Taylor Expansion of Natural Logarithm


by golanor
Tags: taylor
mfb
mfb is online now
#19
Jan13-13, 09:20 AM
Mentor
P: 10,815
"It could be larger" => you cannot use the general version of the lagrangian error to show convergence
It converges, but you cannot use this way to show it.

With c arbitrary small, it would diverge for other x as well, by the way.
golanor
golanor is offline
#20
Jan13-13, 10:16 AM
P: 54
yes, but since c is between x and 100, if x is bigger than 50 or smaller than 200 it won't diverge for any x and for any c.
when i pick x=1, for example, for 1<c<99 the limit diverges.
you cannot talk about a series in that case, because the remainder does not necessarily converge to 0.
mfb
mfb is online now
#21
Jan13-13, 10:39 AM
Mentor
P: 10,815
Let me rewrite your limit a bit:

$$\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{c(n+1)} \frac{(x-100)^n}{c^n}$$

Consider c=100-epsilon with some (small) constant epsilon: The first part goes to 0, the second part, neglecting its sign, can be written as
$$\frac{(100-x)^n}{(100-\epsilon)^n}$$
This is smaller than 1 for epsilon<x, which is easy to satisfy for x<50 (c is close to 100 then). x=50, c=50 gives convergence as well, and you covered the remaining parts.

The series can converge to 0. Where is the problem?
golanor
golanor is offline
#22
Jan14-13, 10:03 AM
P: 54
It's very confusing. If the Lagrange remainder doesn't approach 0 it means you cannot estimate the function correctly, but in this case the calculation of the series does give accurate estimations.
It's very interesting.
Does anyone know the answer to this?
lurflurf
lurflurf is online now
#23
Jan14-13, 11:40 AM
HW Helper
P: 2,151
^The Lagrange remainder does approach 0, you have chosen a terrible way to estimate it. Either use a more subtle estimate of the Lagrange remainder or use the Cauchy Remainder or Schlömilch Remainder. Remember your estimate for c is quite crude.
golanor
golanor is offline
#24
Jan14-13, 01:35 PM
P: 54
Quote Quote by lurflurf View Post
^The Lagrange remainder does approach 0, you have chosen a terrible way to estimate it. Either use a more subtle estimate of the Lagrange remainder or use the Cauchy Remainder or Schlömilch Remainder. Remember your estimate for c is quite crude.
The remainder must approach 0 for every c between x and 100.
If i can find even 1 such number for which the remainder does not approach 0, it means that the series is not a correct estimation for the function.
mfb
mfb is online now
#25
Jan15-13, 04:01 PM
Mentor
P: 10,815
Quote Quote by golanor View Post
If i can find even 1 such number for which the remainder does not approach 0, it means that the series is not a correct estimation for the function.
No: If you cannot find even 1 sequence cn, ...
But I found one.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Definition Of Natural Logarithm Calculus 8
natural logarithm of x Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 3
Definition of the natural logarithm General Math 16
Question about a tricky/difficult Taylor expansion of natural logarithm General Math 1
Natural logarithm and pi... help? Calculus 4