Can We Simplify the Taylor Series Expansion for e^(f(x,y))?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the Taylor series expansion for the exponential function \( e^{f(x,y)} \) where \( f(x,y) \) is a function of two variables. It is established that while the expression \( e^{f(x,y)} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{(f(x,y))^n}{n!} \) is valid, it does not necessarily represent the Taylor series for \( e^{f(x,y)} \). The conversation highlights that the Taylor series for one variable, \( e^{f(x)} \), can be expressed as \( e^{f(x)} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{f(x)^n}{n!} \), but this does not extend directly to two variables without additional considerations. The suggestion is made to factor out \( e^{f(0,0)} \) when \( f(0,0) \) is not approximately zero to simplify the series.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Taylor series for single-variable functions
  • Familiarity with exponential functions and their properties
  • Basic knowledge of multivariable calculus
  • Experience with power series expansions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Taylor series for multivariable functions
  • Explore the properties of exponential functions in calculus
  • Learn about power series and their convergence criteria
  • Investigate methods for simplifying multivariable Taylor series
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, calculus students, and educators looking to deepen their understanding of Taylor series expansions, particularly in the context of multivariable functions and exponential expressions.

thatboi
Messages
130
Reaction score
20
I know that for 1 variable, one can write ##e^{f(x)} = \sum_{n = 0}^{\infty}\frac{(f(x))^n}{n!}##. In the case of 2-variables ##f(x,y)##, I assume we cannot write ##e^{f(x,y)} = \sum_{n = 0}^{\infty}\frac{(f(x,y))^n}{n!}## right (because of how the Taylor series is defined for multiple variables)? Is there still a compact way of writing this expansion?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For any variable ##z## it is the case that
$$e^z = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{z^n}{n!}$$
Substituting any expression for ##z## it remains valid, as long as the expression delivers a real number.
Substituting ##f(x)## for ##z## gives your first formula.
Substituting ##f(x,y)## for ##z## gives your second formula.
Both are valid.
The definition of a Taylor series for two variables is not relevant. In neither case is the formula a Taylor series for the function of ##x## or ##x,y##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK and thatboi
thatboi said:
I know that for 1 variable, one can write ##e^{f(x)} = \sum_{n = 0}^{\infty}\frac{(f(x))^n}{n!}##. In the case of 2-variables ##f(x,y)##, I assume we cannot write ##e^{f(x,y)} = \sum_{n = 0}^{\infty}\frac{(f(x,y))^n}{n!}## right (because of how the Taylor series is defined for multiple variables)?
Those equations are perfectly valid. But, they may not represent the Taylor series for the given function. In general, it won't even be a power series in ##x##:
$$e^{f(x)} = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{f(x)^n}{n!} = 1 + f(x) + \frac{f(x)^2}{2!} + \dots$$Which is fine, but it's not necessarily the Taylor series for ##e^{f(x)}##

In some cases, you do get the Taylor series. For example, if we let ##z = x^2##, then (as above) we get the power series:
$$e^{x^2} = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{x^{2n}}{n!}$$Which is the Taylor series for ##e^{x^2}##.
 
Suggestion is that if ## f(0,0) ## is not approximately zero, that you factor out ## e^{f(0,0)} ## from the expression for the Taylor type series of ## f(x,y) ##.

Edit: It leaves you with ## e^{f(0,0)}e^{\Delta}=e^{f(0,0)}(1+ \Delta+ \Delta^2/2+...)##, = maybe it will work...Edit 2=even ## \Delta ## is complicated to second order in ## \Delta x ## and ## \Delta y ##=I don't see an easy way to simplify it.

In any case, ignore=my calculus was rusty today...:confused:
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
909