Factorizing taylor polynomials of infinite degree

AI Thread Summary
Factorizing Taylor polynomials into infinite products is explored, particularly for sin(x), which has roots at nπ. The proposed factorization involves terms like (x^2 - n^2π^2), leading to a form that is only accurate within the interval of -π to π. The discussion also touches on the challenges of factorizing e^x, which lacks roots, raising questions about its factorability. The convergence of infinite products is highlighted as a crucial consideration in this context. Overall, the exploration reveals complexities in factorizing infinite degree polynomials and the limitations of certain functions.
okkvlt
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
an idea i had:


factorizing taylor polynomials
Can any taylor polynomial be factorized into an infinite product representation?
I think so.

I was able to do this(kinda) with sin(x), i did it this way.

because sin(0)=0, there must be an x in the factorization.
because every x of sin(x)=0 is n*pi where n is any number, there is (x+pi)(x-pi)(x+2pi)(x-2pi)... in the factorization
the (x+n*pi)(x-n*pi) can be simplified to (x^2-n^2*pi^2)

i know therefore that the factorized polynomial of sin(x) is in the form of

ax(x^2-pi^2)(x^2-4pi^2)(x^2-9pi^2)(x^2-16pi^2)(x^2-25pi^2)...

heres where i got messed up:

a= the coefficient of the highest exponent in the series, which is n*2+1 where n is the number of factors.
a=1/(2n+1)!

which comes from the infinite sum representation. but as it turns out this is incorrect.(which after reasoning through it i realize that this the factorization is totally different from the infinite sum representation. and therefore i was wrong) but with help from my graphing calculator i was able use guess and check to decide the value of a.

also, it turns out that if n even, the factorization is sinx, while if n is odd, the factorization is -sinx. this is strange.

heres one factorization i came up with. but its only accurate between -pi and pi. graph it and see what i mean.

sinx=(1/500000000000)x(x^2-pi^2)(x^2-4pi^2)(x^2-9pi^2)(x^2-16pi^2)(x^2-25pi^2)(x^2-36pi^2)

it seems as though regardless of the number of factors, the polynomial is only accurate between -pi and pi.


with the moderate success of factorizing sin(x), i decided to try it with e^x
e^x=x^0/0!+x^1/1!+x^2/2!+x^3/3!+...

however, the only solution of e^x=0 is negative infinity; there are not even any complex roots that i can work with.
so does this mean that e^x non-factorizable? i can't imagine why.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weierstrass_factorization_theorem"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
foxjwill's right on the money. You also have to be very careful about what you mean for an infinite product to converge. A lot of things you think should converge as infinite products dont.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top