2l +2)

n1

p ( x (n1,2l +1) )

( 1,2 l+1)
n

. Suppose that for some

( 1,2l+1 )
n

n1

p ( x(n1,2l+1) )

( x (i1,2 l +1)x j )
j=1

l +2)
( i=n , , i^ ) .
i^ n , xi X (1,2
i

=x n ,

Then by

(3.3.8),
X

(1,2l +2)
^
i1

= x

( 1,2 l+1 )
^i1

1,2 l+1)
p ( x (i1
^
)

^i2

(x
j=1

( 1,2 l +1)
j

) ( x
j= ^i

40

} {
X

( 1,2l+1)
^
i1

( 1,2 l+1 )
^i1

( 1,2l +2)
j

( 1,2l+1 )
^i1

( 1,2 l +1)
^
i1

i2
^

1,2 l+1)
p ( x(i1
^
n

1,2l+1 )
xj ) (
( x(i1
^
j=1

j= ^i

so, by finite induction on i ,

Then,

by

( 1,2 l+2)

xi X i

finite

( 1,2l+2)

xi Xi

induction

(i=n , ,1).
l where

on

( 1,2r )

l=1, , r , x i X i

because

(i=n , ,1) .

(k)
Let the sequence X i (i=1, , n) be generated from (3.3.1) and (3.3.2). Suppose that

(k)
for some k 1, x i X i ( i=1, , n ) .

Then, by a similar argument to that which has

(1,2l)

(k ,2 l)
( i=1, , n ) (l 1)
been used to show that x i X i
, it follows that x i X i

(k+1)
(k , 2 l)
where X i = X i
.

Therefore

by

finite

induction

on k ,

x i X (k)
i ( i=1, ,n )( k 0 ) .

Also by (3.3.8),
,2 l)
X (k
X (ki , 2 l1 ) X (ik ) ( i=1, , n ) (l 1) ( k 1 ) .
i

The proof of this can be referred to Rusli (2011), therefore is omitted.

Now, it remains to prove that for ( i=1, , n ) ,O R ( IRMSS 1, xi ) 4 m ( m1 ) .

As in the proof of Theorem 2.3.1 in Alefeld and Herzberger (1983), it may be shown
that >0 such that ( k 0) ,

41

w(ki ,2 l1) w(ki ,2 l2)

i1

j=1

j=i+1

w(kj ,2 l1)

w(kj , 2 l2) ( i=1, , n ) (3.3 .9)

and
w(ki ,2 l) w(ki , 2l1)

i1

w(kj ,2 l1)
j=1

j=i+1

w(kj ,2 l) ( i=n , , 1 ) (3.3 .10)

where
w(ki ,r ) ( n1 ) w ( X (ik , r )) ( i=1, , n ) ( r=1, , 2 m) ,(3.3 .11)
and
=

1
.(3.3.12)
n1

For l=1, , m let

u(1,2l1)
=
i

4 l2(i=1, , n1)
,(3.3 .13)
4 l1 ( i=n )

4 l +2 ( i=1 )
)
u(1,2l
=
4 l ( i=2, , n1 ) ,(3.3 .14)
i
4 l +1 ( i=n )
and for r=1, , 2 m , let

,r )
( 4 m)u(k
+ 2 ( i=1 )
i
(k +1,r )
(k ,r )
ui
= (4 m) ui ( i=2, , n1 ) ,(3.3 .15)
,r )
( 4 m)u(k
+1 ( i=n )
i

Then for l=1, , m ( k 0 ) , by (3.3.13) - (3.3.15), for ( k 0 )

42

4 l16 ml +8 m4
2
(4 m)k1 +
(i=1 )
14 m
14 m
(k , 2 l1)
ui
=
,(3.3 . 16)
( 4 l2)( 4 m) k1 ( i=2, , n1 )
k1
4 l16 ml +4 m2
1
(4 m) +
( i=n )
14 m
14 m
and

4 l16 ml8 m
2
(4 m)k1+
( i=1 )
14 m
14 m
u(ki , 2 l)=
,(3.3 . 17)
(4 l)(4 m)k1 ( i=2, , n1 )
k1
4 l16 ml4 m
1
(4 m) +
( i=n )
14 m
14 m
Suppose, without any loss of generality, that
w(0,0)
h<1 (i=1, , n ) (3.3. 18)
i
Then by a lengthy inductive argument it follows from (3.3.9) - (3.3.18) that for
l=1, , m, i=1, , n , k 0 ,

w(ki ,1) hu

(k+ 1,2l1)
i

and
w(ki ,1) hu

(k+ 1,2l)
i

whence by (3.3.17) with l=m and

(k+1)

Xi

(k , 2 l)

= Xi

( k+1)

)
w(k+1
h4 m ( i=1, , n ) .
i

So, ( k 0 ) , by (3.3.10) - (3.3.18),

43

, ( k 0) ,

X
w ( i(k) )

( ) h

( 4 m)

( i=1, , n ) .(3.3. 19)

Let,
X
w( i (k))

(k)
w =max
1 i n

Then, by (3.3.19)
w(k)

(4 m )
h
( k 0) .

