One-sided Taylor's expansion

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
3
down vote

favorite
2












Suppose a function $f(t)$ is defined only on $[t_0,infty)$. Suppose all "right'' derivatives $f^(n)(t)$ exist, that is,
$$f^(1)(t_0)=lim_deltarightarrow 0+fracf(t_0)-f(t_0+delta)delta<infty,$$ and in general,

$$f^(n)(t_0)=lim_deltarightarrow 0+fracf^(n-1)(t_0)-f^(n-1)(t_0+delta)delta<infty,$$ for every $ngeq 1$.



Is Taylor's expansion,
$$
f(t_0)+sum_n=1^infty fracf^(n)(t_0)n!(t-t_0)^n,
$$ defined on $[t_0,t_0+varepsilon)$ for some $varepsilon$?



I am not asking whether the expansion converges to $f(t)$ (that is a different question) in a neighborhood of $t_0$. I am just asking if $f(t)$ can be expanded only to the right hand side without the left hand side having been defined.



Intuitively one would think so, but I cannot find any literature items specifically on this point. All Taylor's expansions seem to assume all derivatives exist in an open neighborhood of $t_0$. Please enlighten me.










share|cite|improve this question



























    up vote
    3
    down vote

    favorite
    2












    Suppose a function $f(t)$ is defined only on $[t_0,infty)$. Suppose all "right'' derivatives $f^(n)(t)$ exist, that is,
    $$f^(1)(t_0)=lim_deltarightarrow 0+fracf(t_0)-f(t_0+delta)delta<infty,$$ and in general,

    $$f^(n)(t_0)=lim_deltarightarrow 0+fracf^(n-1)(t_0)-f^(n-1)(t_0+delta)delta<infty,$$ for every $ngeq 1$.



    Is Taylor's expansion,
    $$
    f(t_0)+sum_n=1^infty fracf^(n)(t_0)n!(t-t_0)^n,
    $$ defined on $[t_0,t_0+varepsilon)$ for some $varepsilon$?



    I am not asking whether the expansion converges to $f(t)$ (that is a different question) in a neighborhood of $t_0$. I am just asking if $f(t)$ can be expanded only to the right hand side without the left hand side having been defined.



    Intuitively one would think so, but I cannot find any literature items specifically on this point. All Taylor's expansions seem to assume all derivatives exist in an open neighborhood of $t_0$. Please enlighten me.










    share|cite|improve this question

























      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite
      2









      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite
      2






      2





      Suppose a function $f(t)$ is defined only on $[t_0,infty)$. Suppose all "right'' derivatives $f^(n)(t)$ exist, that is,
      $$f^(1)(t_0)=lim_deltarightarrow 0+fracf(t_0)-f(t_0+delta)delta<infty,$$ and in general,

      $$f^(n)(t_0)=lim_deltarightarrow 0+fracf^(n-1)(t_0)-f^(n-1)(t_0+delta)delta<infty,$$ for every $ngeq 1$.



      Is Taylor's expansion,
      $$
      f(t_0)+sum_n=1^infty fracf^(n)(t_0)n!(t-t_0)^n,
      $$ defined on $[t_0,t_0+varepsilon)$ for some $varepsilon$?



      I am not asking whether the expansion converges to $f(t)$ (that is a different question) in a neighborhood of $t_0$. I am just asking if $f(t)$ can be expanded only to the right hand side without the left hand side having been defined.



      Intuitively one would think so, but I cannot find any literature items specifically on this point. All Taylor's expansions seem to assume all derivatives exist in an open neighborhood of $t_0$. Please enlighten me.










      share|cite|improve this question















      Suppose a function $f(t)$ is defined only on $[t_0,infty)$. Suppose all "right'' derivatives $f^(n)(t)$ exist, that is,
      $$f^(1)(t_0)=lim_deltarightarrow 0+fracf(t_0)-f(t_0+delta)delta<infty,$$ and in general,

      $$f^(n)(t_0)=lim_deltarightarrow 0+fracf^(n-1)(t_0)-f^(n-1)(t_0+delta)delta<infty,$$ for every $ngeq 1$.



