Abstract
The relatively recent increase in prominence of computer simulations in scientific inquiry gives us more reasons than ever before for asserting that mathematics is a wonderful tool. In fact, a practical knowledge (a ‘know-how’) of scientific computation has become essential for scientists working in all disciplines involving mathematics. Despite their incontestable success, it must be emphasized that the numerical methods subtending simulations provide at best approximate solutions and that they can also return very misleading results. Accordingly, epistemological sobriety demands that we clarify the circumstances under which simulations can be relied upon. With this in mind, this paper articulates a general perspective to better understand and compare the strengths and weaknesses of various error-analysis methods.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
For more details on the relation between the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics and computational issues, see Fillion (2012).
- 2.
Note however that despite the broad use of this terminology in computational mechanics, it remains comparatively rare in the field of numerical analysis.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
For more details on this, see Fillion and Corless (2014).
References
Allison, D. B., Paultre, F., Maggio, C., Mezzitis, N., & Pi-Sunyer, F. X. (1995). The use of areas under curves in diabetes research. Diabetes Care, 18(2), 245–250.
Batterman, R. W. (2002a). Asymptotics and the role of minimal models. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 53, 21–38.
Batterman, R. W. (2002b). The devil in the details: Asymptotic reasoning in explanation, reduction, and emergence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Batterman, R. W. (2009). Idealization and modeling. Synthese, 169(3), 427–446.
Bender, C., & Orszag, S. (1978). Advanced mathematical methods for scientists and engineers: Asymptotic methods and perturbation theory (Vol. 1). New York: Springer.
Borwein, J., & Crandall, R. (2010). Closed forms: what they are and why we care. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 60, 50–65.
Corless, R. M., & Fillion, N. (2013). A graduate introduction to numerical methods, from the viewpoint of backward error analysis (868pp.). New York: Springer.
Deuflhard, P., & Hohmann, A. (2003). Numerical analysis in modern scientific computing: An introduction (Vol. 43). New York: Springer.
Feigl, H. (1950). De principiis non disputandum…? In Inquiries and provocations (pp. 237–268). Dordrecht: Springer. 1981.
Fillion, N. (2012). The reasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. PhD thesis, London: The University of Western Ontario.
Fillion, N., & Bangu, S. (2015). Numerical methods, complexity, and epistemic hierarchies. Philosophy of Science, 82, 941–955.
Fillion, N., & Corless, R. M. (2014). On the epistemological analysis of modeling and computational error in the mathematical sciences. Synthese, 191, 1451–1467.
Galileo (1687). De motu. In I. Drabkin (Ed.), On motion and on mechanics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 1960.
Grcar, J. (2011). John von Neumann’s analysis of Gaussian elimination and the origins of modern numerical analysis. SIAM Review, 53(4), 607–682.
Hacking, I. (1992). The self-vindication of the laboratory sciences. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hamming, R. (1980). The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. The American Mathematical Monthly, 87(2), 81–90.
Higham, N. J. (2002). Accuracy and stability of numerical algorithms (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: SIAM.
Humphreys, P. (2004). Extending ourselves: Computational science, empiricism, and scientific method. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kadanoff, L. P. (2004). Excellence in computer simulation. Computing in Science & Engineering, 6(2), 57–67.
Oberkampf, W., Trucano, T., & Hirsch, C. (2004). Verification, validation, and predictive capability in computational engineering and physics. Applied Mechanics Review, 57(5), 345–384.
Reichenbach (1949). The theory of probability: An inquiry into the logical and mathematical foundations of the calculus of probability. Berkeley: University of California Press Berkeley.
Salmon, W. C. (1991). Hans Reichenbach’s vindication of induction. Erkenntnis, 35(1–3), 99–122.
Tai, M. M. (1994). A mathematical model for the determination of total area under glucose tolerance and other metabolic curves. Diabetes Care, 17(2), 152–154.
Tal, E. (2011). How accurate is the standard second? Philosophy of Science, 78(5), 1082–1096.
Truesdell, C. (1980). Statistical mechanics and continuum mechanics. In An idiot’s fugitive essays on science (pp. 72–79). New York: Springer.
Wilkinson, J. H. (1963). Rounding errors in algebraic processes (Prentice-Hall series in automatic computation). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Wilson, M. (2006). Wandering significance: An essay on conceptual behaviour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Winsberg, E. (2010). Science in the age of computer simulation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wolever, T. M., Jenkins, D. J., Jenkins, A. L., & Josse, R. G. (1991). The glycemic index: Methodology and clinical implications. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 54(5), 846–854.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: An Example of a Comparative Asymptotic Analysis of the Error of Computational Methods
Appendix: An Example of a Comparative Asymptotic Analysis of the Error of Computational Methods
The following appendix exemplifies how numerical analysts quantify the error resulting from computational methods by means of asymptotic analyses. Let us return to the two methods of numerical integration discussed by Tai. To find the error in the midpoint approximation M, we take the Taylor expansion about the midpoint of the interval [−h∕2, h∕2], which is 0 (note that for convenience we make the standard change of variable a = −h∕2 and b = h∕2):
Note that, when n is odd, ∫ −h∕2 h∕2 x n dx vanishes to 0 (by symmetry about the point 0). Thus,
Now, for this interval, the midpoint approximant M is hf(0). Thus, the error E h (M) resulting from the midpoint rule on an interval of width h is
Taking the first two terms of E h (M), we have
Now, we will find the trapezoidal error, E h (T) = I − T, by expressing T as a combination of Taylor series. Let us first find the Taylor series about x = 0 (the midpoint) for f(−h∕2) and f(h∕2):
Because of the alternating sign in \(f(-\frac{h} {2} )\), we find that the odd powers of n vanish when we calculate T:
As a result,
So, both rules are accurate to order O(h 3), but the coefficient of the dominant term for the error of the midpoint rule is smaller than that of the trapezoidal rule by a factor of 2.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fillion, N. (2017). The Vindication of Computer Simulations. In: Lenhard, J., Carrier, M. (eds) Mathematics as a Tool. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol 327. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54469-4_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54469-4_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54468-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54469-4
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)