Register to reply 
An issue with solving an IVP by Taylor Series 
Share this thread: 
#1
Mar709, 05:23 AM

P: 162

Okay so suppose I have the Initial Value Problem:
[tex] \left. \begin{array}{l} \frac {dy} {dx} = f(x,y) \\ y( x_{0} ) = y_{0} \end{array} \right\} \mbox{IVP} [/tex] NB. I am considering only real functions of real variables. If [tex]f(x,y) [/tex] is analytic at x_{0} and y_{0} then that means that we can construct its Taylor Series centered around the point (x_{0},y_{0}) and that the Taylor Series will have a positive radius of convergence, and also that within this radius of convergence the function [tex]f(x,y) [/tex] will equal its Taylor Series. [tex]f(x,y) [/tex] being analytic at x_{0} and y_{0} also means that the IVP has a unique solution in a neighbourhood of the point x_{0}, as follows from The Existence and Uniqueness Theorem (Picard–Lindelöf). Let y(x) be the function that satisfies the IVP in a neighbourhood of x_{0}. The idea behind the Taylor Series method is to use the differential equation and initial condition to find the Taylor coefficients of y(x): [tex] \frac {dy} {dx} = f(x,y) \; \; \rightarrow \; \; y'(x_0)=f(x_0,y(x_0))=f(x_0,y_0) [/tex] [tex] \frac {d^2y} {dx^2} = \frac {d} {dx} f(x,y)= \frac {\partial f} {\partial x} \frac {dx} {dx} \; + \; \frac {\partial f} {\partial y} \frac {dy} {dx} \\ \indent \rightarrow \; \; y''(x_0)= \frac {\partial f} {\partial x}_{(x_0,y(x_0))} \; + \; \frac {\partial f} {\partial y}_{(x_0,y(x_0))}\cdot f(x_0,y_0) [/tex] etc. Obviously we can do this because if f is analytic, all the partial derivatives of f exist at (x_{0},y_{0}), and by the relationship given by the ODE (which we know y(x) satisfies at least in a neighbourhood of x_{0}), all the derivatives of y exist at x_{0}, that is, [tex] y(x) \in C^\infty _x (x_0) [/tex] Okay, so we can construct the Taylor Series of y(x) at x_{0}: [tex] \sum \frac{y^{(n)}(x_0)}{n!}x^n [/tex] But! 1)How do we know that this series has a nonzero radius of convergence? 2)And secondly, if it does have a positive radius of convergence, how do we know it is equal to the solution of the IVP within its radius of convergence? That is, obviously within its radius of convergence, the series represents a certain function which is analytic at x_{0}, but how do we know that this function is indeed the function y(x) which is what we called the solution to the IVP? I mean, maybe the solution to the IVP is not analytic at x_{0} (even though it is infinitely derivable at x_{0}) and thus its Taylor series (the one we constructed) does not represent it in any neighbourhood of x_{0}. After all, the existence and uniqueness theorem does not require or state that the solution be analytic at all. Um, if you can affirm that the Taylor Series we have constructed is indeed a solution to the IVP within its radius of convergence, then by the uniqueness of the solution, the function it represents must be the solution of the IVP, y(x). But can this be affirmed? If anyone has any ideas please help, I'm just not happy with this method coz yes, I can calculate a number of terms of the Taylor Series to approximate the solution of the IVP, but I really have no assurance that the series I am constructing is indeed solution of the IVP (not to mention whether it even does converge at all for any x near x_{0}). 


#2
Mar809, 11:30 AM

P: 162

Sometimes I feel I speak in Martian, especially when my posts are long ones:P Did anyone actually get was I was on about? Just curious, as sometimes I myself don't lol :P



