Unraveling the Mysteries of Taylor's Theorem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Oblio
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around Taylor's theorem and its application in finding Taylor series for functions such as ln(1+δ) and cos(δ). Participants explore the usefulness of Taylor series in approximating function values and discuss the convergence of the series based on the increment δ.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the process of finding Taylor series, questioning whether it involves direct substitution into the theorem's formula or if additional steps are necessary. There are inquiries about the significance of derivatives and the convergence of the series.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants sharing insights on the derivatives of ln(x) and their implications for constructing the Taylor series. Some participants suggest continuing to derive more terms to identify a pattern, while others express uncertainty about the process and seek clarification on specific steps.

Contextual Notes

There are mentions of potential confusion regarding the derivatives and their values, as well as the need to simplify terms correctly. Participants are also navigating the challenge of understanding the series expansion and its application to specific functions.

Oblio
Messages
398
Reaction score
0
Taylor's theorem states that, for any reasonable function f(x), the value of f at a point (x+[tex]\delta[/tex]) can be expressed as an infinite series involving f and its derivatives at the point of x:

f(x+[tex]\delta[/tex]) = f(x) + f '(x)[tex]\delta[/tex] + [tex]\frac{1}{2!}[/tex]f ''(x)[tex]\delta[/tex][tex]^{2}[/tex] + ...

where the primes denote successive derivatives of f(x). (Depending on the function this series may converge for any increment [tex]\delta[/tex] or only for values of [tex]\delta[/tex] less then some nonzero 'radius of convergence'.) This theorem is enormously useful, especially for small values of [tex]\delta[/tex], when the first one or two terms of the series are often an excellent approximation. Find the taylor's series for ln(1+[tex]\delta[/tex]). Do the same for cos [tex]\delta[/tex].


We just started Taylor's theorems now, and it seems like there are many of them. Why exactly are they good and what purpose do they serve?

Is finding the Taylor's series for ln (1+[tex]\delta[/tex]) a matter of substituting it into the above equation or is there more to it?

Thanks again!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
In lots of problems, you may have to find f(x+delta) - f(x)... where delta is very small... your calculator might only give you a rounded figure of 0 because the numbers are too close together...

However if you take the taylor series of f(x+delta)... then subtract f(x)... you get: f '(x)delta + f ''(x)delta^2. This will give a good approximation of f(x+delta) - f(x).

That's just one example of why taylor series are useful. I'm sure there are many more.

Is finding the Taylor's series for ln (1+ delta) a matter of substituting it into the above equation or is there more to it?

Yeah, just substitute into the equation, using x = 1. That should work.
 
Effectively solving for delta?
 
Oblio said:
Effectively solving for delta?

I don't understand what you mean.
 
When everything is subbed in, am I solving for delta?
 
Oblio said:
When everything is subbed in, am I solving for delta?

No... you'll just be getting a polynomial formula for ln(1+delta)... in terms of delta...
 
If I'm subbing x=1, my ln (1+delta) goes where in the formula?
 
Oblio said:
If I'm subbing x=1, my ln (1+delta) goes where in the formula?

ln (x + delta) is the left hand side... right hand side is f(x) + f'(x)delta... where f(x) = ln(x)

ln(x + delta)

ln(x+delta) = ln(x) + (1/x)delta + ...

So ln(1+delta) = ln(1) + (1/1)delta + ...
 
So ln(1+delta) = ln(1) + (1/1)delta + ...

is the bolded delta in the denominator?
 
  • #10
Oblio said:
So ln(1+delta) = ln(1) + (1/1)delta + ...

is the bolded delta in the denominator?

No. I'm using the formula from your original post exactly... delta doesn't go in the denominator...

I got the 1/1... because the deriative of lnx = 1/x... so f'(1) = 1/1
 
  • #11
Ok, just making sure I was reading it right.

Is that as far as you can go? Since the 2nd derivative would be 0?
 
  • #12
Oblio said:
Ok, just making sure I was reading it right.

Is that as far as you can go? Since the 2nd derivative would be 0?

How do you get 0?

f(x) = ln(x)

f'(x) = 1/x

f''(x) = -1/x^2

So f''(1) = -1 not zero...
 
