Is this a legitimate way to write the multivariable Taylor series formula?












2














While researching multivariable Taylor series I found this expression for a Taylor polynomial in two variables:
$$T_n(x,y)=sum_{i=1}^nleft((x-x_0)frac{partial}{partial x}+(y-y_0)frac{partial}{partial y}right)^ifrac{f(x_0,y_0)}{i!}$$
As an example, the second-degree Taylor polynomial of $f(x,y)=frac{1}{xy}$ at $(1,1)$ is
$$f(1,1)+(x-1)frac{partial f}{partial x}(1,1)+(y-1)frac{partial f}{partial y}(1,1)+frac{1}{2}left((x-1)^2frac{partial^2f}{partial x^2}(1,1)+2(x-1)(y-1)frac{partial^2f}{partial x partial y}(1,1)+(y-1)^2frac{partial^2f}{partial y^2}(1,1)right)$$
$$=1-(x-1)-(y-1)+(x-1)^2+(x-1)(y-1)+(y-1)^2$$
However this notation seems sort of "cheaty" to me. Can we use the differential operator in this way? Namely, is raising the differential operator to a power and then "multiplying" it against the function at the desired point in this manner legitimate?










share|cite|improve this question





























    2














    While researching multivariable Taylor series I found this expression for a Taylor polynomial in two variables:
    $$T_n(x,y)=sum_{i=1}^nleft((x-x_0)frac{partial}{partial x}+(y-y_0)frac{partial}{partial y}right)^ifrac{f(x_0,y_0)}{i!}$$
    As an example, the second-degree Taylor polynomial of $f(x,y)=frac{1}{xy}$ at $(1,1)$ is
    $$f(1,1)+(x-1)frac{partial f}{partial x}(1,1)+(y-1)frac{partial f}{partial y}(1,1)+frac{1}{2}left((x-1)^2frac{partial^2f}{partial x^2}(1,1)+2(x-1)(y-1)frac{partial^2f}{partial x partial y}(1,1)+(y-1)^2frac{partial^2f}{partial y^2}(1,1)right)$$
    $$=1-(x-1)-(y-1)+(x-1)^2+(x-1)(y-1)+(y-1)^2$$
    However this notation seems sort of "cheaty" to me. Can we use the differential operator in this way? Namely, is raising the differential operator to a power and then "multiplying" it against the function at the desired point in this manner legitimate?










    share|cite|improve this question



























      2












      2








      2







      While researching multivariable Taylor series I found this expression for a Taylor polynomial in two variables:
      $$T_n(x,y)=sum_{i=1}^nleft((x-x_0)frac{partial}{partial x}+(y-y_0)frac{partial}{partial y}right)^ifrac{f(x_0,y_0)}{i!}$$
      As an example, the second-degree Taylor polynomial of $f(x,y)=frac{1}{xy}$ at $(1,1)$ is
      $$f(1,1)+(x-1)frac{partial f}{partial x}(1,1)+(y-1)frac{partial f}{partial y}(1,1)+frac{1}{2}left((x-1)^2frac{partial^2f}{partial x^2}(1,1)+2(x-1)(y-1)frac{partial^2f}{partial x partial y}(1,1)+(y-1)^2frac{partial^2f}{partial y^2}(1,1)right)$$
      $$=1-(x-1)-(y-1)+(x-1)^2+(x-1)(y-1)+(y-1)^2$$
      However this notation seems sort of "cheaty" to me. Can we use the differential operator in this way? Namely, is raising the differential operator to a power and then "multiplying" it against the function at the desired point in this manner legitimate?










