What is the simplification of the second order Taylor expansion for F(x+h)?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the second order Taylor expansion of a function F that is twice continuously differentiable. Participants are exploring the expression for F(x+h) and its relation to derivatives and integrals, specifically focusing on the remainder term that approaches zero as h approaches zero.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the formulation of the Taylor expansion and the meaning of the remainder term, \varphi(h). Some express uncertainty about how to relate their findings to the required form involving h^2 \varphi(h). Others question the necessity of including the h^2 factor in the expression.

Discussion Status

There is active exploration of different forms of the Taylor expansion, with some participants providing alternative formulations and questioning the assumptions about higher derivatives. Guidance has been offered regarding the interpretation of the remainder term, and some participants have verified certain expressions, indicating a productive direction in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the constraints of only having F as twice continuously differentiable, which raises questions about the existence of higher derivatives. There is also mention of the original problem's context within a specific textbook, which influences the framing of the discussion.

AxiomOfChoice
Messages
531
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Show that if [itex]F[/itex] is twice continuously differentiable on [itex](a,b)[/itex], then one can write

[tex] F(x+h) = F(x) + h F'(x) + \frac{h^2}{2} F''(x) + h^2 \varphi(h),[/tex]

where [itex]\varphi(h) \to 0[/itex] as [itex]h\to 0[/itex].

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I'm posting this here because it's a problem in Stein-Shakarchi's "Fourier Analysis". I'm working through this book on my own (so this problem is not homework), but I thought it'd look suspicious if I posted it in the regular forums.

I believe I've managed to show that

[tex] F(x+h) = F(x) + h F'(x) + \frac{h^2}{2} F''(x) + \int_0^h w \psi(w) dw,[/tex]

where

[tex] \psi(h) = \frac{F'(x+h) - F'(x)}{h} - F''(x),[/tex]

but I'm not sure how I'm supposed to go about showing that

[tex] \int_0^h w \psi(w) dw = h^2 \varphi(h).[/tex]

What do you think the [itex]\varphi(h)[/itex] they're wanting here is?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
AxiomOfChoice said:

Homework Statement



Show that if [itex]F[/itex] is twice continuously differentiable on [itex](a,b)[/itex], then one can write

[tex] F(x+h) = F(x) + h F'(x) + \frac{h^2}{2} F''(x) + h^2 \varphi(h),[/tex]

where [itex]\varphi(h) \to 0[/itex] as [itex]h\to 0[/itex].

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I'm posting this here because it's a problem in Stein-Shakarchi's "Fourier Analysis". I'm working through this book on my own (so this problem is not homework), but I thought it'd look suspicious if I posted it in the regular forums.

I believe I've managed to show that

[tex] F(x+h) = F(x) + h F'(x) + \frac{h^2}{2} F''(x) + \int_0^h w \psi(w) dw,[/tex]

where

[tex] \psi(h) = \frac{F'(x+h) - F'(x)}{h} - F''(x),[/tex]

but I'm not sure how I'm supposed to go about showing that

[tex] \int_0^h w \psi(w) dw = h^2 \varphi(h).[/tex]

What do you think the [itex]\varphi(h)[/itex] they're wanting here is?

I am guessing [itex]\varphi(h)[/itex] are the higher order terms from the expansion. However, I have never seen it written as [itex]h^2\varphi(h)[/itex] but instead as [itex]\mathit{O}(h^2)[/itex].
 
AxiomOfChoice said:

Homework Statement



Show that if [itex]F[/itex] is twice continuously differentiable on [itex](a,b)[/itex], then one can write

[tex] F(x+h) = F(x) + h F'(x) + \frac{h^2}{2} F''(x) + h^2 \varphi(h),[/tex]

where [itex]\varphi(h) \to 0[/itex] as [itex]h\to 0[/itex].

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I'm posting this here because it's a problem in Stein-Shakarchi's "Fourier Analysis". I'm working through this book on my own (so this problem is not homework), but I thought it'd look suspicious if I posted it in the regular forums.

I believe I've managed to show that

[tex] F(x+h) = F(x) + h F'(x) + \frac{h^2}{2} F''(x) + \int_0^h w \psi(w) dw,[/tex]

where

[tex] \psi(h) = \frac{F'(x+h) - F'(x)}{h} - F''(x),[/tex]

but I'm not sure how I'm supposed to go about showing that

[tex] \int_0^h w \psi(w) dw = h^2 \varphi(h).[/tex]

What do you think the [itex]\varphi(h)[/itex] they're wanting here is?

The results you seek are proved in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor's_theorem . Google is your friend.

RGV
 
Ray Vickson said:
The results you seek are proved in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor's_theorem . Google is your friend.

RGV
Well, after having consulted that website and changing variables a little bit in the "Taylor's theorem with integral remainder" formula, I've got that

[tex] F(x+h) = F(x) + h F'(x) + \frac{h^2}{2} F''(x) + \frac 12 \int_x^{x+h} (x+h-t)^2 F'''(t) dt.[/tex]

This is problematic for two reasons: First, in the problem I'm trying to solve, I know only that [itex]F[/itex] is [itex]C^2[/itex], so I'm not even sure [itex]F'''(t)[/itex] makes sense. Second of all, I'm not sure how one can finagle the formula I quoted to somehow turn [itex]\psi(t)[/itex] into [itex]F'''(t)[/itex]; I simply don't see how this is possible. Can someone provide some hints? Perhaps I'm on the wrong track with what I was trying to do, but I can't see how else one can conveniently define the function [itex]\psi[/itex]. Defining it to be the difference between the difference quotient and the derivative just seems so obvious...
 