()

So,
(k )

1
k
(k ) ( 4 m )

R4 m ( w )=lim ( w )
k

lim
k

{( ) }

1
k
( 4 m)

1.
Therefore, it is proven that according to Alefeld and Herzberger (1983), the order of
convergence of IRMSS1 is at least 4 m or
OR ( IRMSS 1, x i ) 4 m ( i=1, , n ) ( m 1 ) .

44

3.4 Numerical Results

In order to test the effectiveness of this new procedure IRMSS1, several numerical tests
have to be done. A proper coding was built and has been implemented in the MATLAB
R2007a cooperated with the Intlab V5.5 toolbox developed by

Rump (1999). The

numerical results below represent all ten test polynomials (see Appendix A) for
comparisons of effectiveness of the IRMSS1 procedure compared to previous ISS1 and
IMSS1 procedure.
Table 3.1 to 3.4 show the numerical results when ten test polynomials are tested
numerically. The abbreviations used in the tables are defined as follows:

TP
n
m
k
t
i
r
w(k)
i
X (k ,r )
Procedures
ISS1
IMSS1
IRMSS1

Test polynomial.
Degree of polynomial.
Inner iteration.
Iteration.
CPU times.
Component.
Step number in algorithm.
Interval width.
Interval of iteration k, step r.
Procedure employed.
Interval symmetric single-step.
Interval midpoint symmetric single-step
Interval repeated midpoint symmetric single-step

Note that the same abbreviations will be used in the tabulated results in every chapter.

45

Table 3.1 Comparison of number of iterations k and CPU times t for every inner
iteration m for all test polynomials

TP

Procedures

n
ISS1

IMSS1

m=1

m =1

IRMSS1
m =2

m =3

m=4

0.202801

0.171601

0.121680

0.124800

0.134160

0.221521

0.184081

0.137280

0.121680

0.131040

0.243361

0.218401

0.177841

0.168481

0.180961

0.321362

0.265201

0.243361

0.243361

0.243361

0.546003

0.489843

0.483603

0.564723

0.620883

0.271441

0.237121

0.184081

0.199681

0.212161

0.377522

0.315122

0.249601

0.290161

0.280801

0.202801

0.171601

0.090480

0.102960

0.112320

0.312002

0.258961

0.224641

0.224641

0.230881

10

10

0.577203

0.461762

0.486723

0.511683

0.539763

46

0.6
0.5
0.4

CPUtimes

0.3
ISS1
0.2

IMSS1

IRMSS1

0.1
0
1

10

Test Polynomials

Figure 3.1 Comparison of CPU times for all test polynomials for the best value of
m

Number of iterations

ISS1
IMSS1
IRMSS1

0
1

10

Test Polynomials

Figure 3.2 Comparison of number of iterations for the best value of m

47

Table 3.2 Values of intervals for each component i for test polynomial 8
Table 3.2a Component i=1
i k m Step
s

X
1 1 1

IMSS1

IRMSS1

Intervals

Interval
Widths

Intervals

Interval
Widths

[-20.08301193755741,

0.162960

[-20.08301193755741,

0.162960

(k ,r )

X (1,1)
1

-19.92005108556831]

X (1,2)
1

[-20.00000000427950,

-19.92005108556831]
8.701054e-09

-19.99999999557843]
2

[-20.00000000427950,

8.701054e-09

-19.99999999557843]
[-20.00000000001158,

(1,3)

X1

(Not applicable*)

2.354028e-11

-19.99999999998802]
[-20.00000000000001,

X (1,4)
1

3.552713e-15

-20.00000000000000]
2 1

X (2,1)
1

[-20.00000000000000,

3.552713e-15

-19.99999999999999]

X (2,2)
1

[-20.00000000000000,

3.552713e-15

(Already converged)

-19.99999999999999]
2

(2,3)
1

X (2,4)
1

(Not applicable*)

*These steps are not applicable because m=2 does not apply in the algorithm of IMSS1
procedure

48

Table 3.2b Component i=2

i k m Step
s

IRMSS1

Intervals

w(k)
i

Intervals

w(k)
i

X1

(1,1)

