Discovering Maclaurin Series for (1 + x)^(-3) with a Taylor Series Approach

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the Maclaurin series for the function f(x) = (1 + x)^(-3). Participants are exploring various methods to derive this series, including traditional approaches and potential simplifications.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss using a table to identify trends in derivatives, while others mention the binomial series and the geometric series as potential tools. There is a debate on whether binomials should be involved in the solution, with some suggesting a simpler method may exist.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with various approaches being proposed. Some participants express frustration with the reliance on binomial methods, while others suggest that alternative methods have already been provided. There is no clear consensus on the best approach yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants are considering the traditional method of calculating derivatives at zero for the Maclaurin series, but there is a strong emphasis on finding a simpler method without binomials. The conversation reflects differing opinions on the necessity of certain mathematical concepts in this context.

frasifrasi
Messages
276
Reaction score
0
I am trying to find the maclaurin series for f(x) = (1 + x)^(-3)

--> what is the best way of doing this--to make a table and look for a trend in f^(n)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
...well you can do that but you will just find that is just a binomial series.do you know the nth term in a binomial expansion?
 
Last edited:
Presumably you know the expansion of 1/(1+x) (hint: think geometric series). So what's the second derivative of 1/(1+x), and how does this help? This should give you another way of finding the expansion of (1+x)^(-3).
 
Last edited:
NO! NO! NO! there should be no binomals involved. Is there a simpler way? the way we usually do this is by making a table.

If someone can shed some light, I would appreciate it.
 
Well you will have to find f(0),f'(0),f'''(0) and so forth for the traditional method for finding the maclaurin series for that function. But I believe that you should make the table and then make the series if that is the way you know how to do it
 
frasifrasi said:
NO! NO! NO! there should be no binomals involved. Is there a simpler way? the way we usually do this is by making a table.

If someone can shed some light, I would appreciate it.
Read my post...
 
frasifrasi said:
NO! NO! NO! there should be no binomals involved. Is there a simpler way? the way we usually do this is by making a table.

If someone can shed some light, I would appreciate it.

You can, in fact, extend the binomial theorem to fractional or negative exponents. Morphism suggested an even easier way. You'[ve already been given two very good ways of finding the series. Why don't you appreciate them?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K