Printable · GCSE Higher · ages 14-16
Iteration worksheet — GCSE Higher
Fifteen questions on "iteration" — DfE statement A20. Print it, or print three versions so neighbours cannot copy by letter; the key gives the letter for each version.
Higher onlyCalculator
Answer key: Iteration worksheet — GCSE Higher
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (b) 0.458 — x₁ = (0.4² + 3) ÷ 7 = 3.16 ÷ 7 = 0.4514 (unrounded, 0.451428...). x₂ = (x₁² + 3) ÷ 7 = (0.2038 + 3) ÷ 7 = 3.2038 ÷ 7 = 0.458 (3 d.p.). Choosing 0.632 divides only the 3 by 7 instead of dividing the whole sum x₁² + 3 by 7. Choosing 0.451 repeats the calculation for x₁ instead of moving on to x₂. Choosing 0.493 uses x₁ itself instead of x₁² inside the formula.
- (a) 7.9 m — Method: the iteration converges on the width of the plot, so run the formula three times from the starting value and then add 4 m, because the length is 4 m greater than the width. Working: x₁ = √(30 − 4 × 3) = √18 = 4.24264…; x₂ = √(30 − 4 × 4.24264…) = √13.02943… = 3.60963…; x₃ = √(30 − 4 × 3.60963…) = √15.56147… = 3.94480…. The estimate for the length is 3.94480… + 4 = 7.94480…, which is 7.9 m correct to 1 decimal place. Answer: 7.9 m. The iteration is still oscillating at x₃, so this is the estimate that three uses of the formula give, not a settled value. The distractors: 3.9 m is x₃ itself, the width, given by a candidate who runs the iteration correctly and then stops before the step the question actually asks for; 7.6 m uses x₂ in place of x₃, one use of the formula short, and then adds the 4 m correctly; 15.8 m multiplies the width by 4 instead of adding 4 m to it, reading greater than as a multiplier.
- (d) x₂ closer: f(x₂) = 0.0225, nearer to 0 — f(2.6) = 2.6² − 7 = 6.76 − 7 = −0.24, and f(2.65) = 2.65² − 7 = 7.0225 − 7 = 0.0225. The closer a value of x is to the root, the closer f(x) is to zero — regardless of sign. Since |0.0225| = 0.0225 is much smaller than |−0.24| = 0.24, x₂ = 2.65 is closer to the root. 'x₁ closer: −0.24 is the smaller value' comes from comparing the SIGNED values of f(x) rather than their distances from zero — −0.24 is indeed less than 0.0225 as a number, but that does not mean x₁ is closer to the root. 'x₁ closer: f(x₁) negative ⇒ nearer root' invents a rule that a negative f(x) means x is closer to the root; the sign of f(x) only tells you which side of the root x is on, not how close it is. 'x₂ is the exact root, since f(x₂) ≈ 0' misreads f(x₂) = 0.0225 as zero; the true root is √7 ≈ 2.6458, so f(2.65) is close to zero but not equal to it, and x₂ is an approximation, not the exact root.
- (c) 4.30 — Method: substitute the starting value into the right-hand side to get x₁, then feed each value back in, keeping the whole display and respecting the order of operations, which divides before it subtracts. Working: x₁ = 5 − 3 ÷ 2.5 = 5 − 1.2 = 3.8; x₂ = 5 − 3 ÷ 3.8 = 5 − 0.78947… = 4.21052…; x₃ = 5 − 3 ÷ 4.21052… = 5 − 0.7125 = 4.2875; x₄ = 5 − 3 ÷ 4.2875 = 5 − 0.69970… = 4.30029…, which is 4.30 correct to 3 significant figures. Answer: 4.30. The distractors: 4.29 is x₃ = 4.2875 rounded, reached by counting the starting value itself as the first iterate and so stopping one use of the formula early; 3.80 is x₁, the value after a single use of the formula; 2.50 comes from working out (5 − 3) ÷ xₙ instead of 5 − (3 ÷ xₙ), subtracting before dividing, which produces the sequence 0.8, 2.5, 0.8, 2.5 and lands on 2.5 at the fourth step.
