Why does ##u## need to be small to represent the Taylor expansion

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conditions under which the Taylor expansion can be applied, specifically focusing on the necessity for the parameter ##u## to be small in the context of the integral representation of a curve providing a weak extremum. Participants explore the implications of using Taylor series for varying sizes of ##u## and the significance of higher-order terms.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why ##u## needs to be small for the Taylor expansion of ##I(u)##, suggesting that the series should work for any size ##u##.
  • Another participant asserts that while the Taylor series can technically be applied for any size ##u##, the higher-order terms become significant if ##u## is not small, making it impossible to ignore the ##O(u^2)## term.
  • A different viewpoint indicates that taking the series expansion to infinite order would allow for any size ##u##, but emphasizes that only considering the first term leads to deviations that are only small if ##u## is small.
  • One participant elaborates that small values of ##u## are common in physics for linear approximations, noting that differentiation is a local property, which suggests that the behavior of the Taylor series is inherently local around ##0##.
  • This participant also mentions that while there is no formal restriction on the Taylor series, the nature of the theorem implies a limit on the size of ##u## for practical applications.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of the Taylor series for larger values of ##u##. While some acknowledge that the series can be used for any size, they emphasize the practical limitations and the significance of higher-order terms, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of using larger ##u##.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of local behavior in derivatives and the implications of higher-order terms in Taylor expansions, suggesting that the discussion is limited by assumptions about the size of ##u## and the context of its application.

Reuben_Leib
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
Taylor series
Necessary condition for a curve to provide a weak extremum.
Let ##x(t)## be the extremum curve.
Let ##x=x(t,u) = x(t) + u\eta(t)## be the curve with variation in the neighbourhood of ##(\varepsilon,\varepsilon')##.
Let $$I(u) = \int^b_aL(t,x(t,u),\dot{x}(t,u))dt = \int^b_aL(t,x(t) + u\eta(t),\dot{x}(t) + u\dot{\eta}(t))dt$$
"Taylor’s theorem indicates that, for ##u## sufficiently small, ##I(u)## can be represented by"
$$I(u) = I(0) + u \left(\frac{\textrm{d}I}{\textrm{d}u}\right)_{u=0} + O(u^2)$$
My question is: Why does ##u## need to be small to represent the Taylor expansion of ##I(u)##? doesn't the Taylor series work for any size ##u##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Reuben_Leib said:
My question is: Why does ##u## need to be small to represent the Taylor expansion of ##I(u)##? doesn't the Taylor series work for any size ##u##?
It does, but then you will not be able to ignore "##+O(u^2)##" because the higher order terms will become significant relative to the zeroth and first order terms.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
If you take the series expansion to infinite order then yes, it will work for any size ##u##. But in this case you are taking only the first term in the expansion, so this will deviate from the original function with errors of order ##O(u^2)##. Those will only be small if ##u## is small.
 
Reuben_Leib said:
My question is: Why does ##u## need to be small to represent the Taylor expansion of ##I(u)##? doesn't the Taylor series work for any size ##u##?

Yes, it does.

Where did you read it? Small values of ##u## are the second nature of physicists if they read, write, or hear Taylor. It is usually applied to discover linear approximations, i.e. you need small, neglectable values for ##u^n \;(n>1).##

There is simply not much use of the series for ##u\gg 0.## Furthermore, note that differentiation is a local quality. Differentiable in a neighborhood of ##0## means in a very small radius around ##0.## So we are already limited to a local phenomenon. Why does it make sense to have local behavior in the derivative terms and global in the stretching terms? But yes, formally, there is no restriction for calling the series a Taylor series. However, there is something "small" if we write down the theorem:

Let ##f:I\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}## be a ##n## times continuously differentiable function, and ##p\in I,## Then we have for all ##x\in I##
$$
f(x)=\sum_{k=0}^n \dfrac{f^{(k)}(p)}{k!}\,(x-p)^k + \eta(x)(x-p)^n
$$
where ##\displaystyle{\lim_{x\to p}\eta(x)=0.}##

The estimation for the remainder term converges to zero.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Reuben_Leib

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K