MHB Is This Maclaurin Series Expansion Correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aruwin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Series
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the expansion of the function f(z) = 2z/(1-z)^2 into a Maclaurin series and determining its radius of convergence. The initial solution provided by the user involves manipulating the function and applying derivatives, leading to a series representation. A correction is later made to the function, changing the exponent to 3, which prompts a reevaluation of the series expansion. The final conclusion indicates that the radius of convergence remains 1, consistent with the original function's properties. The thread emphasizes the importance of accurate function representation in series expansion calculations.
aruwin
Messages
204
Reaction score
0
Hello.
Could someone check if my solution is correct, please?

Question:
Expand the function into maclaurine series and find its radius of convergence.

$$f(z)=\frac{2z}{(1-z)^2}$$

My solution:
$$f(z)=\frac{2z}{(1-z)^2}=\frac{1}{(1-z)}\frac{2}{(1-z)}\frac{2}{(1-z)^2}$$

Since $$\frac{d}{dz}\frac{1}{1-z}=\frac{1}{(1-z)^2},$$ then

$$f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}z^n\times\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}2z^n\times\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}2nz^{n-1}$$

$$f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}z^n\times\Bigg(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}2z^n\times\Bigg(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}2(n+1)z^n\Bigg)\Bigg)$$

$$f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}z^n\times\Bigg(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}2z^n(n+2)\Bigg)$$

$$f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}2z^{2n}(n+2)$$

As for Radius,
$$R=\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}\Bigg|\frac{n+2}{n+3}\Bigg|=1$$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
aruwin said:
Hello.
Could someone check if my solution is correct, please?

Question:
Expand the function into maclaurine series and find its radius of convergence.

$$f(z)=\frac{2z}{(1-z)^2}$$

My solution:
$$f(z)=\frac{2z}{(1-z)^2}=\frac{1}{(1-z)}\frac{2}{(1-z)}\frac{2}{(1-z)^2}$$

Since $$\frac{d}{dz}\frac{1}{1-z}=\frac{1}{(1-z)^2},$$ then

$$f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}z^n\times\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}2z^n\times\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}2nz^{n-1}$$

$$f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}z^n\times\Bigg(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}2z^n\times\Bigg(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}2(n+1)z^n\Bigg)\Bigg)$$

$$f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}z^n\times\Bigg(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}2z^n(n+2)\Bigg)$$

$$f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}2z^{2n}(n+2)$$

As for Radius,
$$R=\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}\Bigg|\frac{n+2}{n+3}\Bigg|=1$$

As You say is...

$\displaystyle \frac{d}{d z} \frac{1}{1-z} = \frac{1}{(1-z)^{2}}\ (1)$

... and because is also...

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{1-z} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} z^{n}\ (2)$

... we conclude that...

$\displaystyle \frac{2\ z}{(1-z)^{2}} = 2\ \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} n\ z^{n}\ (3)$

The (2) has radius R=1 and the same is for (3)...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
chisigma said:
As You say is...

$\displaystyle \frac{d}{d z} \frac{1}{1-z} = \frac{1}{(1-z)^{2}}\ (1)$

... and because is also...

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{1-z} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} z^{n}\ (2)$

... we conclude that...

$\displaystyle \frac{2\ z}{(1-z)^{2}} = 2\ \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} n\ z^{n}\ (3)$

The (2) has radius R=1 and the same is for (3)...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
I am sorry, I made a mistake in the question. The function is actually
to the power of 3, not 2. Would my answer be right, then?
 
Let me rewrite it.

$$f(z)=\frac{2z}{(1-z)^3}$$

My solution:

$$f(z)=\frac{2z}{(1-z)^2}=\frac{1}{(1-z)}\bigg(\frac{2}{(1-z)}+\frac{2}{(1-z)^2}\bigg)$$

$$f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}z^n\times\bigg(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}2z^n+\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}2nz^{n-1}\bigg)$$

$$f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}z^n\times\Bigg(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}2z^n+\Bigg(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}2(n+1)z^n\Bigg)\Bigg)$$

$$f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}z^n\times\Bigg(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}2z^n(n+2)\Bigg)$$

$$f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}2z^{2n}(n+2)$$
 
aruwin said:
I am sorry, I made a mistake in the question. The function is actually
to the power of 3, not 2. Would my answer be right, then?

In this case is...

$\displaystyle f(z) = z\ \frac{d}{d z} \frac{1}{(1 - z)^{2}} = z\ \frac{d^{2}}{d z^{2}} \frac{1}{1 - z} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} n\ (n - 1)\ z^{n-1}\ (1)$

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K