[3.70009242751634,
3.89999215566156]

0.199899

[3.70009242751634,
3.89999215566156]

0.199899

X (1,2)
1

[3.81959192477592,
3.81972623564522]

1.343108e-04

[3.81959192477592,
3.81972623564522]

1.343108e-04

[3.81965999690657,
3.81966028366770]

2.867611e-07

[3.81966011250105,
3.81966011250106]

4.440892e-16

X (k ,r )
2 1 1

IMSS1

X (1,3)
1
(1,4)

(Not applicable*)

X1
2 1

X (2,1)
1

[3.81966011250101,
3.81966011250111]

9.237055e-14

X (2,2)
1

[3.81966011250101,
3.81966011250111]

9.237055e-14
(Already converged)

(2,3)

X1

X (2,4)
1

(Not applicable*)

*These steps are not applicable because m=2 does not apply in the algorithm of IMSS1
procedure.

49

Table 3.2c Component i=3

i k m Step
s

X
3 1 1

(k ,r )

IMSS1
Intervals

IRMSS1
(k)

wi

(k)

[26.17904982613198,
26.18131053217847]

0.002260

[26.17904982613198,
26.18131053217847]

0.002260

X (1,2)
1

[26.18033875299099,
26.18034074130472]

1.988313e-06

[26.18033875299099,
26.18034074130472]

1.988313e-06

[26.18033988749894,
26.18033988749896]

7.105427e-15

[26.18033988749894,
26.18033988749896]

7.105427e-15

(1,3)

X1
X

(1,4)
1
(2,1)

[26.18033988749894,
26.18033988749896]

3.552713e-15

(2,2)

[26.18033988749894,
26.18033988749896]

3.552713e-15

X1
X1

wi

X (1,1)
1

(Not applicable*)

2 1

Intervals

X (2,3)
1

(Already converged)

(Not applicable*)

X (2,4)
1
*These steps are not applicable because m=2 does not apply in the algorithm of IMSS1
procedure.

50

Table 3.3 Widths of the intervals

w

(k)
i

for each step at iteration k for test polynomial 9

Steps

Step 1
(3.2.1e)

Interval Widths

Step 2
(3.2.1f)

X (k)
i

w(1)
1

IMSS1
0.222813

w(1)
2

0.125019

w(1,1)
2

0.125019

w(1)
3

1.508622

w(1,1)
3

1.508622

w(1)
4

0.103066

w(1,1)
4

0.103066

w5

(1)

0.330997

w5

(1,1)

0.330997

w(1)
6

0.049919

w(1,1)
6

0.049919

w1

(1,2)

9.989220

(1)
w 1 9.989220e-05

w(k)
i
of

IRMSS1
0.222813
w(1,1)
1

w(1)
2

0.001317

w(1,2)
2

0.001317

w3

(1)

0.010475

w3

(1,2)

0.010475

w(1)
4

0.010496

w(1,2)
4

0.010496

w(1)
5

0.006637

w(1,2)
5

0.006637

w(1)
6

0.001611

w(1,2)
6

0.001611

2.909768e-07
w(1,3)
1
(1,3)

w2

Step 3
51

8.765317e-04

(3.2.1e)
(Not applicable*)

w(1,3)
3

0.008574

w4

(1,3)

0.002953

w(1,3)
5

8.033651

w(1,3)
6

2.665297

1.421085e-14
w(1,4)
1

Step 4
(3.2.1f)

(Not applicable*)

6.739497e-11
w(1,4)
2
(1,4)

w3

4.188939e-07

1.235115e-06
w(1,4)
4
(1,4)

w5

7.824946e-08

2.252065e-11
w(1,4)
6
*These steps are not applicable because m=2 does not apply in the algorithm of IMSS1
procedure.

Table 3.3 Widths of the intervals

w

(k)
i

for each step at iteration k for test polynomial 9 (continue)

Steps

Interval Widths

w(2)
1

Step 1
(3.2.1e)

IMSS1
2.897238e-10

w(k)
i
of

X (k)
i

IRMSS1
1.421085e-14
w(2,1)
1

(2)
w 2 9.513039e-07

w2

7.533329e-06
w(2)
3

4.263256e-14
w(2,1)
3

(2)
w 4 2.548911e-06

w4

4.334879e-07
w(2)
5

1.776356e-15
w(2,1)
5

2.187787e-10
w(2)
6

8.881784e-16
w(2,1)
6

52

(2,1)

(2,1)

3.552713e-15

5.329070e-15

w(2)
7.105427e-15
1
(2)

w 2 3.552713e-15

Step 2
(3.2.1f)

(2)
3

(Already converged)

2.380318e-13

w(2)
5.258016e-13
4
w(2)
7.460698e-14
5
w(2)
8.881784e-16
6
Step 3
(3.2.1e)

(Not applicable*)

(Already converged)

Step 4
(3.2.1f)

(Not applicable*)

(Already converged)

*These steps are not applicable because m=2 does not apply in the algorithm of IMSS1
procedure.

