The answer to this is probably quite obvious, but to be honest it hasn't clicked for me yet.
I can understand that for two curves f(x) and g(x) to be identical, f'(0)=g'(0), f''(0)=g''(0), f'''(0)=g'''(0) for all possible derivatives. But why is this a sufficient, as well as necessary, condition?
And when approximating, I understand why a straight line with m=f'(0) is better than y=f(0), but why is it that the best value for the x^2 coefficient is f''(0)/2!? Why does this result generalise?
Or is it not the best approximation? Would a Taylor approximation with a different centre give a better approximation?
As you can see, I'm a little confused, and it would be great if someone could help clear this up for me.

peterw55
 Follow
 7 followers
 10 badges
 Send a private message to peterw55
 Thread Starter
Offline10ReputationRep: Follow
 1
 16102017 12:10

 Follow
 2
 16102017 13:10
(Original post by peterw55)
The answer to this is probably quite obvious, but to be honest it hasn't clicked for me yet.
I can understand that for two curves f(x) and g(x) to be identical, f'(0)=g'(0), f''(0)=g''(0), f'''(0)=g'''(0) for all possible derivatives. But why is this a sufficient, as well as necessary, condition?
And when approximating, I understand why a straight line with m=f'(0) is better than y=f(0), but why is it that the best value for the x^2 coefficient is f''(0)/2!? Why does this result generalise?
Or is it not the best approximation? Would a Taylor approximation with a different centre give a better approximation?
As you can see, I'm a little confused, and it would be great if someone could help clear this up for me.
However, I can (I hope) be a bit more illuminating with the coefficients. You wonder why, if the first two are f(0) and f'(0), the next one is f''(0)/2! rather than f''(0), and seem to be suggesting that this doesn't follow the pattern. But if you write the first two coefficients as f(0)/0! and f'(0)/1!, the pattern becomes clearer.
It's also not too hard to show that, if an infinite power series expansion is possible, these must be the coefficients. 
peterw55
 Follow
 7 followers
 10 badges
 Send a private message to peterw55
 Thread Starter
Offline10ReputationRep: Follow
 3
 16102017 13:14
(Original post by Pangol)
I can't give a good intuative explanation  the theory that I am familiar with assumes that an infinite power series expansion is possible, and then goes on to show why it must be found in the way that I am sure tha you know.
However, I can (I hope) be a bit more illuminating with the coefficients. You wonder why, if the first two are f(0) and f'(0), the next one is f''(0)/2! rather than f''(0), and seem to be suggesting that this doesn't follow the pattern. But if you write the first two coefficients as f(0)/0! and f'(0)/1!, the pattern becomes clearer.
It's also not too hard to show that, if an infinite power series expansion is possible, these must be the coefficients.
*I know it doesn't always, but for some curves the interval of validity is from infinity to infinity. 
uponthyhorse
 Follow
 2 followers
 11 badges
 Send a private message to uponthyhorse
Offline11ReputationRep: Follow
 4
 16102017 13:17
Have you seen this video? It may not answer all your questions but this channel usually gives a good intuitive understanding of complex mathematical ideas.

peterw55
 Follow
 7 followers
 10 badges
 Send a private message to peterw55
 Thread Starter
Offline10ReputationRep: Follow
 5
 16102017 13:25
(Original post by uponthyhorse)
Have you seen this video? It may not answer all your questions but this channel usually gives a good intuitive understanding of complex mathematical ideas. 
DFranklin
 Follow
 57 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline17ReputationRep: Follow
 6
 16102017 13:26
(Original post by peterw55)
The answer to this is probably quite obvious, but to be honest it hasn't clicked for me yet.
I can understand that for two curves f(x) and g(x) to be identical, f'(0)=g'(0), f''(0)=g''(0), f'''(0)=g'''(0) for all possible derivatives. But why is this a sufficient, 
 Follow
 7
 16102017 13:48
(Original post by Pangol)
I can't give a good intuative explanation  the theory that I am familiar with assumes that an infinite power series expansion is possible, and then goes on to show why it must be found in the way that I am sure tha you know.