#3
Mar809, 11:35 AM

P: 162

Yay I think I might be able to (partially) answer my own question xD
gingerly tries to demostrate Let [tex] T_{y,x_0} (x) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{y^{(n)}(x_0)}{n!}x^n [/tex] be the Taylor series of y(x) that I've constructed using the initial condition and the relationship given by the o.d.e. If it has a positive radius of convergence R>0 (unfortunately I'll only be able to know this if I can deduce an expression for the general term of the series), then within its radius of convergence, it converges to an analytic (at x_{0}) function, lets say u(x): [tex] u(x) = T_{y,x_0} (x) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{y^{(n)}(x_0)}{n!}x^n = T_{u,x_0} (x) = \sum_ {n=0}^\infty \frac{u^{(n)}(x_0)}{n!}x^n \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{for} \ \ xx_0<R[/tex] And!! And!! If f(x,y) is analytic at (x_{0},y_{0}), then [tex] u(x) = T_{y,x_0} (x) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{y^{(n)}(x_0)}{n!}x^n [/tex] is solution to the I.V.P. in a certain neighbourhood of x_{0} !! Because, within the Radius of Convergence, you can differentiate u(x) by differentiating each term of the series and what not :P, so: [tex] u'(x) = \frac {d} {dx} (T_{y,x_0} (x)) = \frac {dy} {dx}(x_0) + \frac {d^2y} {dx^2}(x_0) \cdot (xx_0) + \frac {d^3y} {dx^3}(x_0) \cdot \frac {(xx_0)^2}{2!} + ... \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{for} \ \ xx_0<R[/tex] and, as f(x,y) is analytic at (x_{0},y_{0}), then in some neighbourhood of the point (x_{0},y_{0}), lets say xx_{0},yy_{0}< R^{*} : [tex] f(x,u) = f(x_0,y_0) \ + \ \frac {\partial f} {\partial x} (x_0,y_0) \cdot (xx_0) \ + \ \frac {\partial f} {\partial u} (x_0,y_0)\cdot (uy_0) + [/tex] [tex] \ \ \ \frac {1}{2!} \left[ \frac {\partial ^2f} {\partial x^2}(x_0,y_0) \cdot (xx_0)^2 + \ 2 \frac {\partial^2 f} {\partial x \partial u } (x_0,y_0) \cdot (xx_0)(uy_0) + \frac {\partial ^2f} {\partial u^2}(x_0,y_0) \cdot (uy_0)^2 \right] + ... \ \ \ \ \mbox{for} \ \ xx_0,uy_0 <R^*[/tex] [tex] = f(x_0,y_0) \ \ + \ \ \frac {\partial f} {\partial x} (x_0,y_0) \cdot (xx_0) + \frac {\partial f} {\partial u} (x_0,y_0)\cdot \left( \frac {du} {dx}(x_0) \cdot (xx_0) + \frac {1}{2!} \frac {d^2u} {dx^2}(x_0) \cdot (xx_0)^2 + ...\right) + [/tex] [tex] \frac {1}{2!} \left[ \frac {\partial ^2f} {\partial x^2}(x_0,y_0) \cdot (xx_0)^2 + 2 \frac {\partial^2 f} {\partial x \partial u } (x_0,y_0) \cdot (xx_0)\left( \frac {du} {dx}(x_0) \cdot (xx_0) + \frac {1}{2!} \frac {d^2u} {dx^2}(x_0) \cdot (xx_0)^2 + ...\right)+ [/tex] [tex] \left. \frac {\partial ^2f} {\partial u^2}(x_0,y_0) \cdot \left( \frac {du} {dx}(x_0) \cdot (xx_0) + \frac {1}{2!} \frac {d^2u} {dx^2}(x_0) \cdot (xx_0)^2 + ...\right)^2 \right] + ... \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{for} \ \ xx_0< min(R, R^*) [/tex] [tex] = f(x_0,y_0) \ \ + \ \ \left[ \frac {\partial f} {\partial x} (x_0,y_0)+ \frac {\partial f} {\partial u} (x_0,y_0)\cdot\frac {du} {dx}(x_0)\right]\cdot (xx_0) \ \ + [/tex] [tex] \frac {1}{2!} \left[ \frac {\partial f} {\partial u}(x_0,y_0) \cdot\frac {d^2u} {dx^2}(x_0) + \frac {\partial ^2f} {\partial x^2}(x_0,y_0) + 2 \frac {\partial^2 f} {\partial x \partial u } (x_0,y_0) \frac {du} {dx}(x_0) + \frac {\partial ^2f} {\partial u^2}(x_0,y_0)\left(\frac {du} {dx}(x_0)\right)^2 \right] \cdot(xx_0)^2 + ... \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{for} \ \ xx_0< min(R, R^*) [/tex] [tex] = f(x_0,y_0) \ \ + \ \ \frac {df} {dx}(x_0)\cdot(xx_0) \ \ + \ \ \frac {d^2f} {dx^2}(x_0)\cdot\frac {(xx_0)^2}{2!} \ \ + ... \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{for} \ \ xx_0< min(R, R^*) [/tex] (which, by construction of y^{(n)}(x_{0}) ) [tex] = \frac {dy} {dx}(x_0) + \frac {d^2y} {dx^2}(x_0) \cdot (xx_0) + \frac {d^3y} {dx^3}(x_0) \cdot \frac {(xx_0)^2}{2!} + ... \ \ = \ \ \frac {d} {dx} (T_{y,x_0} (x)) \ \ = \ \ u'(x) [/tex] that is, [tex] T_{y,x_0} (x) \ = \ u(x) [/tex] satisfies the o.d.e. for xx_{0}< min(R,R^{*}), and it evidently satisfies the initial condition as well, so it is a solution to the I.V.P, and by the uniqueness of the solution, it is the solution to the I.V.P: u(x)=y(x) which also means that the solution to the I.V.P. is also analytic at x_{0}. So, in summary, if f is analytic at (x_{0},y_{0}), then provided the Taylor Series of the solution to the I.V.P. y(x) has positive radius of convergence R, it represents the solution to the I.V.P within a neighbourhood of x_{0}, as I have (I hope:P) shown. I still would like to know whether there is any result that can affirm that if f is analytic at (x_{0},y_{0}) (ie. there exists a neighbourhood of (x_{0},y_{0}), R^{*}, in which the Taylor Series of f represents f), then the solution is analytic too in a certain neighbourhood R of x_{0}. Is there a relationship between R^{*} and R? The issue of the radius of convergence remains an important aspect, I think, because if there's no guarantee that the Taylor series of the solution that one constructs actually converges, then how can one use a finite No. of terms of the series as an approximation to the solution? In general one won't be able to deduce an expression for the general term of the series to be able to determine its radius of convergence:S Any comments/refutations/insights or the like would be welcome xD Thank you for your time :P 


#4
Mar809, 03:47 PM

P: 813

An issue with solving an IVP by Taylor Series
Wikipedia says if the a function is analytic then it is locally given by a convergent power series.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_function 


#5
Mar809, 04:17 PM

P: 162

I've always gone by that definition of analicity (for real functions anyhow, which are what concern me). That is why I equated f(x,u) to its power series (Taylor series) under the assumption that it was analytic xD. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Power series vs. taylor series  Calculus & Beyond Homework  1  
Power Series/Taylor Series  Calculus & Beyond Homework  6  
Taylor Series  Calculus & Beyond Homework  1  
Question on solving complex limit with taylor  Calculus & Beyond Homework  16  
Power series & Taylor series  Calculus & Beyond Homework  4 