Deriving Taylor Series: Understanding the Step Escaping Me

In summary, the derivative of f(x+h) is the same wrt h and wrt (x+h). This can be easily seen by differentiation with respect to h.
  • #1
chaoseverlasting
1,050
3
I was going through the derivation of the Taylors series in my book (Engineering Mathematics by Jaggi & Mathur), and there was one step that escaped me. They proved that the derivative of f(x+h) is the same wrt h and wrt (x+h). If someone could explain that, Id be really grateful.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
chaoseverlasting said:
I was going through the derivation of the Taylors series in my book (Engineering Mathematics by Jaggi & Mathur), and there was one step that escaped me. They proved that the derivative of f(x+h) is the same wrt h and wrt (x+h). If someone could explain that, Id be really grateful.

Do you mean df(x+h)/dh = df(x+h)/d(x+h)? If so that just does not make any sense, you cannot say that. However, engineering books and physics books on math sometimes use erroneous manipulation which leads to correct results. I am one who does not understand their manipulations so I cannot help with that, but I can see right now that is invalid.
 
  • #3
for the derivation of Taylor Series... just keep doing integration by part until you get bored with it.
 
  • #4
Kummer, why does df(x+h)/dh = df(x+h)/d(x+h) make no sense?

By the chain rule, df(x+h)/dh= f'(x+h) since the derivative of x+ h, wrt h, is 1. To do
df(x+h)/d(x+h) more easily, change the variable. Let y= x+ h so the problem becomes
df(y)/dy. Of course, that is f"(y)= f'(x+h).
 
  • #5
HallsofIvy said:
Kummer, why does df(x+h)/dh = df(x+h)/d(x+h) make no sense?

By the chain rule, df(x+h)/dh= f'(x+h) since the derivative of x+ h, wrt h, is 1. To do
df(x+h)/d(x+h) more easily, change the variable. Let y= x+ h so the problem becomes
df(y)/dy. Of course, that is f"(y)= f'(x+h).

I see what you did.

I am just mentioning I do not know, usually, differential usage. For instance, I have seen books write d(x+1) I am not sure what this means. And I have seen dx^2, this is even more mysterious.
 
  • #6
Kummer said:
I have seen books write d(x+1) I am not sure what this means. And I have seen dx^2, this is even more mysterious.

Its just like in a change of variables, say we have the integral [tex]\int \frac{log x}{x} dx[/tex] and we let u= log x, then integral becomes [tex]\int u du[/tex] which, we could just write differently as [tex]\int log x d(log x)[/tex].
 
  • #7
You can differentiate a function of x with respect to any function of x.
[tex]\frac{dg(x)}{df(x)}= \frac{dg(x)}{dx}\frac{dx}{df(x)}= \frac{dg(x)}{dx}\frac{1}{\frac{df}{dx}}[/tex]
by the chain rule.

In particular,
[tex]\frac{dg(x)}{dx^2}= \frac{\frac{dg}{dx}}{2x}[/tex]
 
  • #8
HallsofIvy said:
You can differentiate a function of x with respect to any function of x.
[tex]\frac{dg(x)}{df(x)}= \frac{dg(x)}{dx}\frac{dx}{df(x)}= \frac{dg(x)}{dx}\frac{1}{\frac{df}{dx}}[/tex]
by the chain rule.

In particular,
[tex]\frac{dg(x)}{dx^2}= \frac{\frac{dg}{dx}}{2x}[/tex]

It's a classic situation where a student of analysis (when he's only part way through his course) will cry foul. He will claim that differentiation is defined as an operation to be done on *one* function, by the taking of a particular limit. Unfortunately (or fortunately, I would say), physics and engineers follow an *algebraic* tradition, over pure analysis. We tend to just perform algebraic manipulations, without particular regard over the validity, until they fail, and we learn that step is not valid in some context. It says a lot that the algebraic route can work well enough that whole generations of physicists and engineers have used it to great effect without ever learning the distinction. In fact, only recently (by mathematical standards), has the algebraic method gained more legitimacy: search for non-standard analysis, or synthetic differential geometry.

As maybe obvious, this happens to be one of my personal little nooks of fascination... :blushing:
 
  • #9
HallsofIvy said:
Kummer, why does df(x+h)/dh = df(x+h)/d(x+h) make no sense?

By the chain rule, df(x+h)/dh= f'(x+h) since the derivative of x+ h, wrt h, is 1. To do
df(x+h)/d(x+h) more easily, change the variable. Let y= x+ h so the problem becomes
df(y)/dy. Of course, that is f"(y)= f'(x+h).

Thank you. My exams just finished, sorry for taking so long to reply.
 

Related to Deriving Taylor Series: Understanding the Step Escaping Me

1. What is a Taylor Series?

A Taylor Series is a mathematical representation of a function as an infinite sum of terms, each of which is a scaled version of the function's derivatives at a single point.

2. Why is understanding Taylor Series important?

Understanding Taylor Series is important because it allows us to approximate and analyze functions that may be difficult to work with directly. It also provides a way to approximate a function with a simpler, more manageable form.

3. What is the process for deriving a Taylor Series?

The process for deriving a Taylor Series involves finding the derivatives of a function at a specific point, and then plugging those derivatives into a formula that calculates the coefficients for each term. This formula is known as the Taylor Series formula.

4. How does the accuracy of a Taylor Series improve with more terms?

The more terms that are included in a Taylor Series, the more accurate the approximation will be. This is because each additional term takes into account more information about the function's behavior at the specific point.

5. Can a Taylor Series be used for any function?

No, a Taylor Series can only be used for functions that are infinitely differentiable, meaning that they have derivatives of all orders at a given point. Some functions, such as those with sharp corners or discontinuities, may not have a Taylor Series representation.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
12K
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Calculus
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
1K
Back
Top