1

Muller's Method
Mullers method is an extension of the secant method. Secant method
obtains a root estimate by projecting a straight line to the x axis through
two function values. Mullers method takes a similar approach, but
projects a parabola through three points. The method consists of
deriving the coefficients of the parabola that goes through the three
points. These coefficients can then be substituted into the quadratic
formula to obtain the points where the parabola intercepts the x-axis that
is the root estimate. The approach is facilitated by writing the parabolic
equation in a convenient form,

() = ( 0 )2 + ( 0 ) + (1)

We want this parabola to interest the three points (0 , (0 )), (1 ,

(1 )) and (2 , (2 )). The coefficients of Eq. (1) can be evaluated by
substituting each of the three points to give

0 = (0 ) = (0 0 )2 + (0 0 ) + (2)

1 = (1 ) = (1 0 )2 + (1 0 ) + (3)

2 = (2 ) = (2 0 )2 + (2 0 ) + (4)

A comparison of two related approaches for locating roots:

(a) Secant Method (b) Muller Method

We can solve for the three unknown coefficients a, b & c. Because two
of the terms in Eq. (2) are zero, it can be immediately solved for

= 0 = (0 ) (5)

Thus, the coefficient c is merely equal to the function value

evaluated at the third guess; 2 . This result can then be substituted into
Eqs. (3) and (4) to yield two equations with two unknowns.

1 0 = (1 0 )2 + (1 0 ) (6)

2 0 = (2 0 )2 + (2 0 ) (7)

Algebraic manipulation can then be used to solve for the remaining

coefficients, and . From Eq. (6)
 2

1 0
= (1 0 ) + (8)
1 0

2 0
= (2 0 ) + (9)
2 0

Let 1 = 1 0 and 2 = 2 0 then equations (8) and (9) become

1 0
= 1 + (10)
1

2 0
= 2 + (11)
2

2 0
= 2 (12)
2

Adding (10) and (12)

1 0 2 0
+ = 1 + 2
1 2

2 (1 0 ) + 1 (2 0 )
= (1 + 2 )
1 2

2 1 2 0 + 1 2 1 0
=
1 2 (1 + 2 )

2 1 (2 +1 )0 1 2
= (13)
1 2 (1 +2 )

From equation (10) we get

1 0
1 =
1

1 0 1 2
= (14)
1

To find the root, we apply the quadratic formula to Eq. (1).

However, because of potential round-off error, rather than using the
conventional form we use the alternative formulation to yield.
2
= 0 (15)
2 4

Note that the use of the quadratic formula means that both real
and complex roots can be located. This is a major benefit of the method.
 3

Now, a problem with Eq. (15) is that is yields two roots,

corresponding to the term in the denominator. In Mullers method, the
sign is chosen to agree with the sign of b. this choice will result in the
largest denominator, and hence, will give the root estimate that is closest
to 0 .

Once x is determined, the process is repeated. This brings up the issue

of which point is discarded. Two general strategies are typically used:

(1) If only real roots are being located, we choose the two original
points that are nearest the new root estimate,
(2) If both real and complex roots are being evaluated, a sequential
approach is employed. That is, just like the secant method,
1 , 2 and 3 take the place of 0 , 1 and 2 .

Example 1:
Use Mllers method with guesses of 0 , 1 , and 2 = 4.5, 5.5, and
5, respectively, to determine a root of the equation

() = 3 13 12

Note that the roots of this equation are 3, 1, and 4.

Solution

(0 ) = 0 = (4.5)3 13(4.5) 12 = 20.625

(1 ) = 1 = (5.5)3 13(5.5) 12 = 82.875

(2 ) = 2 = (5)3 13(5) 12 = 48
Now,
= 0 = 20.625
1 = 1 0 = 1
2 = 0 2 = 0.5
As,
2 1 (1 +2 )0 +1 2
=
1 2 (1 +2 )
(0.5)(82.875)(0.5)(20.625)+(1)(48)
=
(1)(0.5)(0.5)
 4

= 15
Also,
1 0 12
=
1
(82.875)(20.625)(15)(1)
=
1
= 47.25
Substituting the values of , & in the formula,
2
= 0
+2 4

A positive sign is employed in the denominator of the above equation,

and the new root estimate can be determined as
2(20.625)
= (4.5)
+(47.25)+(77.25)2 4(15)(20.625)