AxiomOfChoice said:
Well, after having consulted that website and changing variables a little bit in the "Taylor's theorem with integral remainder" formula, I've got that

[tex] F(x+h) = F(x) + h F'(x) + \frac{h^2}{2} F''(x) + \frac 12 \int_x^{x+h} (x+h-t)^2 F'''(t) dt.[/tex]

This is problematic for two reasons: First, in the problem I'm trying to solve, I know only that [itex]F[/itex] is [itex]C^2[/itex], so I'm not even sure [itex]F'''(t)[/itex] makes sense. Second of all, I'm not sure how one can finagle the formula I quoted to somehow turn [itex]\psi(t)[/itex] into [itex]F'''(t)[/itex]; I simply don't see how this is possible. Can someone provide some hints? Perhaps I'm on the wrong track with what I was trying to do, but I can't see how else one can conveniently define the function [itex]\psi[/itex]. Defining it to be the difference between the difference quotient and the derivative just seems so obvious...

You have gone one term too far: you don't know anything about F'''(t) because all you assumed was "twice continuously differentiable". Instead, try
[tex]F(x+h) = F(x) + h F'(x) + \int_{x}^{x+h} (x+h-t)F''(t) dt,[/tex]
or
[tex]F(x+h) = F(x) + h F'(x) + \frac{1}{2} h^2 F''(x + \theta h), \; (0 < \theta < 1).[/tex]

RGV
 
Ray Vickson said:
You have gone one term too far: you don't know anything about F'''(t) because all you assumed was "twice continuously differentiable". Instead, try
[tex]F(x+h) = F(x) + h F'(x) + \int_{x}^{x+h} (x+h-t)F''(t) dt,[/tex]
or
[tex]F(x+h) = F(x) + h F'(x) + \frac{1}{2} h^2 F''(x + \theta h), \; (0 < \theta < 1).[/tex]

RGV
Thanks very much, again, for your help. I've managed to verify that both of the following are true:

[tex] F(x+h) = F(x) + h F'(x) + \int_x^{x+h} (x+h - t)F''(t)dt[/tex]

and

[tex] F(x+h) = F(x) + h F'(x) + \frac{h^2}{2} F''(x) + \frac 12 \int_x^{x+h} (x+h - t)^2F'''(t)dt.[/tex]

All one needs to do is perform the integrals and write them out, and then everything cancels on the righthand side to just leave you with the equation [itex]F(x+h) = F(x+h)[/itex].

I guess what confuses me is the form the authors of the text want you to supply. They want you to show that

[tex] F(x+h) = F(x) + h F'(x) + \frac{h^2}{2} F''(x) + h^2 \varphi(h),[/tex]

where [itex]\varphi(h) \to 0[/itex] as [itex]h \to 0[/itex]. But what I have above for [itex]\varphi(h)[/itex] is, by monotonicity of the integral,

[tex] \int_0^h t \psi(t) dt \leq \int_0^h |t| |\psi(t)| dt \leq h^2 \sup_{t\in [0,h]} \psi(t).[/tex]

...and this goes to zero as [itex]h\to 0[/itex]! So why is it necessary to just throw in an extra [itex]h^2[/itex] like they want? IS it necessary?
 
Last edited:
AxiomOfChoice said:
Thanks very much, again, for your help. I've managed to verify that both of the following are true:

[tex] F(x+h) = F(x) + h F'(x) + \int_x^{x+h} (x+h - t)F''(t)dt[/tex]

and

[tex] F(x+h) = F(x) + h F'(x) + \frac{h^2}{2} F''(x) + \frac 12 \int_x^{x+h} (x+h - t)^2F'''(t)dt.[/tex]

All one needs to do is perform the integrals and write them out, and then everything cancels on the righthand side to just leave you with the equation [itex]F(x+h) = F(x+h)[/itex].

I guess what confuses me is the form the authors of the text want you to supply. They want you to show that

[tex] F(x+h) = F(x) + h F'(x) + \frac{h^2}{2} F''(x) + h^2 \varphi(h),[/tex]

where [itex]\varphi(h) \to 0[/itex] as [itex]h \to 0[/itex]. But what I have above for [itex]\varphi(h)[/itex] is, by monotonicity of the integral,

[tex] \int_0^h t \psi(t) dt \leq \int_0^h |t| |\psi(t)| dt \leq h^2 \sup_{t\in [0,h]} \psi(t).[/tex]

...and this goes to zero as [itex]h\to 0[/itex]! So why is it necessary to just throw in an extra [itex]h^2[/itex] like they want? IS it necessary?

If you take the [itex](h^2/2)F''(x + \theta h)[/itex] form, and use continuity of F'' you get [itex](h^2/2)F''(x) + r(h),[/itex] where r(h) goes to zero faster than h^2. (In fact, [itex]r(h) = (h^2/2)[F''(x + \theta h) - F''(x)][/itex] does have the form [itex]h^2 \varphi(h),[/itex] where [itex]\varphi(h) \rightarrow 0[/itex] as h --> 0.) I think that is all that is involved.

RGV
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K