      Is Taylor's expansion,
      $$
      f(t_0)+sum_n=1^infty fracf^(n)(t_0)n!(t-t_0)^n,
      $$ defined on $[t_0,t_0+varepsilon)$ for some $varepsilon$?



      I am not asking whether the expansion converges to $f(t)$ (that is a different question) in a neighborhood of $t_0$. I am just asking if $f(t)$ can be expanded only to the right hand side without the left hand side having been defined.



      Intuitively one would think so, but I cannot find any literature items specifically on this point. All Taylor's expansions seem to assume all derivatives exist in an open neighborhood of $t_0$. Please enlighten me.







      real-analysis






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Sep 4 at 5:54

























      asked Sep 4 at 5:31









      Student of Statistics

      1719




      1719




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          0
          down vote













          Your intuition is correct, in the sense that you may generally take a function which is defined on some set $X$ and restrict it to a smaller subset $Ysubseteq X$ unconditionally.



          If this series has nonzero radius of convergence, then there is a function defined on a neighbourhood of $t_0$ which corresponds to the function given in your question on some $(t_0-epsilon,t_0+epsilon)$ with those (two-sided) derivatives. Then what you have is just a restriction of the function defined on that interval to the right side, which is perfectly consistent.



          Admittedly I don't know if a function can even exist which defines such a series that has zero radius of convergence, but given what you're asking I don't think it's relevant anyway.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • I think you are saying the opposite of what I am asking. If a function is defined on a larger set and has a convergent Taylor's series then of course the series is convergent on a restricted smaller set. My problem is that, when $t<t_0$, $f(t)$ is not defined, can we still talk about the series' convergence. The radius of convergence implies convergence in an open neighborhood of $t_0$. Maybe I am asking a non-sensical question, but I am thinking about convergence in something like $(t_0-varepsilon, t_0+ε)cap [t_0,infty)$, avoiding the fact that $f(t)$ has no definition for $t<t_0$.
            – Student of Statistics
            Sep 4 at 8:25











          • The answer to the question you ask in the third sentence is yes. To put it another way, if you have some function $f$ defined on a set $Y$ in a way where insights can be gained from a natural extension to a larger set $Xsupseteq Y$, then doing so with a larger function $F$ on $X$ and analysing the behaviour of $F$ on $Y$ alone will often produce equivalent true statements about $f$. To be fair, usually a bit of extra work is required to show that $f$ inherits true statements in a certain way from $F$, and you can view that as an exercise in this case.
            – Samuel Dupuis
            Sep 4 at 18:27










          Your Answer




          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2904659%2fone-sided-taylors-expansion%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          0
          down vote













          Your intuition is correct, in the sense that you may generally take a function which is defined on some set $X$ and restrict it to a smaller subset $Ysubseteq X$ unconditionally.



          If this series has nonzero radius of convergence, then there is a function defined on a neighbourhood of $t_0$ which corresponds to the function given in your question on some $(t_0-epsilon,t_0+epsilon)$ with those (two-sided) derivatives. Then what you have is just a restriction of the function defined on that interval to the right side, which is perfectly consistent.



          Admittedly I don't know if a function can even exist which defines such a series that has zero radius of convergence, but given what you're asking I don't think it's relevant anyway.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • I think you are saying the opposite of what I am asking. If a function is defined on a larger set and has a convergent Taylor's series then of course the series is convergent on a restricted smaller set. My problem is that, when $t<t_0$, $f(t)$ is not defined, can we still talk about the series' convergence. The radius of convergence implies convergence in an open neighborhood of $t_0$. Maybe I am asking a non-sensical question, but I am thinking about convergence in something like $(t_0-varepsilon, t_0+ε)cap [t_0,infty)$, avoiding the fact that $f(t)$ has no definition for $t<t_0$.
            – Student of Statistics
            Sep 4 at 8:25











          • The answer to the question you ask in the third sentence is yes. To put it another way, if you have some function $f$ defined on a set $Y$ in a way where insights can be gained from a natural extension to a larger set $Xsupseteq Y$, then doing so with a larger function $F$ on $X$ and analysing the behaviour of $F$ on $Y$ alone will often produce equivalent true statements about $f$. To be fair, usually a bit of extra work is required to show that $f$ inherits true statements in a certain way from $F$, and you can view that as an exercise in this case.
            – Samuel Dupuis
            Sep 4 at 18:27














          up vote
          0
          down vote













          Your intuition is correct, in the sense that you may generally take a function which is defined on some set $X$ and restrict it to a smaller subset $Ysubseteq X$ unconditionally.