Table 3.4 Widths of the final intervals at every iterations k

for test polynomial 10
Procedures

(k)

wi

IMSS1

IRMSS1

w(1)
1

6.560552e-04

1.158184e-12

w(1)
2

0.021827

2.780242e-08

53

w(1)
3

0.006104

3.522296e-07

w4

7.709550e-05

9.846008e-10

w(1)
5

0.003085

5.420934e-08

w6

(1)

0.005258

3.497880e-08

w(1)
7

6.222428e-05

5.036993e-10

w8

(1)

4.793474e-04

7.522427e-10

w(1)
9

0.009712

1.190734e-08

w 10

(1)

4.723636e-04

3.552713e-13

w(2)
1

7.105427e-15

1.158184e-12

w2

(2)

2.131628e-14

3.552713e-15

w(2)
3

2.664535e-14

1.776356e-15

w4

(2)

8.881784e-16

8.881784e-16

w(2)
5

4.884981e-15

4.440892e-16

w6

(2)

1.554312e-15

2.220446e-16

w(2)
7

8.881784e-16

8.881784e-16

w8

(2)

1.776356e-15

1.776356e-15

w(2)
9

3.552713e-15

3.552713e-15

(2)

5.854872e-12

3.552713e-13

(1)

w 10

54

3.5 Discussions and Conclusions

Table 3.1 shows the comparison of number of iterations and CPU times between the
new procedure IRMSS1 and previous procedures ISS1 and IMSS1. For both ISS1 and
IMSS1 procedures, there is only one value of

that is

m=1

because both of

these procedures do not have the process of inner iteration. While for IRMSS1
procedure, there are three values of

tested that are

m=2, m=3

and

m=4 .

The highlighted cells in IRMSS1 column show the best results selected for
corresponding value of m .From this table, clearly we can see that for all 10 test
polynomials, IRMSS1 procedure gives us less CPU times compared to both ISS1 and
IMSS1 procedures except for test polynomial 10. For test polynomial 10, IRMSS1
shows slightly longer CPU times. In terms of number of iterations, IRMSS1 shows
good results where it always has the same or less number of iterations compared to both
previous procedures. Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 show the comparison clearer.

Table 3.2 above shows the values of intervals for each component i=1 ,

i=3

for each step

for

,r )
X (k
i

i=2

and

at iteration k . For this comparison, test

polynomial 8 was used. Number of iteration needed for IRMSS1 procedure for the

55

intervals to converge is 1, compared to IMSS1 which needs two iterations. The values
of intervals that had converged to the zeros were bolded and underlined so that we can
see the convergences of the intervals clearer. From the first step until the final step of
the procedure, it can be seen how the intervals converge to the zeros. For IRMSS1
procedure, the best value of
each iteration k

selected is m=2 , so there are 4 steps computed in

compared to IMSS1 procedure which compute two steps in every

iteration k .

For Table 3.2a, the results show the intervals generated for component i=1 . For this
component, four steps were computed for IRMSS1 procedure while three steps were
computed for IMSS1 procedure for the intervals to converge. The widths of the final
intervals for both procedures for this component are similar.

Table 3.2b shows the intervals generated for component

i=2 . Even though IRMSS1

procedure requires four steps while IMSS1 requires three steps for the intervals to
converge, the final intervals widths are smaller for IRMSS1 procedure.

For Table 3.2c which is for component i=3,

IRMSS1 procedure only requires three

steps compared to IMSS1 procedure which needs four steps for the intervals to

56

converge. The widths of the final intervals for both procedures are of not much
difference.

From Table 3.3 above, we can see that both procedures need two iterations for the
intervals to converge. However, for IRMSS1 procedure, the intervals converge earlier at
the first step of iteration 2. The widths of the final intervals for IRMSS1 procedure also
are smaller.

Finally, even though the results in Table 3.4 show that the procedure IRMSS1 requires
the same number of iterations compared to the procedure IMSS1, the final widths of the
intervals for IRMSS1 are always smaller than or the same as the IMSS1 procedure. In
addition, there are two components in IRMSS1 that have already converged in iteration
1 which are components 1 and 10.

As for conclusion, procedure IRMSS1 required less number of iteration, less

computational time and converged faster compared to procedures ISS1 and IMSS1.

57