      share|cite|improve this question















      While researching multivariable Taylor series I found this expression for a Taylor polynomial in two variables:
      $$T_n(x,y)=sum_{i=1}^nleft((x-x_0)frac{partial}{partial x}+(y-y_0)frac{partial}{partial y}right)^ifrac{f(x_0,y_0)}{i!}$$
      As an example, the second-degree Taylor polynomial of $f(x,y)=frac{1}{xy}$ at $(1,1)$ is
      $$f(1,1)+(x-1)frac{partial f}{partial x}(1,1)+(y-1)frac{partial f}{partial y}(1,1)+frac{1}{2}left((x-1)^2frac{partial^2f}{partial x^2}(1,1)+2(x-1)(y-1)frac{partial^2f}{partial x partial y}(1,1)+(y-1)^2frac{partial^2f}{partial y^2}(1,1)right)$$
      $$=1-(x-1)-(y-1)+(x-1)^2+(x-1)(y-1)+(y-1)^2$$
      However this notation seems sort of "cheaty" to me. Can we use the differential operator in this way? Namely, is raising the differential operator to a power and then "multiplying" it against the function at the desired point in this manner legitimate?







      calculus multivariable-calculus






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 11 '18 at 5:03

























      asked Dec 11 '18 at 4:07









      csch2

      237211




      237211






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1














          This is completely legitimate.
          The multivariable Taylor formula can be written as
          $$
          T_m(a+Delta x)= sum_{k=0}^{m} frac{d^{k}f(a)}{k!}+dfrac{d^{m+1}f(a+theta Delta x)}{(m+1)!},quad
          thetain (0,1).
          $$

          We have
          $$
          df(x)= frac{partial f(x)}{partial x_1} Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial f(x)}{partial x_n}Delta x_n,
          $$

          where $Delta x=(Delta x_1,ldots,Delta x_n)$ is a known constant vector and $x$ is a point where the differential is calculated.



          The second order differential is defined as
          $$
          d^2f(x)= d(df(x))= frac{partial df(x)}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial df(x)}{partial x_n}Delta x_n
          $$

          $$
          =frac{partial left( frac{partial f}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial f}{partial x_n}Delta x_nright) }{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial left( frac{partial f}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial f}{partial x_n}Delta x_nright) }{partial x_n}Delta x_n
          $$

          $$
          =sum_{i=1}^{n}sum_{j=1}^{n} frac{partial^2 f}{partial x_i partial x_j}Delta x_iDelta x_j.
          $$

          This shows that if we consider the differential as a differential operator
          $$
          df(x)= left( frac{partial}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial}{partial x_n}Delta x_n right)f(x),
          $$

          then we can write
          $$
          d^2 f(x)=left( frac{partial}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial}{partial x_n}Delta x_n right)^2f(x).
          $$

          Similarly, one can obtain formulas for differentials of higher orders:
          $$
          d^3f(x)= d(d^{2}f(x))= left( frac{partial}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial}{partial x_n}Delta x_n right)^{3}f(x)
          $$

          $$
          ldots
          $$

          $$
          d^mf(x)= d(d^{m-1}f(x))= left( frac{partial}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial}{partial x_n}Delta x_n right)^{m}f(x)
          $$

          In the particular case of two variables, we get the
          formula from Wikipedia
          $$
          d^mf = sum_{k=0}^m binom{m}{k}frac{partial^m f}{partial x^k partial y^{m-k}}(dx)^k(dy)^{m-k}.
          $$






          share|cite|improve this answer































            1














            Partial derivatives, and differential operators in general, are linear operators; raising them to powers or multiplying makes perfect sense, as composition.



            There's only one problem here - that multiplication by $(x-x_0)$ and $(y-y_0)$. Those don't commute with the partial derivatives. For example, taking it all literally as composition of linear operators, I get
            begin{align*}left((x-x_0)frac{partial}{partial x} + (y-y_0)frac{partial}{partial y}right)^2 &= (x-x_0)^2frac{partial^2}{partial x^2} +(x-x_0)(y-y_0)left(frac{partial^2}{partial xpartial y}+frac{partial^2}{partial ypartial x}right)cdots\ &quad +(x-x_0)frac{partial}{partial x}+(y-y_0)frac{partial}{partial y}end{align*}
            That bit with the mixed partials isn't too bad; there's a standard theorem that for reasonably nice functions they're the same. The problem is the terms on the second line, which come from differentiating the $(x-x_0)$ and $(y-y_0)$ when we apply the product rule. Those terms aren't in the Taylor expansion.

