Taylor Expansion Without Variables?

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the equation r' = k - g*r, where constants k, g, and r are treated as slightly varying around their averages. The original poster seeks to apply Taylor expansion to incorporate these variations but is uncertain about the process. Suggestions include substituting the averages directly into the equation instead of expanding it into a Taylor series. Clarification is sought on whether the variations dk, dg, and dr are treated as functions or just numerical values. The conversation emphasizes simplifying the equation by ignoring higher-order products if dk, dg, and dr are small.
Poppop
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
This is just part of a larger problem, but I have a basic equation r'=k-g*r, where k and a start out as constants, but then I need to treat everything as if it can vary slightly from the average. For this, I set r=r_ave+dr, g=g_ave+dg, and k=k_ave+dk. Now I need to work these into the first equation, so I guess I need to Taylor expand them, but I don't see how to do that with this sort of equation. Any suggestions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is r' the derivative of r? You say you "need to treat everything as if it can vary slightly from the average", but what do you want do do with it? What problem are you trying to solve? I don't think you need to expand this into a Taylor's series, just substitute:
r'= k_ave+ dk- (g_ave+ dg)(r_ave_+ dr)
Now, are you thinking of dk, dg, and dr as functions of some variable (apparently r is since you are using r' but you didn't say what the variable is) or just numbers? If numbers just go ahead and multiply it out. If dk, dg, and dr are very small, you can ignore products like (dg)(dr) and simplify a bit.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K