Talk:Aitken's delta-squared process

Just noticed that this is mentioned on Sequence transformations... I suggest merging from there to here what's not yet here. — MFH:Talk 18:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said "move from there to here..." which seemingly had been misunderstood - just undid the replacement of this page by a simple redirect.— MFH:Talk 13:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the properties section, there are what look like some editor's notes to himself or herself. Can someone who knows about this topic edit that as appropriate? 129.2.134.104 (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Century indicated as XVII instead of 17th? This is inefficient communication - given the audience of this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.70 (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pseudocode orientation confusing

I understand that

x_{n}-{\frac {(\Delta x_{n})^{2}}{\Delta ^{2}x_{n}}}=A(x_{n})=x_{n+2}-{\frac {(\Delta x_{n+1})^{2}}{\Delta ^{2}x_{n}}}

but I found it confusing that the pseudocode uses the second form,

aitkenX = x2 - ( (x2 - x1)^2 )/denominator

instead of

aitkenX = x0 - ( (x1 - x0)^2 )/denominator

Why doesn't the pseudocode use the form that appears in the Definition section?

Jmichael ll (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

nice notation does not need qualification

I think the qualification

(To use this nice operator notation, one has to allow for the indices to start from n = 2 on, or apply a translation operator which first shifts the sequence indices by two, or to adopt the convention that x_n = 0 for all n < 0.)

dates from a time when $\Delta x_{n}$ was defined as a backward-reaching operator.

I believe the parenthetical qualification should be deleted.

Jmichael ll (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]