Using Maclaurin's theorem to estimate second derivative

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
6 replies · 3K views
Roomie
Messages
29
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



1jPOG.png


Use Maclaurin's theorem to estimate d[tex]^{2}[/tex]y/dx[tex]^{2}[/tex] at x=0

It's the deflection of a 2m beam, where x is the distance along the beam, y is the deflection in mm.

Homework Equations



maclaurin1.gif


The Attempt at a Solution



I didn't know where to start so I tried to solve it a different way, by figuring out the formula for the sequence and then just differentiating it twice.. I got the answer of -200 or -0.2 depending upon if I needed to convert the mm to m?
 

Attachments

  • 1jPOG.png
    1jPOG.png
    1.1 KB · Views: 417
  • maclaurin1.gif
    maclaurin1.gif
    1.3 KB · Views: 464
Physics news on Phys.org
You have y=f(x), so y''(0)=f''(0). If you can find the coefficient of x2, you can solve for the second derivative.

The expansion f(x) = f(0) + f'(0)x + f''(0)/2 x2 is the equation of a parabola. Fit your data points to a parabola. The coefficients you get will correspond to f(0), f'(0), and f''(0)/2.
 
vela said:
You have y=f(x), so y''(0)=f''(0). If you can find the coefficient of x2, you can solve for the second derivative.

The expansion f(x) = f(0) + f'(0)x + f''(0)/2 x2 is the equation of a parabola. Fit your data points to a parabola. The coefficients you get will correspond to f(0), f'(0), and f''(0)/2.

So the answer is -200 then? Since y = -100x^2 + 100

So f''(0)/2 = -100

so f''(0) = -200

?? Or should I convert the mm to m?
 
vela said:
The answer isn't a pure number. It has to have units. The numerical value will depend on what units you decide to use.

Does that mean the -200 was right :P?

Well if I converted it to metres then it would be a pure number wouldn't it? As it'd be m/m otherwise it's mm/m?

Thanks a lot for your help!
 
No, it's not right because you left off the units! You always have to include units on physical measurements. For example, the length of the bar in this problem is 2 meters or 200 cm. The answers are equivalent, but you only know that because the units were included. A pure number is typically meaningless for physical measurements.

Regarding the units of y'', if y is measured in millimeters and x is in meters, you'd have the following units:

y => mm
y' => mm/m
y'' => mm/m2

Every time you differentiate, you're essentially dividing by x, so you get another power of meters on the bottom.
 
vela said:
No, it's not right because you left off the units! You always have to include units on physical measurements. For example, the length of the bar in this problem is 2 meters or 200 cm. The answers are equivalent, but you only know that because the units were included. A pure number is typically meaningless for physical measurements.

Regarding the units of y'', if y is measured in millimeters and x is in meters, you'd have the following units:

y => mm
y' => mm/m
y'' => mm/m2

Every time you differentiate, you're essentially dividing by x, so you get another power of meters on the bottom.
Thanks for all your help!