Looking for references on this form of a Taylor series

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the validity and references for a specific form of the Taylor series expressed as $$\vec f(\vec x+\vec a) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n!}(\vec a \cdot \nabla)^n\vec f(\vec x)$$. This formulation is confirmed to be valid under the condition that the function is analytic. The equivalence to the standard Taylor's theorem is established through the expansion of $$(\vec a \cdot \nabla)^n$$ and combinatorial analysis. A key reference is provided from a document by Folland, which can be found at this link.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Taylor series and Taylor's theorem
  • Familiarity with vector calculus and the gradient operator ($\nabla$)
  • Knowledge of analytic functions and their properties
  • Basic combinatorial mathematics for expansion analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the document by Folland on Taylor series at this link
  • Study the concept of multi-index notation in calculus
  • Explore the implications of analytic functions in higher dimensions
  • Investigate the combinatorial methods used in expanding series
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students studying advanced calculus or mathematical analysis, particularly those interested in series expansions and vector calculus.

Hiero
Messages
322
Reaction score
68
I was trying to find this form of the Taylor series online:
$$\vec f(\vec x+\vec a) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n!}(\vec a \cdot \nabla)^n\vec f(\vec x)$$
But I can’t find it anywhere. Can someone confirm it’s validity and/or provide any links which mention it? It seems quite powerful to be so obscure; maybe I’m just bad at googling.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is clear that expressing f(x) as a 3D Fourier transform shows this to be true but I don't know whether that is unnecessarily restrictive.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Hiero
I found your formula here in the first line of page 3: https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math425/taylor2.pdf. You should of course assume that your function is actually analytic for this to make sense (not using a finite sum and error term).

It's equivalent to the usual formulation of Taylor's theorem once you expand out what ##(a\cdot\nabla)^n## means and do the combinatorics.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Hiero
Infrared said:
I found your formula here in the first line of page 3: https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math425/taylor2.pdf. You should of course assume that your function is actually analytic for this to make sense (not using a finite sum and error term).

It's equivalent to the usual formulation of Taylor's theorem once you expand out what ##(a\cdot\nabla)^n## means and do the combinatorics.
Thank you! Great resource. I had never seen “multi-index” notation before; it’s very useful for this purpose!

I’m impressed by how quickly you found that. I guess I am just bad with google o:)

Take care
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
16K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K