However, I can (I hope) be a bit more illuminating with the coefficients. You wonder why, if the first two are f(0) and f'(0), the next one is f''(0)/2! rather than f''(0), and seem to be suggesting that this doesn't follow the pattern. But if you write the first two coefficients as f(0)/0! and f'(0)/1!, the pattern becomes clearer.
It's also not too hard to show that, if an infinite power series expansion is possible, these must be the coefficients.(Original post by peterw55)
Thanks for your answer. I do know why it's f''(0)/2! in the Maclaurin series (i.e. it follows the pattern). But I don't really know why an infinite series of increasing order derivatives can fully describe a curve*. If that is 'an infinite power series expansion', should I just take that as an assumption (i.e. it works graphically)?
*I know it doesn't always, but for some curves the interval of validity is from infinity to infinity.
You can then construct a polynomial P of degree at most n that satisfies p^(k)(a) = f^k(a) for k = 0,1,..., n1 and p(b) = f(b). (this is where the factorials come from).
Applying higher order Rolle's to this gives you f with the Lagrange form of the remainder which you can show goes to 0 as n > infinity for sufficiently nice functions f. 
DimaBlackburn
 Follow
 80 followers
 18 badges
 Send a private message to DimaBlackburn
Offline18ReputationRep: Follow
 8
 16102017 13:51

DFranklin
 Follow
 57 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline17ReputationRep: Follow
 9
 16102017 13:53
(Original post by Zacken)
No, assuming that you can represent f by a power series is essentially dodging the question. What you need is some machinery: once you have your first order Rolle's theorem and you can assume that f is differentiable n times on an open interval containing [a,b] you get your higher order Rolle's theorem using induction and the first order Rolle's theorem. 
 Follow
 10
 16102017 13:57
(Original post by DFranklin)
If you want something more accessible at Alevel, I think integrating n times by parts is a better bet. 
DFranklin
 Follow
 57 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline17ReputationRep: Follow
 11
 16102017 14:43
Proof of Maclauren expansion using integration by parts.
Assumption: f is n+1 times differentiable on [0,a].
, Here's the one "trick" (lecturers hate this!): we're going to integrate by parts with u = f'(x), dv = 1. But we're going to integrate dv to get xa, not x (remember we can add an arbitrary constant when we integrate). So
.
From this point we just integrate by parts normally:
etc until we get
(For a formal proof it's easier to start from this final expression and use induction, of course). 
peterw55
 Follow
 7 followers
 10 badges
 Send a private message to peterw55
 Thread Starter
Offline10ReputationRep: Follow
 12
 16102017 15:31
(Original post by DFranklin)
Proof of Maclauren expansion using integration by parts.
Assumption: f is n+1 times differentiable on [0,a].
, Here's the one "trick" (lecturers hate this!): we're going to integrate by parts with u = f'(x), dv = 1. But we're going to integrate dv to get xa, not x (remember we can add an arbitrary constant when we integrate). So
.
From this point we just integrate by parts normally:
etc until we get
(For a formal proof it's easier to start from this final expression and use induction, of course). 
DFranklin
 Follow
 57 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline17ReputationRep: Follow
 13
 16102017 15:53
(Original post by peterw55)
Thank you for typing all of this out. In the third line, how do you get that the integral of (xa) with respect to x is (xa)^2 / 2? 
peterw55
 Follow
 7 followers
 10 badges
 Send a private message to peterw55
 Thread Starter
Offline10ReputationRep: Follow
 14
 16102017 16:14
(Original post by DFranklin)
Standard result (for me). If you doubt it, differentiate (xa)^2 /2.
xa has antiderivative 0.5x^2  ax (ignoring the +c)
= x^2 / 2  ax
= x^2 / 2  2ax / 2
= x^2  2ax / 2
(xa)^2 / 1 = x^2 + a^2  2ax / 2
What stupid algebra mistake have I made? Where does the a^2 / 2 come from? 
