Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am studying from Spivak' Calculus, and he states Taylor's Theorem as follows:

THEOREM

Let $f',\cdots,f^{(n+1)}$ be defined on $[a,x]$ and let $R_{n,a}(x)$ be defined by

$$R_{n,a}(x)=f(x)-\sum_{k=0}^n \frac{f^{(k)}(a)}{k!}x^k$$

Then, for some $t\in (a,x)$

$$\eqalign{ & {R_{n,a}}(x) = \frac{{{f^{\left( {n + 1} \right)}}\left( t \right)}}{{n!}}{\left( {x - t} \right)^n}\left( {x - a} \right) \cr & {R_{n,a}}(x) = \frac{{{f^{\left( {n + 1} \right)}}\left( t \right)}}{{\left( {n + 1} \right)!}}{\left( {x - a} \right)^{n + 1}} \cr} $$

Moreover, if $f^{(n+1)}$ is integrable over $[a,x]$; then

$${R_{n,a}}(x) = \int\limits_a^x {\frac{{{f^{\left( {n + 1} \right)}}\left( t \right)}}{{n!}}{{\left( {x - t} \right)}^n}} dt$$

On the other hand, Landau's older textbook states:

THEOREM Let $h>0$. Suppose $f^{(n)}$ continuous for $0\leq x\leq h$ and differentiable on $0<x<h$. Let

$$\Phi=f(h)-\sum_{k=0}^n \frac{f^{(k)}(0)}{k!}h^k$$

Then, there exists a $t$ in $(0,h)$ such that

$$\Phi=f^{(n+1)}(t)\frac{h^{n+1}}{(n+1)!}$$

and then uses this to prove.

THEOREM (Taylor's Theorem) Let $h>0$. Suppose $f^{(n)}$ continuous for $\mu \leq x\leq \mu+h$ and differentiable on $\mu <x<\mu+h$. Then there exists an $t$ such that $\mu<t<\mu +h $ and$$f(\mu+h)=\sum\limits_{v = 0}^n {\frac{{{f^{\left( v \right)}}\left( \mu \right)}}{{v!}}} {h^v} + \frac{{{h^{n+1}}}}{{(n+1)!}}{f^{\left( n+1 \right)}}\left( t \right)$$


Now: I see the hypothesis are both the same, and they both address the remainder, but I can't see why Landau fixes $h>0$ and then gives a formula for this fixed $h$ and the $t$ (he actually names this $x$, but I found it a little conflicting) , while Spivak gives the remainder as a function of $x$ and a fixed $t$. Maybe it is just to make his (Landau's) proof simpler? I see how to go from Spivak's result to Landau's, but not the other way around.

share|improve this question
    
some $x$ and $t$'s are mixed up. on the fourth formula you perhaps need $dt$. –  Maesumi Oct 19 '12 at 19:42
    
@Maesumi Corrected. –  Pedro Tamaroff Oct 19 '12 at 19:43

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

The Landau's version of Taylor theorem is eq. 3 of Spivak's version.

They are actually defined in the same way, up to a translation to make the segment $[a,x]$ start from the origin. You can jump from Spivak version to Landau using the coordinate transformation $$s(p)=\frac{(p-a)h}{x-a},$$ where $p$ is the point in the Spivak coordinate system you're considering (in particular if $p=t_{\text{Spivak}}$ then $s(p)=t_{\text{Landau}}$).

I don't think you can conclude Spivak stronger result without requiring integrability.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.