  • #13
Oh, sub afterwards.
I was deriving 1/1.
 
  • #14
I assume I don't need to do all that many though?
 
  • #15
Is this far enough to do the problem?

ln (x+[tex]\delta[/tex]) = ln(x) + [tex]\frac{1}{x}[/tex][tex]\delta[/tex] + ([tex]\frac{1}{2!}[/tex])[tex]\frac{1}{x^{2}}[/tex]([tex]\delta^{2}[/tex])
 
  • #16
Oblio said:
Is this far enough to do the problem?

ln (x+[tex]\delta[/tex]) = ln(x) + [tex]\frac{1}{x}[/tex][tex]\delta[/tex] + ([tex]\frac{1}{2!}[/tex])[tex]\frac{1}{x^{2}}[/tex]([tex]\delta^{2}[/tex])

Actually I think the question wants you to keep going... and find a general formula for the entire series... do you see a pattern to the terms of ln(1+delta) ?
 
  • #17
denominator and delta are increasing by powers of 1. along with that 1/2!, and its denominator increasing..
 
  • #18
Oblio said:
Is this far enough to do the problem?

ln (x+[tex]\delta[/tex]) = ln(x) + [tex]\frac{1}{x}[/tex][tex]\delta[/tex] + ([tex]\frac{1}{2!}[/tex])[tex]\frac{1}{x^{2}}[/tex]([tex]\delta^{2}[/tex])

careful... it needs to be (-1/x^2) for the third term...
 
  • #19
... i can't say i see a pattern
 
  • #20
Oblio said:
denominator and delta are increasing by powers of 1. along with that 1/2!, and its denominator increasing..

yes, and also, you should have alternating signs...

f''(x) = -1/x^2

f'''(x) = 2/x^3

I recommend finding the first 4 or 5 terms of the series... then you should see the pattern...
 
  • #21
except for the first 2 though? (alternating signs)
and the pattern will boil down to some formula?
 
  • #22
Oblio said:
except for the first 2 though? (alternating signs)
and the pattern will boil down to some formula?

yeah, do 5 terms altogether... get the formula for ln(x+delta) for 5 terms.
 
  • #23
I looked up the higher derivatives for ln x and only found to 4...

ln(x+[tex]\delta[/tex]) = ln (x) + [tex]\frac{1}{x}[/tex][tex]\delta[/tex] + [tex]\frac{1}{2!}[/tex] [tex]\frac{-1}{x^{2}}[/tex][tex]\delta^{2}[/tex] + [tex]\frac{1}{3!}[/tex][tex]\frac{2}{x^{3}}[/tex][tex]\delta^{3}[/tex] + [tex]\frac{1}{4!}[/tex] [tex]\frac{-4}{x^{6}}[/tex][tex]\delta[/tex][tex]^{4}[/tex] + ...
 
  • #24
The question asked for the taylor's series, I need to do more you think?
 
  • #25
Oblio said:
I looked up the higher derivatives for ln x and only found to 4...

ln(x+[tex]\delta[/tex]) = ln (x) + [tex]\frac{1}{x}[/tex][tex]\delta[/tex] + [tex]\frac{1}{2!}[/tex] [tex]\frac{-1}{x^{2}}[/tex][tex]\delta^{2}[/tex] + [tex]\frac{1}{3!}[/tex][tex]\frac{2}{x^{3}}[/tex][tex]\delta^{3}[/tex] + [tex]\frac{1}{4!}[/tex] [tex]\frac{-4}{x^{6}}[/tex][tex]\delta[/tex][tex]^{4}[/tex] + ...

The last term is wrong... it should be -6/x^4... yeah, that's enough terms... now simplify the numbers... ie get rid of the factorials...
 
Last edited:
  • #28
-1, 2, -6 is correct in the pattern?
 
  • #29
Oblio said:
-1, 2, -6 is correct in the pattern?

write out the terms of the series after multiplying out the factorials and simplifying...
 
  • #30
I'm sure this sounds ridiculous but these series are new to me. Multiply OUT the factorials?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K