          If this series has nonzero radius of convergence, then there is a function defined on a neighbourhood of $t_0$ which corresponds to the function given in your question on some $(t_0-epsilon,t_0+epsilon)$ with those (two-sided) derivatives. Then what you have is just a restriction of the function defined on that interval to the right side, which is perfectly consistent.



          Admittedly I don't know if a function can even exist which defines such a series that has zero radius of convergence, but given what you're asking I don't think it's relevant anyway.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • I think you are saying the opposite of what I am asking. If a function is defined on a larger set and has a convergent Taylor's series then of course the series is convergent on a restricted smaller set. My problem is that, when $t<t_0$, $f(t)$ is not defined, can we still talk about the series' convergence. The radius of convergence implies convergence in an open neighborhood of $t_0$. Maybe I am asking a non-sensical question, but I am thinking about convergence in something like $(t_0-varepsilon, t_0+ε)cap [t_0,infty)$, avoiding the fact that $f(t)$ has no definition for $t<t_0$.
            – Student of Statistics
            Sep 4 at 8:25











          • The answer to the question you ask in the third sentence is yes. To put it another way, if you have some function $f$ defined on a set $Y$ in a way where insights can be gained from a natural extension to a larger set $Xsupseteq Y$, then doing so with a larger function $F$ on $X$ and analysing the behaviour of $F$ on $Y$ alone will often produce equivalent true statements about $f$. To be fair, usually a bit of extra work is required to show that $f$ inherits true statements in a certain way from $F$, and you can view that as an exercise in this case.
            – Samuel Dupuis
            Sep 4 at 18:27












          up vote
          0
          down vote










          up vote
          0
          down vote









          Your intuition is correct, in the sense that you may generally take a function which is defined on some set $X$ and restrict it to a smaller subset $Ysubseteq X$ unconditionally.



          If this series has nonzero radius of convergence, then there is a function defined on a neighbourhood of $t_0$ which corresponds to the function given in your question on some $(t_0-epsilon,t_0+epsilon)$ with those (two-sided) derivatives. Then what you have is just a restriction of the function defined on that interval to the right side, which is perfectly consistent.



          Admittedly I don't know if a function can even exist which defines such a series that has zero radius of convergence, but given what you're asking I don't think it's relevant anyway.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          Your intuition is correct, in the sense that you may generally take a function which is defined on some set $X$ and restrict it to a smaller subset $Ysubseteq X$ unconditionally.



          If this series has nonzero radius of convergence, then there is a function defined on a neighbourhood of $t_0$ which corresponds to the function given in your question on some $(t_0-epsilon,t_0+epsilon)$ with those (two-sided) derivatives. Then what you have is just a restriction of the function defined on that interval to the right side, which is perfectly consistent.



          Admittedly I don't know if a function can even exist which defines such a series that has zero radius of convergence, but given what you're asking I don't think it's relevant anyway.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Sep 4 at 6:57









          Samuel Dupuis

          12




          12











          • I think you are saying the opposite of what I am asking. If a function is defined on a larger set and has a convergent Taylor's series then of course the series is convergent on a restricted smaller set. My problem is that, when $t<t_0$, $f(t)$ is not defined, can we still talk about the series' convergence. The radius of convergence implies convergence in an open neighborhood of $t_0$. Maybe I am asking a non-sensical question, but I am thinking about convergence in something like $(t_0-varepsilon, t_0+ε)cap [t_0,infty)$, avoiding the fact that $f(t)$ has no definition for $t<t_0$.
            – Student of Statistics
            Sep 4 at 8:25











