The biggest piece of advice that I have for a question like this, where an
approximation is sought, is not to attempt standard methods like the remainder theorem or root theory unless you are sure that they will yield results. They are likely to be unproductive and a waste of time.
Newton's Method would definitely be a useful tool here, but as has been noted, it's not in the syllabus any longer. So, the simplest method to finding
, since you only need one decimal place, is halving the interval. You know the function is continuous, so it can only change sign by passing through a root. From the graph,
looks to me to be somewhere near 0.3. So:
Try
:
From the graph, we can see that there must be a root between
, where
, and
, as
. In other words, the root we seek at
satisfies
. I could take this as my interval, but since I seek one decimal place, I'd prefer an interval with a width of 0.1 or 0.2. So, I now try
as the root looks to me to be closer to 0.3 than to 0.
Trying
:
We now know that the root we seek at
satisfies
as
changes sign in this interval. To find its value to one decimal place, we need only halve this interval by testing its midpoint.
Test
:
From this, we conclude that the root we seek at
satisfies
as it changes sign in this domain.
Every value within this interval is the same to one decimal place. Thus,
(to one decimal place).
The halving the interval method has several limitations:
- you need to start by finding a suitable domain, which is easy in this case given the graph
- the convergence is slow. To find to two decimal places, we'd need to test , then either or , etc. Newton's method allowed for very rapid convergence. There was a 4 unit question from about 1988 (IIRC) that included a proof that 12 applications led to an approximation that was correct to over 200 decimal places.
- there can be multiple roots in an interval. For example, here changes sign between and , and is continuous on this domain. So, there must be at least one root between and , but there could be more than one... as we can see, there are three. Similarly, we can see that and are both positive which means that, for a continuous curve like , there need not be any roots, but it does not prove that there are no roots. There could be two roots (as we can see is the case).
- Having said all of that, Newton's Method also has limitations.