            To see where this goes, apply this formula to finding the Taylor series of a linear function $f(x)=ax+by$ at the origin. We have $left(xfrac{partial}{partial x}+yfrac{partial}{partial y}right)f(0,0) = ax+by=f(x,y)$ (that $f(x_0,y_0)$ in the formula actually means to evaluate the derivatives there), so $left(xfrac{partial}{partial x}+yfrac{partial}{partial y}right)^if(0,0) = ax+by$ for all $ige 1$. Add up the series, and we get a series $0+(ax+by)sum_{i=1}^{infty}frac{1}{i!} = (e-1)(ax+by)$. Absurd.



            As noted in the comments below - there is a fix. The $frac{partial}{partial x}$ operator is actually "differentiate with respect to the first variable", and the $x$ in $(x-x_0)$ is a new variable. Time to rename things. Call the point we're evaluating the Taylor series at $(u,v)$, so the operator we're raising to various powers is $(u-x_0)frac{partial}{partial x}+(v-y_0)frac{partial}{partial y}$, or the equivalent with more subscripts in higher dimensions. Now the multipliers are constant with respect to the derivatives, and everything works out right with no extra terms. Another one for the hazards of using variables out of scope.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • Your differentiation is wrong because $Delta x= x-x_0$ and $Delta y= y-y_0$ are constants here. There is no "second line"
              – AVK
              Dec 11 '18 at 10:00










            • $x$ in $x-x_0$ in this formula is a fixed point (where the Taylor polynimial is calculated) as well as $x_0$ (where the Taylor expansion takes place), therefore $x-x_0$ is a constant. This is not the same $x$ as in $frac{partial}{partial x}$ (a variable).
              – AVK
              Dec 11 '18 at 10:11










            • OK, now I see it. This is one that could really use a change of letters to clarify the difference. I'll edit something in.
              – jmerry
              Dec 11 '18 at 10:30











            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',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            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%2f3034869%2fis-this-a-legitimate-way-to-write-the-multivariable-taylor-series-formula%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            1














            This is completely legitimate.
            The multivariable Taylor formula can be written as
            $$
            T_m(a+Delta x)= sum_{k=0}^{m} frac{d^{k}f(a)}{k!}+dfrac{d^{m+1}f(a+theta Delta x)}{(m+1)!},quad
            thetain (0,1).
            $$

            We have
            $$
            df(x)= frac{partial f(x)}{partial x_1} Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial f(x)}{partial x_n}Delta x_n,
            $$

            where $Delta x=(Delta x_1,ldots,Delta x_n)$ is a known constant vector and $x$ is a point where the differential is calculated.



            The second order differential is defined as
            $$
            d^2f(x)= d(df(x))= frac{partial df(x)}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial df(x)}{partial x_n}Delta x_n
            $$

            $$
            =frac{partial left( frac{partial f}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial f}{partial x_n}Delta x_nright) }{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial left( frac{partial f}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial f}{partial x_n}Delta x_nright) }{partial x_n}Delta x_n
            $$

            $$
            =sum_{i=1}^{n}sum_{j=1}^{n} frac{partial^2 f}{partial x_i partial x_j}Delta x_iDelta x_j.
            $$

            This shows that if we consider the differential as a differential operator
            $$
            df(x)= left( frac{partial}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial}{partial x_n}Delta x_n right)f(x),
            $$

            then we can write
            $$
            d^2 f(x)=left( frac{partial}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial}{partial x_n}Delta x_n right)^2f(x).
            $$

            Similarly, one can obtain formulas for differentials of higher orders:
            $$
            d^3f(x)= d(d^{2}f(x))= left( frac{partial}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial}{partial x_n}Delta x_n right)^{3}f(x)
            $$

            $$
            ldots
            $$

            $$
            d^mf(x)= d(d^{m-1}f(x))= left( frac{partial}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial}{partial x_n}Delta x_n right)^{m}f(x)
            $$

