Using the series expansion of e^KX, evaluate 2^-3.4 accurate to 3 dp?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on evaluating 2^-3.4 using the series expansion of e^KX, specifically e^-3.4ln(2). The series expansion is defined as e^x = 1 + X + (X^2)/2! + (X^3)/3!..., and participants emphasize the necessity of using a sufficient number of terms for accurate results. To achieve three decimal places of accuracy, approximately 12 terms are required due to the relatively large value of x. The final answer is confirmed to be 0.095, highlighting the importance of understanding the convergence of the series.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Taylor series expansion
  • Familiarity with logarithmic functions, specifically ln(2)
  • Knowledge of convergence criteria for series
  • Basic calculus, including factorial notation and limits
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the convergence of Taylor series for various functions
  • Learn about error estimation in series approximations
  • Explore the properties of alternating series and their convergence
  • Practice evaluating exponential functions using series expansions
USEFUL FOR

Students in calculus, mathematicians interested in series approximations, and anyone needing to evaluate exponential functions accurately using series expansions.

solve
Messages
94
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Using the series expansion of e^KX and the fact that a^X=e^Xlna, evaluate 2^-3.4 accurate to 3 dp?

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



So a^X=e^Xlna. Basically we need to expand e^-3.4ln(2).

e^x=1+X+(X^2)/2!+(X^3)/3!...

e^-3.4ln(2)= 1-3.4ln(2)+(-3.4ln(2))^2/2+(-3.4ln(2))^3/6… See any errors in the expansion? The answer is supposedly 0.095 Can't seem to get it right.

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks fine to me. How many terms did you use in the expansion? Because x is relatively large, you'll have to use about 12 terms to get the accuracy you want.
 
vela said:
Looks fine to me.

When I google the expansion it gives me -0.761 when the answer is supposed to be 0.095
 
You need to use more terms. (I edited my previous post, probably after you read it.)
 
vela said:
You need to use more terms. (I edited my previous post, probably after you read it.)

Awesome. I am going to try it in a minute, but how do I know if the X is relatively large or small? Is there any rule of thumb for choosing the number of terms for expansion? I am asking this because all the examples given in the explanation section of my text are easily solved just by expanding e^x up to maximum of 4 terms.
 
Roughly speaking, the largeness or smallness of the number is in comparison to 1. If |x|<1, then |xn| grows smaller as n increases. Combined with the effect of the denominator in each term, the terms quickly become small, and you need to use only a few terms to get a good approximation. On the other hand, if |x|>1, then |xn| grows larger as n increases, so the terms don't get small until you've gone further in the series.

In this problem, because x<0, you end up with an alternating series. There's a theorem that says if you sum the first n terms of an alternating series to get an approximation, the error in that approximation is no bigger than magnitude of the next term in the series. (I'm being a bit sloppy here, but that's the essential concept you need.) For example, after you added the first 4 terms, you got an approximation of -0.761. The next term in the series, x4/4!, is equal to 1.285, so the theorem guarantees you that
-0.761 - 1.285 &lt; 2^{-3.4} &lt; -0.761 + 1.285.To find the answer to three decimal places, you want the error to be less than 0.001, so you want to find n such that |x|n/n! < 0.001. The easiest thing to do here is try different values of n until you find one that works.

More generally, there's a formula for the remainder if you truncate the Taylor series after n terms. In a similar way, you want to find the value of n that'll make that remainder small enough for your needs. There might be some rule of thumb that let's you estimate the number of terms you need, but I'm not aware of any.
 
I appreciate your help. Thank You very much.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K