Why do I not understand what seems to be basic Calculus?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mcastillo356
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Basic calculus Calculus
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding Taylor's Theorem and its proof, particularly focusing on the error term in Taylor approximations and the differentiation process involved in the proof. Participants express confusion regarding specific steps in the proof and the implications of certain derivatives, as well as the application of Taylor's Theorem in examples.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the differentiation of the term ##\dfrac{f^{(k)}(a)}{k!}(t-a)^{k}## does not yield ##\dfrac{f^{(k+1)}(a)}{k!}(t-a)^{k}##, suggesting a misunderstanding of the induction proof process.
  • Another participant introduces a summation for the error term ##E_n(x)##, indicating that the function ##f## is not necessarily infinitely differentiable, which raises questions about the assumptions made in Taylor's Theorem.
  • Participants discuss the necessity of using absolute values in the context of error estimation, with some arguing that the absolute value is more intuitive while others suggest it does not change the meaning of the error calculation.
  • There is a mention of the relationship between the Mean Value Theorem and the steps in the proof, with one participant expressing concern that they were overly focused on the Mean Value Theorem rather than the inductive reasoning required for the proof.
  • Another participant clarifies that the last expression for ##E_{k}(x)## is derived from previous calculations, emphasizing the connection between the steps in the proof.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of differentiation in the proof, the necessity of absolute values in error estimation, and the relationship between the Mean Value Theorem and the inductive proof. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives on these issues.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their understanding of induction proofs and basic calculus concepts, indicating that their confusion may stem from these foundational areas rather than the theorem itself.

mcastillo356
Gold Member
Messages
660
Reaction score
364
TL;DR
Is there something about basic analysis I am missing?
Hi PF, stucked with this proof:

Taylor's Formula

The following theorem provides a formula for the error in a Taylor approximation ##f(x)\approx{P_{n} (x)}## similar to that provided for linear approximation (...)

Taylor's Theorem

If the ##(n+1)##st-order derivative, ##f^{(n+1)} (t)##, exists for all ##t## in an interval containing ##a## and ##x##, and if ##P_{n} (x)## is the ##n##th-order Taylor polynomial for ##f## about ##a##, that is,

##P_{n} (x)=f(a)+f'(a)(x-a)+\dfrac{f''(a)}{2!}(x-a)^2+...+\dfrac{f^{(n)}(a)}{n!}(x-a)^n##.

then the error ##E_{n}(x)=f(x)-P_{n}(x)## in the approximation ##f(x)\approx{P_{n}(x)}## is given by

##E_{n}(x)=\dfrac{f^{(n+1)}(s)}{(n+1)!}(x-a)^{n+1}##

where ##s## is some number between ##a## and ##x##. The resulting
formula

##f(x)=f(a)+f'(a)(x-a)+\dfrac{f''(a)}{2!}(x-a)^2+...+\dfrac{f^{(n)}(a)}{n!}(x-a)^{n}+\dfrac{f^{(n+1)}(s)}{(n+1)!}(x-a)^{n+1}##, for some ##s## between ##a## and ##x##,

is called Taylor's formula with Lagrange remainder; the Lagrange remainder term is the explicit formula given above for ##E_{n}(x)##.

(Note that the error term (Lagrange remainder) in Taylor's formula looks just like the next term in the Taylor polynomial would look if we continued the Taylor polynomial to include one more term (of degree ##n+1##), except that the derivative ##f^{(n+1)}## is not evaluated at ##a## but rather at some (generaly unknown) point ##s## between ##a## and ##x##. This makes it easy to remember Taylor's formula.)

PROOF Observe that the case ##n=0## of Taylor's formula, namely,

##f(x)=P_{0}(x)+E_{0}(x)=f(a)+\dfrac{f'(s)}{1!}(x-a)##

is just the Mean-Value Theorem

##\dfrac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}=f'(s)## for some ##s## between ##a## and ##x##.