            In the particular case of two variables, we get the
            formula from Wikipedia
            $$
            d^mf = sum_{k=0}^m binom{m}{k}frac{partial^m f}{partial x^k partial y^{m-k}}(dx)^k(dy)^{m-k}.
            $$






            share|cite|improve this answer




























              1














              This is completely legitimate.
              The multivariable Taylor formula can be written as
              $$
              T_m(a+Delta x)= sum_{k=0}^{m} frac{d^{k}f(a)}{k!}+dfrac{d^{m+1}f(a+theta Delta x)}{(m+1)!},quad
              thetain (0,1).
              $$

              We have
              $$
              df(x)= frac{partial f(x)}{partial x_1} Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial f(x)}{partial x_n}Delta x_n,
              $$

              where $Delta x=(Delta x_1,ldots,Delta x_n)$ is a known constant vector and $x$ is a point where the differential is calculated.



              The second order differential is defined as
              $$
              d^2f(x)= d(df(x))= frac{partial df(x)}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial df(x)}{partial x_n}Delta x_n
              $$

              $$
              =frac{partial left( frac{partial f}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial f}{partial x_n}Delta x_nright) }{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial left( frac{partial f}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial f}{partial x_n}Delta x_nright) }{partial x_n}Delta x_n
              $$

              $$
              =sum_{i=1}^{n}sum_{j=1}^{n} frac{partial^2 f}{partial x_i partial x_j}Delta x_iDelta x_j.
              $$

              This shows that if we consider the differential as a differential operator
              $$
              df(x)= left( frac{partial}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial}{partial x_n}Delta x_n right)f(x),
              $$

              then we can write
              $$
              d^2 f(x)=left( frac{partial}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial}{partial x_n}Delta x_n right)^2f(x).
              $$

              Similarly, one can obtain formulas for differentials of higher orders:
              $$
              d^3f(x)= d(d^{2}f(x))= left( frac{partial}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial}{partial x_n}Delta x_n right)^{3}f(x)
              $$

              $$
              ldots
              $$

              $$
              d^mf(x)= d(d^{m-1}f(x))= left( frac{partial}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial}{partial x_n}Delta x_n right)^{m}f(x)
              $$

              In the particular case of two variables, we get the
              formula from Wikipedia
              $$
              d^mf = sum_{k=0}^m binom{m}{k}frac{partial^m f}{partial x^k partial y^{m-k}}(dx)^k(dy)^{m-k}.
              $$






              share|cite|improve this answer


























                1












                1








                1






                This is completely legitimate.
                The multivariable Taylor formula can be written as
                $$
                T_m(a+Delta x)= sum_{k=0}^{m} frac{d^{k}f(a)}{k!}+dfrac{d^{m+1}f(a+theta Delta x)}{(m+1)!},quad
                thetain (0,1).
                $$

                We have
                $$
                df(x)= frac{partial f(x)}{partial x_1} Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial f(x)}{partial x_n}Delta x_n,
                $$

                where $Delta x=(Delta x_1,ldots,Delta x_n)$ is a known constant vector and $x$ is a point where the differential is calculated.



                The second order differential is defined as
                $$
                d^2f(x)= d(df(x))= frac{partial df(x)}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial df(x)}{partial x_n}Delta x_n
                $$

                $$
                =frac{partial left( frac{partial f}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial f}{partial x_n}Delta x_nright) }{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial left( frac{partial f}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial f}{partial x_n}Delta x_nright) }{partial x_n}Delta x_n
                $$

                $$
                =sum_{i=1}^{n}sum_{j=1}^{n} frac{partial^2 f}{partial x_i partial x_j}Delta x_iDelta x_j.
                $$

                This shows that if we consider the differential as a differential operator
                $$
                df(x)= left( frac{partial}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial}{partial x_n}Delta x_n right)f(x),
                $$

                then we can write
                $$
                d^2 f(x)=left( frac{partial}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial}{partial x_n}Delta x_n right)^2f(x).
                $$

                Similarly, one can obtain formulas for differentials of higher orders:
                $$
                d^3f(x)= d(d^{2}f(x))= left( frac{partial}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial}{partial x_n}Delta x_n right)^{3}f(x)
                $$

                $$
                ldots
                $$

                $$
                d^mf(x)= d(d^{m-1}f(x))= left( frac{partial}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial}{partial x_n}Delta x_n right)^{m}f(x)
                $$

