Integration Series: Investigating a Puzzling Relation

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter disregardthat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integration
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between integration by parts and the Taylor series expansion of the exponential function, particularly focusing on the integration of \( e^x \) and its implications. Participants explore various aspects of the Taylor series, differential equations, and the definitions of the exponential function.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the validity of a relation derived from integration by parts applied to \( e^x \), suggesting that the resulting series does not hold true.
  • Another participant points out the omission of the arbitrary constant in indefinite integration, proposing that using definite limits resolves the issue.
  • A participant presents an expression for \( e^{-x} \) and seeks validation, which is confirmed by another participant as a standard definition of the exponential function.
  • There is a discussion about how the Taylor series for \( e^x \) is derived, with one participant questioning whether it is through integration.
  • Participants discuss the uniqueness of solutions to differential equations, particularly relating to the function that is its own derivative, \( e^x \).
  • One participant mentions that there are many ways to define the exponential function, including limits, products, integrals, and series.
  • Another participant highlights that the series representation of \( e^x \) remains consistent when differentiated, prompting a question about the uniqueness theorem in differential equations.
  • There is a clarification about the uniqueness theorem, noting that while some problems may have multiple solutions, certain conditions ensure a unique solution for differential equations.
  • A participant requests a link to the uniqueness theorem, indicating a desire for further information.
  • Another participant notes that the zero function is also its own derivative, suggesting a potential gap in the previous statements regarding uniqueness.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of integration by parts and the validity of the derived series. There is no consensus on the resolution of the initial question regarding the relation between integration and the Taylor series, and discussions about the uniqueness of solutions to differential equations remain open-ended.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the need for careful consideration of constants in integration and the conditions under which uniqueness of solutions to differential equations is guaranteed. The discussion includes various definitions and approaches to the exponential function, indicating that the topic is complex and multifaceted.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying calculus, differential equations, and the properties of exponential functions, as well as individuals exploring the connections between integration techniques and series expansions.

disregardthat
Science Advisor
Messages
1,864
Reaction score
34
Hey, I am not trying to prove anything here, just merely asking a question to something I tryed:

I found a relation to the Taylor series and how the integration by parts expand.

for example:

[tex]\int e^x dx = x e^x - \int xe^x dx[/tex]

[tex]\int xe^x dx = \frac{x^2}{2}e^x - \int \frac{x^2}{2}e^x dx[/tex]

[tex]\int \frac{x^2}{2}e^x dx = \frac{x^3}{6}e^x - \int \frac{x^3}{6}e^x dx[/tex]

We see that this goes on and on to this:

[tex]\int e^x dx = e^x[/tex]

[tex]e^x = xe^x - \frac{x^2}{2}e^x + \frac{x^3}{6}e^x - \frac{x^4}{24}e^x...\frac{x^n}{n!}e^x[/tex]

[tex]e^x=e^x \cdot \sum^{\infty}_{k=1}\frac{x^k}{k!}(-1)^{k-1}[/tex]

[tex]\sum^{\infty}_{k=1}\frac{x^k}{k!}(-1)^{k-1} = 1[/tex]

And that's definitely NOT true! What is wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You forgot about the arbitrary constant that comes out of integrating. It should fix the problem.

For example, instead of indefinite integration, choose limits of x and 0:

[tex]\int_0^x dt e^{t} = e^{x} - 1[/tex]

The series you get from the int. by parts can be written

[tex]e^{x}\left[\sinh x - \cosh x + 1\right] = e^{x} - 1[/tex], so the results do indeed agree.

(You have to be somewhat more careful in the case [itex]\int_{-\infty}^x dt \exp{t}[/itex], since the terms [itex]t^n \exp{t}[/itex] individually vanish as [itex]t \rightarrow -\infty[/itex], but the whole series actually converges to -1, which comes in as a +1 to cancel the -1 from the [itex]\exp{x}-1[/itex] result)
 
Last edited:
All right, thanks mute
 
Hi again, I think I found an expression for [tex]e^{-x}[/tex], but I am not sure if it is correct:

[tex]e^{-x} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{x^n(-1)^n}{n!}[/tex]

You probably know if it's wrong or not.
 
Yeah, I realized that now, and was going to change it... like this:
[tex]e^{x} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-x)^n(-1)^n}{n!} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{x^n}{n!}[/tex]

How is the taylor series of e^x made? Is it by integration?
 
suppose a power series solution to the diff. equ. y=y'.
 
Oh I don't know much about differential equations..

But I saw a flash "movie" about it. may it go something like this?

y=y'
y=dy/dx
ydx=dy
1dx=1/y dy
x=lny
y=e^x

I don't know what a power series is.
 
Last edited:
Well simply then, what quasar987 said asked was "find some function, where its derivative is equal to itself". Without having to know how to solve differential equations, we can see that the series posted is the solutions, just by finding the derivative of the series. We DEFINE e to be the solution to the differential equation,(there is a theorem that ensures uniquenesses of solutions) and we see the power series also satisfies it. Hence, they are equal.

But there are many ways to define the exponential function, many!
One other one is: The Inverse function of the function [tex]\int^x_1 \frac{1}{t} dt[/tex]. What makes that obvious is that the integral is just the natural log function. You could define e in terms of many limits, products, integrals and series, countless definitions but some are more common than others, since it makes more sense to define it in a certain way. Eg It is quite easy to prove the limit [tex]\lim_{h\to 0} \frac{e^h-1}{h}=1[/tex] when we define e in terms of its power series, but not so easy otherwise!
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Yeah, the series is equal to itself when derivated because everything is "shifted".

1+x+x^2/2+x^3/6+...+x^n/n!

the derivative:

(1)' +(x)' + (x^2/2)' + (x^3/6)'+...+(x^n/n!)'= 0 + 1 + x +x^2/2 + ... + x^(n-1)/(n-1)!

Was that the point?

(there is a theorem that ensures uniquenesses of solutions)
What do you mean by this excactly?
 
  • #11
"Yeah, the series is equal to itself when derivated because everything is "shifted"." Correct, that's the point.

"What do you mean by this excactly?" Well some problems have several solutions yes? polynomials, integrals with different constants of integration etc etc.

For Differential Equations we are ensured 1 solution (with sufficient conditions) so we know that when we do find the power series solution to "find a function which is its own derivative", that it is equal to the ONLY solution, e^x, instead of perhaps some other solution that would be applicable if this theorem was not there.
 
  • #12
Can you perhaps give me a link to this theroem?
 
  • #13
Gib Z said:
For Differential Equations we are ensured 1 solution (with sufficient conditions) so we know that when we do find the power series solution to "find a function which is its own derivative", that it is equal to the ONLY solution, e^x, instead of perhaps some other solution that would be applicable if this theorem was not there.

Certainly, the 0 function is its own derivative, so there's something missing from this statement of the uniqueness theorem. I'm sure you know what it is. ;)
 
  • #14
"With Sufficient conditions" meaning setting the constant C in the solution [tex]y= Ce^x[/tex] to 1. :P

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/diff.html has good info, but no proof. Different proof's exist for different types of differential equations.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K