# Proof of Maclaurin series

Watch
Announcements

Page 1 of 1

Go to first unread

Skip to page:

Just doing Maclaurin series in FP2 and was wondering if there was a proof anwhere of the formula? It just seems sort of random... I can see it works when you try it on various functions, but I would like to know the reasoning behind it. Thanks

Edit: Also, is there a proof that functions can be written in the form a0 + a1x + a2x^2 .... etc

Edit: Also, is there a proof that functions can be written in the form a0 + a1x + a2x^2 .... etc

0

reply

Report

#2

The proof you're looking for is a proof of Taylor's Theorem, which basically states that Taylor (and therefore Maclaurin) Series exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor%..._real_variable

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor%..._real_variable

0

reply

Report

#3

I don't know how much of the proof you can actually take. However, this video offers the intuition behind it (not so random).

This is a very tough question and there is a proof. The result is called the Stone-Weierstrass theorem (link to simpler version).

(Original post by

Edit: Also, is there a proof that functions can be written in the form a0 + a1x + a2x^2 .... etc

**Conjecture**)Edit: Also, is there a proof that functions can be written in the form a0 + a1x + a2x^2 .... etc

1

reply

Report

#4

(Original post by

I don't know how much of the proof you can actually take. However, this video offers the intuition behind it (not so random).

This is a very tough question and there is a proof. The result is called the Stone-Weierstrass theorem (link to simpler version).

**jack.hadamard**)I don't know how much of the proof you can actually take. However, this video offers the intuition behind it (not so random).

This is a very tough question and there is a proof. The result is called the Stone-Weierstrass theorem (link to simpler version).

The proof I (and no doubt you have seen) can follow starts with the answer with some unknown constants and shows you how to get the constants.

A bit like y=4+c

And show you how to get the constant c ie c=y-4.

So it kind of shows you the answer works but does not explain how it was dreamed up in the first place.

Seems to be like the fourier series in that respect.

I have seem some attempts as a proof with out starting with the answer

but none that I would follow.

I guess you could say if you know all the derivatives at a point match for two expressions then the expressions must be identical at all points

because they must all change (in the limit) in the same way to the next point and thus must get to the same next point in the limit.

I guess I will have to settled for that.

0

reply

Report

#5

**jack.hadamard**)

I don't know how much of the proof you can actually take. However, this video offers the intuition behind it (not so random).

This is a very tough question and there is a proof. The result is called the Stone-Weierstrass theorem (link to simpler version).

1

reply

Report

#6

I think I might have proof now, I am still kind of working on it but it looks pretty good

0

reply

Report

#7

Yep, my theory looks pretty good but I have never seen it anywhere else.

I was kind of surprise when I looked for a proof but could not find a satisfactory one, I think a few have felt the same!!

I was kind of surprise when I looked for a proof but could not find a satisfactory one, I think a few have felt the same!!

0

reply

Report

#8

With A levels I think you're just meant to have an intuitive feel graphically of the way these things work. Discussing when they actually work and proving that an infinite number of approximations does equal perfection (finding the values of x for which the taylor approximation is valid) is probably part of Analysis.

Note that the approximations aren't always valid for all domains of all functions, but it's easy to see that it's always correct for a finite polynomial.

Note that the approximations aren't always valid for all domains of all functions, but it's easy to see that it's always correct for a finite polynomial.

1

reply

Report

#9

(Original post by

With A levels I think you're just meant to have an intuitive feel graphically of the way these things work. Discussing when they actually work and proving that an infinite number of approximations does equal perfection (finding the values of x for which the taylor approximation is valid) is probably part of Analysis.

Note that the approximations aren't always valid for all domains of all functions, but it's easy to see that it's always correct for a finite polynomial.

**FrostShot**)With A levels I think you're just meant to have an intuitive feel graphically of the way these things work. Discussing when they actually work and proving that an infinite number of approximations does equal perfection (finding the values of x for which the taylor approximation is valid) is probably part of Analysis.

Note that the approximations aren't always valid for all domains of all functions, but it's easy to see that it's always correct for a finite polynomial.

Yes I think that not every function has a Taylor series in which case there

would not be general proof, which is maybe why I can't find one, indeed

although I though I had a proof it would only be for certain types of functions

ie of polynomials.

I am not sure I ever got a proof at A level just some vague waffling, so I guess I find the Taylor series for sin x cos x etc unsatisfactory.

There is something here but it is a bit dense, I will take look when I have more time and energy!!!

http://math.feld.cvut.cz/mt/txte/3/txe3ea3e.htm

0

reply

Report

#10

**Conjecture**)

Edit: Also, is there a proof that functions can be written in the form a0 + a1x + a2x^2 .... etc

0

reply

Report

#11

(Original post by

Well it is a bit old but yes there is. It follows from Zorn's Lemma, which is equivalent to the Axiom of Choice which is a basic axiom that we accept or reject.

**TheMagicMan**)Well it is a bit old but yes there is. It follows from Zorn's Lemma, which is equivalent to the Axiom of Choice which is a basic axiom that we accept or reject.

For sure

**some**functions can be written in the form a_0 + a_1 x + ... ; polynomials being the obvious example.

At the same time, almost all functions (in a sense that can be made precise)

**cannot**be written as a power series.

Even when the Maclaurin series exists, it need not converge to the given function

**anywhere**(other than the origin, where it converges by definition).

The canonical counterexample is f(x) = exp(-1/x^2), with f(0) defiinded = 0. f is infinitely differentiable and all deriviatives =0 at the origin. So Maclaurin series is 0, which obviously doesn't equal f(x) when x isn't 0.

And I'm not sure at which point the Axiom of Choice gets a look in.

1

reply

X

Page 1 of 1

Go to first unread

Skip to page:

### Quick Reply

Back

to top

to top