                In the particular case of two variables, we get the
                formula from Wikipedia
                $$
                d^mf = sum_{k=0}^m binom{m}{k}frac{partial^m f}{partial x^k partial y^{m-k}}(dx)^k(dy)^{m-k}.
                $$






                share|cite|improve this answer














                This is completely legitimate.
                The multivariable Taylor formula can be written as
                $$
                T_m(a+Delta x)= sum_{k=0}^{m} frac{d^{k}f(a)}{k!}+dfrac{d^{m+1}f(a+theta Delta x)}{(m+1)!},quad
                thetain (0,1).
                $$

                We have
                $$
                df(x)= frac{partial f(x)}{partial x_1} Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial f(x)}{partial x_n}Delta x_n,
                $$

                where $Delta x=(Delta x_1,ldots,Delta x_n)$ is a known constant vector and $x$ is a point where the differential is calculated.



                The second order differential is defined as
                $$
                d^2f(x)= d(df(x))= frac{partial df(x)}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial df(x)}{partial x_n}Delta x_n
                $$

                $$
                =frac{partial left( frac{partial f}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial f}{partial x_n}Delta x_nright) }{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial left( frac{partial f}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial f}{partial x_n}Delta x_nright) }{partial x_n}Delta x_n
                $$

                $$
                =sum_{i=1}^{n}sum_{j=1}^{n} frac{partial^2 f}{partial x_i partial x_j}Delta x_iDelta x_j.
                $$

                This shows that if we consider the differential as a differential operator
                $$
                df(x)= left( frac{partial}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial}{partial x_n}Delta x_n right)f(x),
                $$

                then we can write
                $$
                d^2 f(x)=left( frac{partial}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial}{partial x_n}Delta x_n right)^2f(x).
                $$

                Similarly, one can obtain formulas for differentials of higher orders:
                $$
                d^3f(x)= d(d^{2}f(x))= left( frac{partial}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial}{partial x_n}Delta x_n right)^{3}f(x)
                $$

                $$
                ldots
                $$

                $$
                d^mf(x)= d(d^{m-1}f(x))= left( frac{partial}{partial x_1}Delta x_1+ldots+frac{partial}{partial x_n}Delta x_n right)^{m}f(x)
                $$

                In the particular case of two variables, we get the
                formula from Wikipedia
                $$
                d^mf = sum_{k=0}^m binom{m}{k}frac{partial^m f}{partial x^k partial y^{m-k}}(dx)^k(dy)^{m-k}.
                $$







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Dec 11 '18 at 10:33

























                answered Dec 11 '18 at 8:45









                AVK

                2,0711517




                2,0711517























                    1














                    Partial derivatives, and differential operators in general, are linear operators; raising them to powers or multiplying makes perfect sense, as composition.



                    There's only one problem here - that multiplication by $(x-x_0)$ and $(y-y_0)$. Those don't commute with the partial derivatives. For example, taking it all literally as composition of linear operators, I get
                    begin{align*}left((x-x_0)frac{partial}{partial x} + (y-y_0)frac{partial}{partial y}right)^2 &= (x-x_0)^2frac{partial^2}{partial x^2} +(x-x_0)(y-y_0)left(frac{partial^2}{partial xpartial y}+frac{partial^2}{partial ypartial x}right)cdots\ &quad +(x-x_0)frac{partial}{partial x}+(y-y_0)frac{partial}{partial y}end{align*}
                    That bit with the mixed partials isn't too bad; there's a standard theorem that for reasonably nice functions they're the same. The problem is the terms on the second line, which come from differentiating the $(x-x_0)$ and $(y-y_0)$ when we apply the product rule. Those terms aren't in the Taylor expansion.