- (a) 4.897 — Method: substitute the starting value into the right-hand side of the formula to get x₁, then feed each new value back in, keeping the whole calculator display every time and rounding only at the very end. Working: x₁ = √(5 × 2 + 2) = √12 = 3.46410…; x₂ = √(5 × 3.46410… + 2) = √19.32050… = 4.39551…; x₃ = √(5 × 4.39551… + 2) = √23.97755… = 4.89668…, which is 4.897 correct to 3 decimal places. Answer: 4.897. The distractors: 4.396 is x₂, written down by a candidate who counts the starting value x₀ as the first iterate and so stops one use of the formula early; 3.464 is x₁, the value after using the formula only once; 5.146 is x₄, one use of the formula too many — the mirror image of the first slip, made by a candidate who labels the first value worked out as x₀ rather than as x₁ and so runs the count a step long.
- (d) It has a solution between x = 2.2 and x = 2.3 — Since f(2.2) is negative and f(2.3) is positive, the graph of f crosses the x-axis somewhere between x = 2.2 and x = 2.3, so the equation has a solution in that interval. Choosing 'between x = −2.2 and x = −2.3' confuses the negative f-VALUE at 2.2 with a negative x-value. Choosing 'no solution' misreads a change of sign as meaning the opposite of what it shows. Choosing 'exactly two solutions' assumes a single change of sign must give two roots, which is not what the rule guarantees.
- (c) 2.26 — Method: apply the formula repeatedly, keeping the whole display each time, and stop when two values in a row round to the same 2 decimal places; that shared rounded value is the solution to that accuracy. Working: x₁ = ∛(2 × 2 + 7) = ∛11 = 2.22398…; x₂ = ∛(2 × 2.22398… + 7) = ∛11.44796… = 2.25377…; x₃ = ∛11.50754… = 2.25767…; x₄ = ∛11.51534… = 2.25818…. Now x₃ and x₄ both round to 2.26, so the sequence has settled. Answer: 2.26. The distractors: 2.22 is x₁ rounded, quoted by a candidate who stops after one use of the formula; 2.25 is x₂ rounded, quoted by a candidate who stops as soon as two values look close instead of waiting until two consecutive values round to the same figure; 1.91 is ∛7, which comes from ignoring the 2x term and solving x³ = 7 instead.
- (b) 3 — At the limit, L = √(2L + 3). Squaring both sides: L² = 2L + 3, so L² − 2L − 3 = 0, which factorises as (L − 3)(L + 1) = 0, giving L = 3 or L = −1. Since the sequence of iterates stays positive throughout, the limit is L = 3. Taking the other, negative root without rejecting it gives −1. Treating the equation L = 2L + 3 as already linear, forgetting to square both sides first, gives −L = 3, so L = −3. A sign error when factorising, writing (L + 3)(L − 1) = 0 instead of (L − 3)(L + 1) = 0, gives L = 1.
- (d) 3.425 — x₁ = ∛(6 × 3 + 20) = ∛38 = 3.3620 (unrounded, 3.36198...). x₂ = ∛(6 × 3.3620 + 20) = ∛40.172 = 3.425 (3 d.p.). Choosing 3.362 stops at x₁ instead of continuing to x₂. Choosing 2.722 leaves out the '+ 20' inside the root, working out ∛(6 × 3.3620) = ∛20.172 = 2.722. Choosing 0.556 subtracts 20 instead of adding it, working out ∛(6 × 3.3620 − 20) = ∛0.172 = 0.556.
- (a) 2.154 — Continuing xₙ₊₁ = ∛(3xₙ + 4) from x₁ = 2.154 gives x₂ = 2.187, x₃ = 2.195, settling towards the root near 2.196 — this is the formula that converges. Continuing xₙ₊₁ = (xₙ³ − 4) ÷ 3 from x₁ = 1.333 gives x₂ = −0.543 and then x₃ = −1.387, moving further from the root each time. Continuing xₙ₊₁ = 4 ÷ (xₙ² − 3) from x₁ = 4 gives x₂ = 0.308 and then x₃ = −1.377, swinging wildly rather than settling. Continuing xₙ₊₁ = xₙ³ − 2xₙ − 4 from x₁ = 0 gives x₂ = −4 and then x₃ = −60, running away from the root entirely.