DFranklin
 Follow
 57 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline17ReputationRep: Follow
 15
 16102017 16:16
(Original post by peterw55)
Yes, of course it works.
xa has antiderivative 0.5x^2  ax (ignoring the +c)
= x^2 / 2  ax
= x^2 / 2  2ax / 2
= x^2  2ax / 2
(xa)^2 / 1 = x^2 + a^2  2ax / 2
What stupid algebra mistake have I made? Where does the a^2 / 2 come from? 
peterw55
 Follow
 7 followers
 10 badges
 Send a private message to peterw55
 Thread Starter
Offline10ReputationRep: Follow
 16
 16102017 16:19
(Original post by DFranklin)
Arbitrary constant. Both (x^2  2ax) /2 and (x^2  2ax +a^2) /2 have derivative (xa). 
DFranklin
 Follow
 57 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline17ReputationRep: Follow
 17
 16102017 16:22
(Original post by peterw55)
Because you can set a = 0?
Similarly, the integral of xa is not (x^22ax)/2, but (x^22ax/2) + C.
You have effectively taken C = 0, I have taken it to equal a^2/2. 
peterw55
 Follow
 7 followers
 10 badges
 Send a private message to peterw55
 Thread Starter
Offline10ReputationRep: Follow
 18
 16102017 16:26
(Original post by DFranklin)
No. You should have had it drilled into you (to the point of exasperation!) that the integral of x is not x^2/2, but x^2/2+C. The point of this distinction (which is often not drilled nearly so well), is that any choice of C gives you a valid antiderivative.
Similarly, the integral of xa is not (x^22ax)/2, but (x^22ax/2) + C.
You have effectively taken C = 0, I have taken it to equal a^2/2. 
peterw55
 Follow
 7 followers
 10 badges
 Send a private message to peterw55
 Thread Starter
Offline10ReputationRep: Follow
 19
 16102017 16:35
(Original post by peterw55)
Of course! Now I deservingly feel stupid :/
Even if it's not intuitive, it's a good answer to my question, so thank you! 
DFranklin
 Follow
 57 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline17ReputationRep: Follow
 20
 16102017 16:46
(Original post by peterw55)
Even if it's not intuitive, it's a good answer to my question, so thank you!
Unfortunately, as the counterexample I posted shows, this turns out to not actually be the case. (In terms of the integral proof I showed you, the issue is that the final "integral" term doesn't get small enough to be ignored, no matter how many terms you take).
So at this point in your mathematical career, you're faced with something that you'd like intuitive justification for, and I can even given you a plausible intuitive argument, and yet it isn't actually true.
And then at university, when you study integration with complex numbers (not sure if you'll have done complex numbers at all yet), you find that if you have a complex function, and it's (complex) differentiable just once (for every point in a region), then you can make a Taylor expansion about any point in the region and all the derivatives will work and it will come out perfectly.
And of course at this point, your scepticism will have been tuned to the point where you really wouldn't expect this to work, and so your intuition gets fooled all over again...
Gotta love maths!
Reply
Submit reply
Related discussions:
 16 years old want to offer private maths tuition
 Year 12 Maths Help Thread
 STEP / AEA Revision Thread (ie useful tips and tricks)
 Girls vs boys maths challenge
 Oxford MAT Test  5th Nov 2014
 Mega A Level Maths Thread  Mark IV
 Edexcel FP2 Official 2016 Exam Thread  8th June 2016
 Oxford PAT 2013
 STEP Prep Thread 2015
 UKMT Maths Competitions Thread
TSR Support Team
We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.
This forum is supported by:
 SherlockHolmes
 Notnek
 charco
 Mr M
 TSR Moderator
 Nirgilis
 usycool1
 Changing Skies
 James A
 rayquaza17
 RDKGames
 randdom
 davros
 Gingerbread101
 Kvothe the Arcane
 The Financier
 The Empire Odyssey
 Protostar
 TheConfusedMedic
 nisha.sri
 Reality Check
 claireestelle
 Doonesbury
 furryface12
 Amefish
 harryleavey
 Lemur14
 brainzistheword
 Rexar
 Sonechka
 LeCroissant
 EstelOfTheEyrie
 CoffeeAndPolitics
 an_atheist
 Moltenmo
Updated: October 16, 2017
Share this discussion:
Tweet