                    To see where this goes, apply this formula to finding the Taylor series of a linear function $f(x)=ax+by$ at the origin. We have $left(xfrac{partial}{partial x}+yfrac{partial}{partial y}right)f(0,0) = ax+by=f(x,y)$ (that $f(x_0,y_0)$ in the formula actually means to evaluate the derivatives there), so $left(xfrac{partial}{partial x}+yfrac{partial}{partial y}right)^if(0,0) = ax+by$ for all $ige 1$. Add up the series, and we get a series $0+(ax+by)sum_{i=1}^{infty}frac{1}{i!} = (e-1)(ax+by)$. Absurd.



                    As noted in the comments below - there is a fix. The $frac{partial}{partial x}$ operator is actually "differentiate with respect to the first variable", and the $x$ in $(x-x_0)$ is a new variable. Time to rename things. Call the point we're evaluating the Taylor series at $(u,v)$, so the operator we're raising to various powers is $(u-x_0)frac{partial}{partial x}+(v-y_0)frac{partial}{partial y}$, or the equivalent with more subscripts in higher dimensions. Now the multipliers are constant with respect to the derivatives, and everything works out right with no extra terms. Another one for the hazards of using variables out of scope.






                    share|cite|improve this answer























                    • Your differentiation is wrong because $Delta x= x-x_0$ and $Delta y= y-y_0$ are constants here. There is no "second line"
                      – AVK
                      Dec 11 '18 at 10:00










                    • $x$ in $x-x_0$ in this formula is a fixed point (where the Taylor polynimial is calculated) as well as $x_0$ (where the Taylor expansion takes place), therefore $x-x_0$ is a constant. This is not the same $x$ as in $frac{partial}{partial x}$ (a variable).
                      – AVK
                      Dec 11 '18 at 10:11










                    • OK, now I see it. This is one that could really use a change of letters to clarify the difference. I'll edit something in.
                      – jmerry
                      Dec 11 '18 at 10:30
















                    1














                    Partial derivatives, and differential operators in general, are linear operators; raising them to powers or multiplying makes perfect sense, as composition.



                    There's only one problem here - that multiplication by $(x-x_0)$ and $(y-y_0)$. Those don't commute with the partial derivatives. For example, taking it all literally as composition of linear operators, I get
                    begin{align*}left((x-x_0)frac{partial}{partial x} + (y-y_0)frac{partial}{partial y}right)^2 &= (x-x_0)^2frac{partial^2}{partial x^2} +(x-x_0)(y-y_0)left(frac{partial^2}{partial xpartial y}+frac{partial^2}{partial ypartial x}right)cdots\ &quad +(x-x_0)frac{partial}{partial x}+(y-y_0)frac{partial}{partial y}end{align*}
                    That bit with the mixed partials isn't too bad; there's a standard theorem that for reasonably nice functions they're the same. The problem is the terms on the second line, which come from differentiating the $(x-x_0)$ and $(y-y_0)$ when we apply the product rule. Those terms aren't in the Taylor expansion.

                    To see where this goes, apply this formula to finding the Taylor series of a linear function $f(x)=ax+by$ at the origin. We have $left(xfrac{partial}{partial x}+yfrac{partial}{partial y}right)f(0,0) = ax+by=f(x,y)$ (that $f(x_0,y_0)$ in the formula actually means to evaluate the derivatives there), so $left(xfrac{partial}{partial x}+yfrac{partial}{partial y}right)^if(0,0) = ax+by$ for all $ige 1$. Add up the series, and we get a series $0+(ax+by)sum_{i=1}^{infty}frac{1}{i!} = (e-1)(ax+by)$. Absurd.



                    As noted in the comments below - there is a fix. The $frac{partial}{partial x}$ operator is actually "differentiate with respect to the first variable", and the $x$ in $(x-x_0)$ is a new variable. Time to rename things. Call the point we're evaluating the Taylor series at $(u,v)$, so the operator we're raising to various powers is $(u-x_0)frac{partial}{partial x}+(v-y_0)frac{partial}{partial y}$, or the equivalent with more subscripts in higher dimensions. Now the multipliers are constant with respect to the derivatives, and everything works out right with no extra terms. Another one for the hazards of using variables out of scope.






                    share|cite|improve this answer























                    • Your differentiation is wrong because $Delta x= x-x_0$ and $Delta y= y-y_0$ are constants here. There is no "second line"
                      – AVK
                      Dec 11 '18 at 10:00