- (d) 3 and 4 — f(3) = 3³ − 3 × 3² − 4 = 27 − 27 − 4 = −4, and f(4) = 4³ − 3 × 4² − 4 = 64 − 48 − 4 = 12. Since f(3) is negative and f(4) is positive, there is a change of sign, so the solution lies between 3 and 4. A sign slip when expanding −3x², treating it as +3x², gives f(3) = 27 + 27 − 4 = 50, a positive value; taken with the correctly negative f(2) = 8 − 12 − 4 = −8, this reads as a change of sign between 2 and 3. The same sign slip applied at x = 1 gives f(1) = 1 + 3 − 4 = 0, read as the point the sign changes, against f(0) = 0 + 0 − 4 = −4, giving 0 and 1. Shifting the correctly found interval up by one integer, an indexing slip, reports the change as lying between 4 and 5 instead of 3 and 4.
- (b) 3.38 — r₁ = √(300 ÷ (π × 8)) = √11.9366 = 3.4550. r₂ = √(300 ÷ (π × 8.4550)) = √11.2947 = 3.3608. r₃ = √(300 ÷ (π × 8.3608)) = √11.4232 = 3.3798, which rounds to 3.38. Choosing 3.36 stops at r₂, one iteration too early. Choosing 4.82 leaves out the '+ 5' inside the bracket, dividing by π × rₙ instead of π × (rₙ + 5). Choosing 3.45 comes from using π ≈ 3 instead of the calculator's π key throughout.
- (c) 17.7 cm — Method: the iteration converges on x, the depth of the box, which is also the side of each square cut away; a square is removed from both ends of the 20 cm side, so the longer side of the base is 20 − 2x. Run the formula three times, then carry out that subtraction. Working: x₁ = (16 × 1² − 1³ + 50) ÷ 60 = 65 ÷ 60 = 1.08333…; x₂ = 67.50636… ÷ 60 = 1.12510…; x₃ = 68.82959… ÷ 60 = 1.14715…. The longer side of the base is 20 − 2 × 1.14715… = 17.70568…, which is 17.7 cm correct to 1 decimal place. Answer: 17.7 cm. The distractors: 1.1 cm is x₃ itself rounded, the depth of the box, given by a candidate who runs the iteration correctly and then stops before the step the question actually asks for; 18.9 cm is 20 − 1.14715…, taking away one square instead of two and forgetting that a corner is cut from each end of that side; 9.7 cm is 12 − 2 × 1.14715…, the shorter side of the base, which measures the wrong edge of the sheet.
- (a) It has a solution between x = 2.6 and x = 2.7 — f(2.6) is negative and f(2.7) is positive, so the graph of f crosses the x-axis between x = 2.6 and x = 2.7, meaning the equation has a solution there. Choosing 'x = 2.6 is a solution' reads an end of the interval as the root itself, but f(2.6) = −1.424, which is not zero — the change of sign locates a root between the two values, it does not land on either of them. Choosing 'between x = −2.6 and x = −2.7' confuses the negative f-VALUE at 2.6 with a negative x-value. Choosing 'no root in this interval' misapplies the rule, which needs a CHANGE of sign — and a change of sign is exactly what these two values show.
- (c) The sequence diverges, moving away from x = 3 — Starting from x₀ = 2.9: x₁ = 2.9² − 6 = 2.41, x₂ = 2.41² − 6 = −0.19, x₃ = (−0.19)² − 6 = −5.96, x₄ = (−5.96)² − 6 = 29.56 — the values swing away from 3 and grow rapidly, so the sequence diverges rather than settling anywhere. Choosing 'settles towards x = 3' assumes that starting close to a root is enough for a rearrangement to converge to it, which is not always true — this rearrangement changes values too steeply near x = 3 to stay there. Choosing 'settles towards x = −2' assumes a diverging sequence must eventually land on the other root; instead it runs away to increasingly large values. Choosing 'stays constant at 2.9' ignores that applying the formula changes the value at every step.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.