          • The answer to the question you ask in the third sentence is yes. To put it another way, if you have some function $f$ defined on a set $Y$ in a way where insights can be gained from a natural extension to a larger set $Xsupseteq Y$, then doing so with a larger function $F$ on $X$ and analysing the behaviour of $F$ on $Y$ alone will often produce equivalent true statements about $f$. To be fair, usually a bit of extra work is required to show that $f$ inherits true statements in a certain way from $F$, and you can view that as an exercise in this case.
            – Samuel Dupuis
            Sep 4 at 18:27
















          • I think you are saying the opposite of what I am asking. If a function is defined on a larger set and has a convergent Taylor's series then of course the series is convergent on a restricted smaller set. My problem is that, when $t<t_0$, $f(t)$ is not defined, can we still talk about the series' convergence. The radius of convergence implies convergence in an open neighborhood of $t_0$. Maybe I am asking a non-sensical question, but I am thinking about convergence in something like $(t_0-varepsilon, t_0+ε)cap [t_0,infty)$, avoiding the fact that $f(t)$ has no definition for $t<t_0$.
            – Student of Statistics
            Sep 4 at 8:25











          • The answer to the question you ask in the third sentence is yes. To put it another way, if you have some function $f$ defined on a set $Y$ in a way where insights can be gained from a natural extension to a larger set $Xsupseteq Y$, then doing so with a larger function $F$ on $X$ and analysing the behaviour of $F$ on $Y$ alone will often produce equivalent true statements about $f$. To be fair, usually a bit of extra work is required to show that $f$ inherits true statements in a certain way from $F$, and you can view that as an exercise in this case.
            – Samuel Dupuis
            Sep 4 at 18:27















          I think you are saying the opposite of what I am asking. If a function is defined on a larger set and has a convergent Taylor's series then of course the series is convergent on a restricted smaller set. My problem is that, when $t<t_0$, $f(t)$ is not defined, can we still talk about the series' convergence. The radius of convergence implies convergence in an open neighborhood of $t_0$. Maybe I am asking a non-sensical question, but I am thinking about convergence in something like $(t_0-varepsilon, t_0+ε)cap [t_0,infty)$, avoiding the fact that $f(t)$ has no definition for $t<t_0$.
          – Student of Statistics
          Sep 4 at 8:25





          I think you are saying the opposite of what I am asking. If a function is defined on a larger set and has a convergent Taylor's series then of course the series is convergent on a restricted smaller set. My problem is that, when $t<t_0$, $f(t)$ is not defined, can we still talk about the series' convergence. The radius of convergence implies convergence in an open neighborhood of $t_0$. Maybe I am asking a non-sensical question, but I am thinking about convergence in something like $(t_0-varepsilon, t_0+ε)cap [t_0,infty)$, avoiding the fact that $f(t)$ has no definition for $t<t_0$.
          – Student of Statistics
          Sep 4 at 8:25













          The answer to the question you ask in the third sentence is yes. To put it another way, if you have some function $f$ defined on a set $Y$ in a way where insights can be gained from a natural extension to a larger set $Xsupseteq Y$, then doing so with a larger function $F$ on $X$ and analysing the behaviour of $F$ on $Y$ alone will often produce equivalent true statements about $f$. To be fair, usually a bit of extra work is required to show that $f$ inherits true statements in a certain way from $F$, and you can view that as an exercise in this case.
          – Samuel Dupuis
          Sep 4 at 18:27




          The answer to the question you ask in the third sentence is yes. To put it another way, if you have some function $f$ defined on a set $Y$ in a way where insights can be gained from a natural extension to a larger set $Xsupseteq Y$, then doing so with a larger function $F$ on $X$ and analysing the behaviour of $F$ on $Y$ alone will often produce equivalent true statements about $f$. To be fair, usually a bit of extra work is required to show that $f$ inherits true statements in a certain way from $F$, and you can view that as an exercise in this case.
          – Samuel Dupuis
          Sep 4 at 18:27

















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2904659%2fone-sided-taylors-expansion%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest













































































          這個網誌中的熱門文章

          tkz-euclide: tkzDrawCircle[R] not working

          How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

          1st Magritte Awards