Small confusion about Taylor's remainder

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Taylor's remainder, specifically the expression for the remainder term \( R_n(2,x) \) in the interval \( 2 < x < 4 \). The remainder is defined as \( |R_n(2,x)| = \frac{1}{n+1} \left|\frac{x-2}{z_n}\right|^{n+1} \), where \( z_n \) lies between 2 and 4. The confusion arises regarding the term \( (1)^{n+1} \), which is derived from the inequality \( \frac{x-2}{z_n} < 1 \). The conclusion is that as \( n \) approaches infinity, the limit of the remainder approaches zero, confirming that \( \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} R_n(2,x) = 0 \) for \( 2 < x < 4 \).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Taylor series and Taylor's theorem
  • Familiarity with limits and the squeeze theorem
  • Knowledge of inequalities and their properties
  • Basic calculus, particularly derivatives and powers
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Taylor series and its applications
  • Learn about the squeeze theorem in detail
  • Explore the concept of limits in calculus
  • Investigate the properties of inequalities in mathematical analysis
USEFUL FOR

Students studying calculus, particularly those focusing on Taylor series and mathematical analysis, as well as educators looking for clarification on Taylor's remainder and its implications.

jegues
Messages
1,085
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement



Please assume that what I have for the remainder is correct, and we are on the domain 2 < x < 4 around 2.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



[tex]0 \leq |R_{n} (2,x)| = \frac{1}{n+1} |\frac{x-2}{z_{n}}|^{n+1}[/tex]

Since,

[tex]2 < x < 4[/tex] then, [tex]0 < x-2 < 2[/tex] and [tex]0 < \frac{x-2}{z_{n}} < \frac{2}{z_{n}}[/tex]

But, [tex]2 < z_{n} < 4[/tex]

So we can see that, [tex]\frac{2}{z_{n}} < 1[/tex]

Therefore, [tex]\frac{x-2}{z_{n}} < 1[/tex].


Up to here makes perfect sense. Then he writes the following,

[tex]0 \leq |R_{n}(2,x)| < \frac{1}{n+1} \cdot (1)^{n+1}[/tex]

I'm confused about the, [tex](1)^{n+1}[/tex] how does he get that term? We showed that,

[tex]\frac{x-2}{z_{n}} < 1[/tex], and if we take that and raise it to any power, say n+1, we will get 0. How does he get that 1 there?

Everything else makes perfect sense, it's just that one part.

Can someone please explain?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jegues said:
[tex]\frac{x-2}{z_{n}} < 1[/tex], and if we take that and raise it to any power, say n+1, we will get 0.

You can't raise anything to any power and get zero. When you say we take "that", what are you referring to? 1n+1=1 and [tex]\frac{x-2}{z_n}^{n+1}[/tex] is going to be some small positive number

if a<b then an<bn for any value of n (you can see this by noticing that the derivative of xn is positive so is an increasing function)
 
Office_Shredder said:
You can't raise anything to any power and get zero. When you say we take "that", what are you referring to? 1n+1=1 and [tex]\frac{x-2}{z_n}^{n+1}[/tex] is going to be some small positive number

if a<b then an<bn for any value of n (you can see this by noticing that the derivative of xn is positive so is an increasing function)

The part in bold is what I was missing,

Since,

[tex]\frac{x-2}{z_{n}} < 1[/tex] then,

[tex]\left( \frac{x-2}{z_{n}} \right)^{n+1} < 1^{n+1}[/tex]

So we can see that,

[tex]0 \leq |R_{n}(2,x)| < \frac{1}{n+1} \cdot (1)^{n+1}[/tex]

Applying squeeze theorem,

[tex]lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} 0 = lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{n+1} = 0[/tex]

Therefore,

[tex]lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} |R_{n}(2,x)| = 0[/tex]

So it follows that,

[tex]lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} R_{n}(2,x) = 0[/tex] for [tex]2 < x < 4[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K