One-sided Taylor's expansion

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
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
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
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
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
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
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
real-analysis
edited Sep 4 at 5:54
asked Sep 4 at 5:31
Student of Statistics
1719
1719
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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.
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 $(t_0-varepsilon, t_0+õ)cap [t_0,infty)$, avoiding the fact that $f(t)$ has no definition for $t<t_0$.
â 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.
â Samuel Dupuis
Sep 4 at 18:27
add a comment |Â
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.
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 $(t_0-varepsilon, t_0+õ)cap [t_0,infty)$, avoiding the fact that $f(t)$ has no definition for $t<t_0$.
â 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.
â Samuel Dupuis
Sep 4 at 18:27
add a comment |Â
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.
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 $(t_0-varepsilon, t_0+õ)cap [t_0,infty)$, avoiding the fact that $f(t)$ has no definition for $t<t_0$.
â 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.
â Samuel Dupuis
Sep 4 at 18:27
add a comment |Â
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.
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.
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 $(t_0-varepsilon, t_0+õ)cap [t_0,infty)$, avoiding the fact that $f(t)$ has no definition for $t<t_0$.
â 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.
â Samuel Dupuis
Sep 4 at 18:27
add a comment |Â
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 $(t_0-varepsilon, t_0+õ)cap [t_0,infty)$, avoiding the fact that $f(t)$ has no definition for $t<t_0$.
â 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.
â 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 $(t_0-varepsilon, t_0+õ)cap [t_0,infty)$, avoiding the fact that $f(t)$ has no definition for $t<t_0$.
â 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 $(t_0-varepsilon, t_0+õ)cap [t_0,infty)$, avoiding the fact that $f(t)$ has no definition for $t<t_0$.
â 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.
â 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.
â Samuel Dupuis
Sep 4 at 18:27
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password