What is the Maclaurin Series of Tanh(x)?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the Maclaurin Series of the hyperbolic tangent function, tanh(x), specifically up to the powers of x^5. Participants explore different methods for deriving the series and address discrepancies in derivative values from a textbook.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests finding the Maclaurin Series of tanh(x) up to x^5 and presents initial derivatives.
  • Another participant points out a possible confusion with the derivative values, suggesting the textbook might be referring to coth(x) instead of tanh(x).
  • A third participant proposes that using the series expansions of sinh(x) and cosh(x) could be a more efficient method for deriving the series, mentioning techniques like long division and undetermined series.
  • There is a discussion about the validity of the derivative values, with one participant questioning the claim that f'(0) = -1 and asserting that the first term in the series for tanh(x) is indeed x.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty regarding the derivative values from the textbook, with some suggesting a mix-up with coth(x). There is no consensus on the correct derivative values or the best method for deriving the series.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific derivative values and methods for deriving the series, but there are unresolved questions about the accuracy of the textbook and the efficiency of the proposed methods.

thomas49th
Messages
645
Reaction score
0
Let's find the Maclaurin Series of tanhx up to powers of x^5

Yeah! Good idea!

I know

Right, f(x) = tanh
f'(x) = sech^{2}(x)
f''(x) = -2sech^{2}(x)tanh(x)
f''(x) = 4sech^{2}(x)tanh^{2}(x) - 2sech^{4}(x)

giving f(0) = 0, f'(0) = 1, f''(0) = 0 f'''(-2)

but according to my textbook apparently f'(0) = -1, how can this be. Especially as f'''(0) = -2, not just 2.

Thanks
Thomas
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Thomas! :smile:

Looks like they're doing cothx instead of tanhx :confused:
 
Yes, something is wrong here...

Another thing is that the Taylor formula is not the most efficient way to derive such series expansions. You can speed things up by dividing the series expansions of sinh(x) and cosh(x). To do that, you can use long division, or similarly, you can equate the fraction to an undetermined series a1 x + a3 x^3 + a5 x^5 + ... (as we know that tanh(x) is an aodd function) and then multiply both sides by the series for cosh(x) and then solve for a1, a3, etc by equating the coefficients of equal powers of x on both sides.

A third way is to use a more advanced algorithm for division, like e.g. Newton-Raphson division. Such algorithms will double the number of correct coefficients at each step, so you can obtain the first million terms in just 20 steps.
 
tiny-tim said:
Hi Thomas! :smile:

Looks like they're doing cothx instead of tanhx :confused:

Not if the series is about x = 0!

OP: Are you sure the book claims f'(0) = -1? The first term in the series for tanh(x) is indeed x.
 
Mute said:
Not if the series is about x = 0!

oops! :rolleyes: :redface:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
6K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K