How do I use induction more rigorously when making Taylor expansions?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mayhem
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction Taylor
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on enhancing the rigor of using mathematical induction in Taylor expansions. The user describes their current method of deriving coefficients by evaluating the first few derivatives of a function at a specific point, often zero. They seek to incorporate a more formal inductive approach, referencing the technique of "plugging in n+1" as a potential method. A specific example involving the derivatives of a function related to non-relativistic kinetic energy is provided, illustrating how to derive a general formula through induction.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Taylor series and polynomial expansions
  • Familiarity with mathematical induction principles
  • Knowledge of derivatives and their applications in calculus
  • Basic grasp of non-relativistic and relativistic energy concepts
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the formal structure of mathematical induction proofs
  • Learn how to derive Taylor series for various functions
  • Explore the relationship between derivatives and Taylor expansions in depth
  • Investigate the application of induction in proving formulas in calculus
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in mathematics, particularly those studying calculus and series expansions, as well as anyone looking to deepen their understanding of mathematical induction in the context of Taylor series.

Mayhem
Messages
424
Reaction score
317
When I do Taylor expansions, I take the first 3 or 4 derivatives of a function and try to induce a pattern, and then evaluate it at some value a (often 0) to find the coefficients in the polynomial expansion.

This is how my textbook does it, and how several other online sources do it as well, but can I make this inductive process slightly more rigorous? I remember hearing about "plugging in n+1" from a YouTube video a long time ago, and I'm wondering if that's relevant.

Sorry for being so vague, I hope it is clear what I'm trying to achieve.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Taylor series formula gives us each power definitely. I am not sure about you say it induction.
 
Mayhem said:
When I do Taylor expansions, I take the first 3 or 4 derivatives of a function and try to induce a pattern, and then evaluate it at some value a (often 0) to find the coefficients in the polynomial expansion.

This is how my textbook does it, and how several other online sources do it as well, but can I make this inductive process slightly more rigorous? I remember hearing about "plugging in n+1" from a YouTube video a long time ago, and I'm wondering if that's relevant.

Sorry for being so vague, I hope it is clear what I'm trying to achieve.
Can you give an example? The approach would tend to depend on the function in question. Sines and cosines are periodic, so they should be easier. But, a typical function requires a specific inductive argument.
 
PeroK said:
Can you give an example? The approach would tend to depend on the function in question. Sines and cosines are periodic, so they should be easier. But, a typical function requires a specific inductive argument.
Sure. This is from a recent assignment where I had to derive the non-relativistic KE from a relativistic energy expression, where we let ## v/c \rightarrow 0##

$$
\begin{align*}
f'(x) &= \frac{1}{2} \cdot \frac{1}{(1-x)^{3/2}} \\
f''(x) &= \frac{1}{2} \cdot \frac{3}{2} \cdot \frac{1}{(1-x)^{5/2}} \\
f'''(x) &= \frac{1}{2} \cdot\frac{3}{2} \cdot \frac{5}{2}\frac{1}{(1-x)^{7/2}} \\
f''''(x) &= \frac{1}{2}\cdot \frac{3}{2} \cdot\frac{5}{2}\cdot \frac{7}{2}\frac{1}{(1-x)^{9/2}} \\
&\Downarrow \mathrm{Induction} \\
f^{(n)}(x) &= \frac{1\cdot 3 \cdot 5 \cdot \cdot \cdot (2n-1)}{2^n} \frac{1}{(1-x)^{2n+1/2}}
\end{align*}
$$
 
Okay, so you can guess the formula (which must hold for ##n = 1##). Do you know how induction works, in terms of the inductive step?
 
PeroK said:
Okay, so you can guess the formula (which must hold for ##n = 1##). Do you know how induction works, in terms of the inductive step?
No, not really.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K