= 4.1444 <4.5

Take,

2 = 4.1444, 0 = 4.5, 1 = 5

Now,

= 0 = (4.5) = 20.625

1 = 1 0 = 0.5

2 = 0 2 = 0.3556

Also,

(1 ) = 1 = (5)3 13(5) 12 = 48

(2 ) = 2 = (4.1444)3 13(4.1444) 12 = 5.3062

As,
(0.3556)(48)(0.8556)(20.625)+(0.5)(5.3062)
=
(0.5)(0.3556)(0.8556)
 5

2.07515
=
0.1521

= 13.64

Also,
(48)(20.625)(13.64)(0.5)2
=
0.5

= 61.57

Substituting the values of , & in the formula,

2
= 0
+2 4

A positive sign is employed in the denominator of the above equation,

and the new root estimate can be determined as
2(20.625)
= (4.5)
+(61.57)+(61.57)2 4(13.64)(20.625)

41.25
= 4.5
113.199
= 4.1355 <4.1444

Graeffes Root Squaring Method

Graeffes root squaring method is particularly attractive for finding
all the roots of a polynomial equation. Consider a polynomial of third
degree

() = 0 + 1 + 2 2 + 3 3

() = 0 1 + 2 2 3 3

()() = 3 2 6 (2 2 21 3 ) 4 + (1 2 20 2 ) 2 0 2

()() = 3 2 3 (2 2 21 3 ) 2 + (1 2 20 2 ) 0 2

The roots of this equation are squares or 2( = 1), powers of the

original roots. Here = 1 indicates that squaring is done once.
 6

The same equation can again be squared and this squaring

process is repeated as many times as required. After each squaring, the
coefficients become large and overflow is possible as increase.

Suppose, we have squared the given polynomial times, then we

can estimate the value of the roots by evaluating 2 root of | 1 |,
1
= 1, 2, ,

Where is the degree of the given polynomial.

The proper sign of each root can be determined by recalling the

original equation. This method fails, when the roots of the given
polynomial are repeated.

This method has a great advantage over other methods in that it

does not require prior information about approximate values etc. of the
roots. But it is applicable to polynomials only it is capable of giving all the
roots. Let us see the case of the polynomial equation having real and
distinct roots. Consider the following polynomial equation.

() = + 1 1 + 2 2 + + 1 + (1)

eparating the even and odd powers of x and squaring we get

( + 2 2 + 4 4 +. . . )2 = (1 1 + 3 3 + 5 5 +. . . )2

Putting x2 = y and simplifying we get the new equation

+ 1 1 + 1 1 + + 1 1 + = 0 (2)

1 = 1 2 + 22

2 = 2 2 21 3 + 24

.. .

= (1) 2

If p1 , p2 , , pn be the roots of Eq (1) then the roots of the Eq (2) are

p1 2 , p2 2 , . . . , pn 2

Example 1:
 7

Apply Graeffes root squaring method to solve the equation

3 8 2 + 17 10 = 0

Solution

Given,

() = 3 8 2 + 17 10 (1)

Here three changes are observed from +ve to -ve, -ve to +ve, +ve to
ve. Hence, according to Deccarte rule of signs () may have three
positive roots.

Rewriting Eq as

( 2 + 17) = (8 2 + 10)

and squaring on both sides and putting 2 =

( + 17)2 = (8 2 + 10)2

3 + 34 2 + 289 = 64 2 + 160 + 100

( 2 + 129) = 30 2 + 100

Putting 2 = we get

( + 129)2 = (30 + 100)2

3 + 258 2 + 16641 = 900 2 + 6000 + 10000

( 2 + 16641) = (642 2 + 10000)

Squaring again an putting 2 = we get

( + 16641)2 = (642 + 10000)2

3 + 332822 + 276922881 = 4121642 + 12840000 + 108

3 3788822 + 264082 108 = 0 (2)

If the roots of the Eq (1) are 1 , 2 , 3 and those of Eq (2) are 1 , 2 , 3

 8

1 = (1 )1/8 = (1 )1/8 = (378882)1/8 = 4.9809593 5

2 = (2 )1/8 = (2 /1 )1/8 = (264082/378882)1/8 = 0.9558821 1

3 = (3 )1/8 = (3 /2 )1/8 = (108 /264082)1/8 = 2.1003064 2

Here (5) = (2) = (1) = 0

Hence all are the roots of the equation.