Order notation: f(x)=O(x^n) as x-> 0

  • Thread starter Thread starter coverband
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Notation
AI Thread Summary
Order notation, specifically f(x) = O(x^n) as x approaches 0, indicates that a function f(x) is bounded by a constant multiple of x^n near zero. This means there exists a constant C such that |f(x)| is less than C|x^n| for all x in a small interval around zero. Examples provided include functions like sin(x), which can be approximated as sin(x) = x + O(x^3) as x approaches 0, illustrating how higher-order terms become negligible. The notation helps formalize the idea that certain terms in a function can be ignored for small values of x, while still accounting for their impact. Understanding this concept is crucial for accurately analyzing the behavior of functions near zero.
coverband
Messages
170
Reaction score
1
Hello,

I am having difficulty getting to grips with “the order notation”. I have the following definition…

“A function f(x) is said to be of order x^n as x -> 0 if there is a non-zero constant C such that |f(x)|<C|x^n| for all x in an interval around x=0. This is written as
f(x) = O(x^n) as x->0”

some examples:

x(1+x^2)^1/2 = x + x^3/2 +… = O(x)
x/(1+x) = x(1 – x + x^2 +…) = O(x)
(x+b)^a – x^a = x^a(1 + ab/x +…) –x^a = O[x^(a-1)]
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
As an example, sin(x) = x + O(x^3) as x -> 0. sin(0.01) is about 0.01 - 0.01^3 * 1/6, sin(0.001) is about 0.001 - 0.001^3/6, and so forth. In this case C is something like 1/6 for an appropriate interval.

I'm not sure exactly what you want. The intuition is that the function near 0 is closely approximated by the given polynomial.
 
The idea behind the "big O" notation is to make rigorous the idea that, say

e^x = 1 + x + \mbox{ terms involving } x^2 \mbox{ or smaller}​

which you would write as

e^x = 1 + x + O(x^2) \mbox{ as } x \rightarrow 0​

and which means that

|e^x - 1 - x| &lt; C|x^2|​

for some C, for all small x.

You are, in effect, treating x2 as negligible for the purpose of your calculation, but instead of just ignoring it, you keep track of what you have ignored. By the end of your calculation, you should find the ignored term goes to zero as x \rightarrow 0. If it doesn't, you've neglected too much, and you'll have to go back and add another term.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top