anonymous
  • anonymous
Taylor Series question here: So I am learning about Taylor series/polynomials and I am deriving some of the common functions just to get comfortable with the process. My problem is with ln(x). My process for finding taylor polynomials has been to take a few derivatives so in this case \[f(x)=\ln(x)....f'(x)=\frac{ 1 }{ x }...f''(x)=\frac{ -1 }{ x^2 }....f'''(x)=\frac{ 2 }{ x^3 } \] etc... But for the next step I have been evaluating each term at x=0 to find the general term. How can I do this for ln(x) since as far as I know, ln(0) isn't valid? (at least at my level of maths)
Mathematics
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
jamiebookeater
  • jamiebookeater
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
anonymous
  • anonymous
\[\ln(x)\] therefore has no taylor series expansion at \(x=0\)
TuringTest
  • TuringTest
You don't take the taylor series of lnx about x=0 for the reason you discovered. It's much more common to take it around x=-1, or expand ln(x+1)
anonymous
  • anonymous
as you can see every term will be undefined you can expand at 1 say

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

anonymous
  • anonymous
what @TuringTest said
anonymous
  • anonymous
Ok I will try from a different x then. I guess my confusion was just about finding a general term. I will expand at a different point and see if I can get it.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Aha! That worked perfectly! Substituting x=1. Thanks guys!

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.