Question regarding notation when omitting terms

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kent davidge
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Notation Terms
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the notation used when expanding a function ##f(x)## around ##x = 0##, specifically when only the first-order term is shown while omitting higher-order terms. Participants explore various notational conventions and the implications of their choices in different contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests using the notation ##f(x) = f(0) + (df/dx)|_0 x + \mathcal O(x^{\geq 2})## to indicate the omission of higher-order terms.
  • Another participant argues that expanding in the whole series does not make sense, asserting that only the ##x^2## term is of interest around zero, and that ##\mathcal O(x^{2})## is equivalent to ##\mathcal O(x^{\geq 2})##.
  • One participant notes that for small ##x##, terms like ##ax^3## fall within ##O(x^2)##, suggesting a relationship between higher-order terms and the ##x^2## term.
  • A later reply emphasizes that the meaning of the notation does not change regardless of whether small or large ##x## is considered, reiterating that the limit defining ##\mathcal O(x^2)## remains finite.
  • Another participant introduces a distinction between conventions in physics and computer science, indicating that for large ##x##, a different approach may be necessary.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriateness and meaning of certain notations, with no consensus reached on the best approach to represent the expansion of ##f(x)## while omitting higher-order terms.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the behavior of the function ##f(x)## for large values of ##x## and the implications of different notational conventions in various fields.

kent davidge
Messages
931
Reaction score
56
If we want to expand a function ##f(x)## up to first order around ##x = 0## say, we usually write ##f(x) = f(0) + (df/dx)|_0 x + \mathcal O(x^2)##.

But what if I want to expand ##f(x)## in the whole series, and showing only the first order term in x? What notation do you use for that? (Aside from ##f(x) = f(0) + (df/dx)|_0 x + \sum \frac{d^{k-2}f}{dx^{k-2}}x^{k-2} / (k-2)!##.)

My thought: ##f(x) = f(0) + (df/dx)|_0 x + \mathcal O(x^{\geq 2})##
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,
kent davidge said:
if I want to expand ##f(x)## in the whole series
You don't want that, because it doesn't make sense. The only term of interest around zero is the ##x^2## term. All higher order terms in ##f(x) - f(0) - (df/dx)\Big |_0 \; x \ ## vanish for ##x\downarrow 0##.

In other words, ##\mathcal O(x^{2}) ## is the same as your ##\mathcal O(x^{\geq 2})## (or: implies it).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: kent davidge
x3 < x2 for small x, therefore ##ax^3 \in O(x^2)##, same for all higher orders.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: kent davidge
mfb said:
x3 < x2 for small x, therefore ##ax^3 \in O(x^2)##, same for all higher orders.
I'm not considering only small ##x## though
 
Doesn't matter. The meaning doesn't change:
$$f(x) - f(0) - (df/dx)\Big |_0 \; x \ = \mathcal O (x^2) \equiv \lim_{x \downarrow 0 }{f(x) - f(0) - (df/dx)\Big |_0 \; x \over x^2} \ \ \text {is finite}$$no more, no less. If you want to consider huge ##x## is upon you -- it probably won't be a good approximation, though.

1575396807986.png
( from wikipedia sin )
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pbuk and kent davidge
For large x you have to choose between physics and computer science convention of the notation, but in the latter case considering the constant and linear term is irrelevant and you'll likely need a completely new approach.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: kent davidge

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K