                    • $x$ in $x-x_0$ in this formula is a fixed point (where the Taylor polynimial is calculated) as well as $x_0$ (where the Taylor expansion takes place), therefore $x-x_0$ is a constant. This is not the same $x$ as in $frac{partial}{partial x}$ (a variable).
                      – AVK
                      Dec 11 '18 at 10:11










                    • OK, now I see it. This is one that could really use a change of letters to clarify the difference. I'll edit something in.
                      – jmerry
                      Dec 11 '18 at 10:30














                    1












                    1








                    1






                    Partial derivatives, and differential operators in general, are linear operators; raising them to powers or multiplying makes perfect sense, as composition.



                    There's only one problem here - that multiplication by $(x-x_0)$ and $(y-y_0)$. Those don't commute with the partial derivatives. For example, taking it all literally as composition of linear operators, I get
                    begin{align*}left((x-x_0)frac{partial}{partial x} + (y-y_0)frac{partial}{partial y}right)^2 &= (x-x_0)^2frac{partial^2}{partial x^2} +(x-x_0)(y-y_0)left(frac{partial^2}{partial xpartial y}+frac{partial^2}{partial ypartial x}right)cdots\ &quad +(x-x_0)frac{partial}{partial x}+(y-y_0)frac{partial}{partial y}end{align*}
                    That bit with the mixed partials isn't too bad; there's a standard theorem that for reasonably nice functions they're the same. The problem is the terms on the second line, which come from differentiating the $(x-x_0)$ and $(y-y_0)$ when we apply the product rule. Those terms aren't in the Taylor expansion.

                    To see where this goes, apply this formula to finding the Taylor series of a linear function $f(x)=ax+by$ at the origin. We have $left(xfrac{partial}{partial x}+yfrac{partial}{partial y}right)f(0,0) = ax+by=f(x,y)$ (that $f(x_0,y_0)$ in the formula actually means to evaluate the derivatives there), so $left(xfrac{partial}{partial x}+yfrac{partial}{partial y}right)^if(0,0) = ax+by$ for all $ige 1$. Add up the series, and we get a series $0+(ax+by)sum_{i=1}^{infty}frac{1}{i!} = (e-1)(ax+by)$. Absurd.



                    As noted in the comments below - there is a fix. The $frac{partial}{partial x}$ operator is actually "differentiate with respect to the first variable", and the $x$ in $(x-x_0)$ is a new variable. Time to rename things. Call the point we're evaluating the Taylor series at $(u,v)$, so the operator we're raising to various powers is $(u-x_0)frac{partial}{partial x}+(v-y_0)frac{partial}{partial y}$, or the equivalent with more subscripts in higher dimensions. Now the multipliers are constant with respect to the derivatives, and everything works out right with no extra terms. Another one for the hazards of using variables out of scope.






                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    Partial derivatives, and differential operators in general, are linear operators; raising them to powers or multiplying makes perfect sense, as composition.



                    There's only one problem here - that multiplication by $(x-x_0)$ and $(y-y_0)$. Those don't commute with the partial derivatives. For example, taking it all literally as composition of linear operators, I get
                    begin{align*}left((x-x_0)frac{partial}{partial x} + (y-y_0)frac{partial}{partial y}right)^2 &= (x-x_0)^2frac{partial^2}{partial x^2} +(x-x_0)(y-y_0)left(frac{partial^2}{partial xpartial y}+frac{partial^2}{partial ypartial x}right)cdots\ &quad +(x-x_0)frac{partial}{partial x}+(y-y_0)frac{partial}{partial y}end{align*}
                    That bit with the mixed partials isn't too bad; there's a standard theorem that for reasonably nice functions they're the same. The problem is the terms on the second line, which come from differentiating the $(x-x_0)$ and $(y-y_0)$ when we apply the product rule. Those terms aren't in the Taylor expansion.