Also note that the case ##n=1## is just the error formula for linearization given in the previous theorem

We will complete the proof for higher ##n## using mathematical induction.(...). Suppose, therefore, that we have proved the case ##n=k-1##, where ##k\geq{2}## is an integer. Thus, we are assuming that if ##f## is any function whose ##k##th derivative exists on an interval containing ##a## and ##x##, then

##E_{k-1}(x)=\dfrac{f^{(k)}(s)}{k!}(x-a)^k##

where ##s## is some number between ##a## and ##x##. Let us consider the next higher case ##n=k##. As in the proof of Theorem 11 (previous), we assume ##x>a## (the case ##x<a## is similar) and apply the Generalized Mean-Value Theorem to the functions ##E_{k}(t)## and ##(t-a)^{k+1}## on ##[a,x]##. Since ##E_{k}(a)=0##, we obtain a number ##u## in ##(a,x)## such that

##\dfrac{E_{k}(x)}{(x-a)^{k+1}}=\dfrac{E_{k}(x)-E_{k}(a)}{(x-a)^{k+1}-(a-a)^{k+1}}=\dfrac{E'_{k}(u)}{(k+1)(u-a)^{k}}##

Now
(Troublesome step):
##E'_{k}(u)=\dfrac{d}{dt}\left(f(t)-f(a)-f'(a)(t-a)-\dfrac{f''(a)}{2!}(t-a)^2-\ldots-\dfrac{f^{(k)}(a)}{k!}(t-a)^{k}\right)\Bigg | _{t=u}##

##=f'(u)-f'(a)-f''(a)(u-a)-\ldots-\dfrac{f^{(k)}(a)}{(k-1)!}(u-a)^{k-1}##

This last expression is just ##E_{k-1}(u)## for the function ##f'## instead of ##f##. By the induction assumption it is equal to

##\dfrac{(f')^{(k)}(s)}{k!}(u-a)^{k}=\dfrac{f^{(k+1)(s)}}{k!}(u-a)^{k}##

for some ##s## between ##a## and ##u##. Therefore,

##E_{k}(x)=\dfrac{f^{(k+1)}(s)}{(k+1)!}(x-a)^{k+1}##

We have shown that the case ##n=k## of Taylor's Theorem is true if the case ##n=k-1## is true, and the inductive proof is complete

Question: why doesn't differentiate properly ##\dfrac{f^{(k)}(a)}{k!}(t-a)^{k}## at what I find the difficult, troublesome step?; why is not ##\dfrac{f^{(k+1)}(a)}{k!}(t-a)^{k}##?

Attempt: it has to be a lack of induction proof knowledge; or basic calculus understanding.

PS: I'm going to post with no preview.

Edited to improve LaTeX: Big | for differentiation
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: noahN
Physics news on Phys.org
mcastillo356 said:
Summary:: Is there something about basic analysis I am missing?

hen the error En(x)=f(x)−Pn(x) in the approximation f(x)≈Pn(x) is given by

En(x)=f(n+1)(s)(n+1)!(x−a)n+1

where s is some number between a and x. The resulting

En(x) is a summation
E_n(x)=\sum_{k=n+1}^\infty \frac{f^{(k)}(a)(x-a)^k}{k!}

So s =s(x) should satisfy
f^{(n)}(s(x))=f^{(n)}(a)+\frac{(n+1)!}{(x-a)^n }\sum_{k=n+2}^\infty \frac{f^{(k)}(a)(x-a)^k}{k!}
where I do not find a benefit to introduce s(x).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: Lnewqban and mcastillo356
mcastillo356 said:
Question: why doesn't differentiate properly ##\dfrac{f^{(k)}(a)}{k!}(t-a)^{k}## at what I find the difficult, troublesome step?; why is not ##\dfrac{f^{(k+1)}(a)}{k!}(t-a)^{k}##?
Why should ##f^{(k)}(a)## become ##f^{(k+1)}(a)##? ##f^{(k)}(a)## is just a number (a constant), only the ##(t-a)^{k}## part changes under differentiation.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: benorin, Lnewqban, Infrared and 2 others
Dragon27 said:
is just a number (a constant)
:doh:
Love
 
anuttarasammyak said:
En(x) is a summation
E_n(x)=\sum_{k=n+1}^\infty \frac{f^{(k)}(a)(x-a)^k}{k!}

This is not necessarily the case. The function ##f## is not assumed to be infinitely differentiable, much less analytic.
 