                    To see where this goes, apply this formula to finding the Taylor series of a linear function $f(x)=ax+by$ at the origin. We have $left(xfrac{partial}{partial x}+yfrac{partial}{partial y}right)f(0,0) = ax+by=f(x,y)$ (that $f(x_0,y_0)$ in the formula actually means to evaluate the derivatives there), so $left(xfrac{partial}{partial x}+yfrac{partial}{partial y}right)^if(0,0) = ax+by$ for all $ige 1$. Add up the series, and we get a series $0+(ax+by)sum_{i=1}^{infty}frac{1}{i!} = (e-1)(ax+by)$. Absurd.



                    As noted in the comments below - there is a fix. The $frac{partial}{partial x}$ operator is actually "differentiate with respect to the first variable", and the $x$ in $(x-x_0)$ is a new variable. Time to rename things. Call the point we're evaluating the Taylor series at $(u,v)$, so the operator we're raising to various powers is $(u-x_0)frac{partial}{partial x}+(v-y_0)frac{partial}{partial y}$, or the equivalent with more subscripts in higher dimensions. Now the multipliers are constant with respect to the derivatives, and everything works out right with no extra terms. Another one for the hazards of using variables out of scope.







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited Dec 11 '18 at 10:42

























                    answered Dec 11 '18 at 9:49









                    jmerry

                    2,076210




                    2,076210












                    • Your differentiation is wrong because $Delta x= x-x_0$ and $Delta y= y-y_0$ are constants here. There is no "second line"
                      – AVK
                      Dec 11 '18 at 10:00










                    • $x$ in $x-x_0$ in this formula is a fixed point (where the Taylor polynimial is calculated) as well as $x_0$ (where the Taylor expansion takes place), therefore $x-x_0$ is a constant. This is not the same $x$ as in $frac{partial}{partial x}$ (a variable).
                      – AVK
                      Dec 11 '18 at 10:11










                    • OK, now I see it. This is one that could really use a change of letters to clarify the difference. I'll edit something in.
                      – jmerry
                      Dec 11 '18 at 10:30


















                    • Your differentiation is wrong because $Delta x= x-x_0$ and $Delta y= y-y_0$ are constants here. There is no "second line"
                      – AVK
                      Dec 11 '18 at 10:00










                    • $x$ in $x-x_0$ in this formula is a fixed point (where the Taylor polynimial is calculated) as well as $x_0$ (where the Taylor expansion takes place), therefore $x-x_0$ is a constant. This is not the same $x$ as in $frac{partial}{partial x}$ (a variable).
                      – AVK
                      Dec 11 '18 at 10:11










                    • OK, now I see it. This is one that could really use a change of letters to clarify the difference. I'll edit something in.
                      – jmerry
                      Dec 11 '18 at 10:30
















                    Your differentiation is wrong because $Delta x= x-x_0$ and $Delta y= y-y_0$ are constants here. There is no "second line"
                    – AVK
                    Dec 11 '18 at 10:00




                    Your differentiation is wrong because $Delta x= x-x_0$ and $Delta y= y-y_0$ are constants here. There is no "second line"
                    – AVK
                    Dec 11 '18 at 10:00












                    $x$ in $x-x_0$ in this formula is a fixed point (where the Taylor polynimial is calculated) as well as $x_0$ (where the Taylor expansion takes place), therefore $x-x_0$ is a constant. This is not the same $x$ as in $frac{partial}{partial x}$ (a variable).
                    – AVK
                    Dec 11 '18 at 10:11




                    $x$ in $x-x_0$ in this formula is a fixed point (where the Taylor polynimial is calculated) as well as $x_0$ (where the Taylor expansion takes place), therefore $x-x_0$ is a constant. This is not the same $x$ as in $frac{partial}{partial x}$ (a variable).
                    – AVK
                    Dec 11 '18 at 10:11












                    OK, now I see it. This is one that could really use a change of letters to clarify the difference. I'll edit something in.
                    – jmerry
                    Dec 11 '18 at 10:30




                    OK, now I see it. This is one that could really use a change of letters to clarify the difference. I'll edit something in.
                    – jmerry
                    Dec 11 '18 at 10:30


















                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3034869%2fis-this-a-legitimate-way-to-write-the-multivariable-taylor-series-formula%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Måne

                    Storängen

                    VLT Carioca