Hi, PF, my textbook gives this example to show the meaning or truth of Taylor's Theorem:

EXAMPLE 4 Use the 2nd-order Taylor polynomial for ##\sqrt{x}## about ##x=25## found in Example 1(a) to approximate ##\sqrt{26}##. Estimate the size of the error, and specify an interval that you can be sure contains ##\sqrt{26}##.

SOLUTION In Example 1(a) we calculated ##f''(x)=-(1/4)x^{-3/2}## and obtained the Taylor polynomial

##P_{2}(x)=5+\dfrac{1}{10}(x-25)-\dfrac{1}{1000}(x-25)^2##

The required approximation is

##\sqrt{26}=f(26)=5+\dfrac{1}{10}(x-25)-\dfrac{1}{1000}(x-25)^{2}=5,099##

Now ##f'''(x)=(3/8)x^{-5/2}##. For ##25<s<26##, we have

##|f'''(s)|\leq{\dfrac{3}{8}\dfrac{1}{25^{5/2}}=\dfrac{3}{8\times{3,125}}=\dfrac{3}{25.000}}##

Thus, the error in the approximation satisfies

##|E_{2}(26)|\leq{\dfrac{3}{25.000\times{6}}(26-25)^{3}}=\dfrac{1}{50.000}=0,000\;02##

Therefore, ##\sqrt{26}## lies in the interval ##(5,098\;98,\quad{5,099\;02})##

Question: It's ok, but, how do I explain that I obviously needed absolute values for ##f'''(s)## and ##E_{2}(26)##?; previously I've readen Taylor's Theorem, and it doesn't mention. How can I match this?

Thanks!

PS: Hope LaTeX is right
 
mcastillo356 said:
Question: It's ok, but, how do I explain that I obviously needed absolute values for ##f'''(s)## and ##E_{2}(26)##?; previously I've readen Taylor's Theorem, and it doesn't mention. How can I match this?
Because you want the magnitude of the error; i.e., as a nonnegative number, and you don't care if the result is under or over the actual value.
mcastillo356 said:
PS: Hope LaTeX is right
Looks good.
 
Mark44 said:
Because you want the magnitude of the error; i.e., as a nonnegative number, and you don't care if the result is under or over the actual value.
I actually think is the same to take absolute value or express it as a negative number. Just notice that ##E(x)=f(x)-L(x)=-(L(x)-f(x))##. It's a gap, no matter the sign. Taking the absolute value is more intuitive, but of the same significance and meaning as if we would compute it without absolute values, just a meaningless issue.
 
Sorry PF, I must explain last post. Basically I've simplified.

##E_{n}(x)=f(x)-P_{n}(x)##

I've used the fact, the following trick: ##E_{1}(x)=f(x)-P_{1}(x)##; now, ##P_{1}(x)=L(x)##
 
  • #10
Hi, PF, one last hurdle about the proof, the last step, the last expression

"
This last expression is just ##E_{k-1}(u)## for the function ##f'## instead of ##f##. By the induction assumption is equal to

##\dfrac{(f')^{(k)}(s)}{k!}(u-a)^{k}=\dfrac{f^{(k+1)}(s)}{k!}(u-a)^{k}##

for some ##s## between ##a## and ##u##. Therefore,

##E_{k}(x)=\dfrac{f^{(k+1)}(s)}{(k+1)!}(x-a)^{k+1}##
"
##E_{k}(x)=\dfrac{f^{(k+1)}(s)}{(k+1)!}(x-a)^{k+1}## is given by induction, isn't it?. I was obsessed with the Mean Value Theorem, and didn't make progress (thought this last step ought to come from MVT)
 
  • #11
The last expression for ##E_{k}(x)## comes from putting the expression before that (which is what we calculated ##E'_{k}(u)## should be) into the formula for ##\dfrac{E_{k}(x)}{(x-a)^{k+1}}## above (which contains the ##E'_{k}(u)## we wanted).
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: mcastillo356
  • #12
Understood, I think.
Thanks @Dragon27 for the last tip, thanks though PF!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K