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'm a math student on a quest of relearning Calculus with an emphasis of developing my intuition. My question is: why do some functions converge on the whole $\mathbb{R}$, and some don't?

Let me expand. So far, I found good intuitive approach about main characteristics of functions. Example: what does it mean if a function isn't uniformly continuous on some open interval $(a,b)$? Well, there could be two ''problems'' with that function: it's oscillating too wildly or it's growing too fast. What does it mean if a function isn't differentiable at some point $a$? Well, the function isn't really ''smooth'' at that point, it has a ''horn''. I hope you see what kind of intuition I hope to get.

Let's get to the point: Why doesn't $\ln(1+x)$ converge on whole $\mathbb{R}$? I could try to explain it like this. Every form of Taylor remainder (Cauchy, integral, Lagrange) looks something like this n-th derivative at some point $\cdot$ distance from the main point to the n-th power $\cdot \frac{1}{n!}$

Every time you derivate $\ln(1+x)$, a constant factor pops out, so it creates counterbalance to that $\frac{1}{n!}$, and the deciding factor is distance from the main point.

The problem is I don't understand what quality of a function ''there is a constant factor that grows when you take repeated derivatives'' represents? There is a similar story about $\arctan$ (also a function that has a finite radius of convergence). The similarity between $\arctan$ and $\ln$ is that both of functions grow very slowly after initial ''boom'', but I can't connect that with high-order derivatives?

Dual to that, $e^x$, $\cos$ and $\sin$ have a good characteristic: their constant factors are bounded, but I also can't connect that with some visual quality of those functions.

Does someone have a good picture about this? I hope I made my question clear.

share|improve this question
1  
\off topic, but interesting... My calculus teacher has a similar intuition for "differentiable"/smooth: If you would sit on it, it's differentiable. (no one sits on pointy stuff) :) –  anorton Dec 10 '12 at 13:10
1  
If you type "a sin b" instead of "a\sin b", then you see $a sin b$ instead of $a\sin b$, and similar comments apply to \ln, \arctan, and \cos. The backslash not only prevents italicization but also results in proper spacing. That is standard usage. I fixed these in the question. –  Michael Hardy Dec 10 '12 at 14:02

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

If you want a visual grasp of what is behind the radius of convergence, then you really need to look at the functions as functions of a complex variable. In that case, the radius of convergence of the series for a function (centred at $0$) is normally the largest circle you can take centred at $0$ which does not contain any singularities of the function.

For example, in the real line, it is easy to see that the series for $\frac{1}{x^2-1}$ has radius of convergence equal to 1, since there is clearly a singularity at $x=1$, but when you consider the function (of a real variable) $\frac{1}{x^2+1}$, then there is no singularity in the (finite) real line, and hence no obvious reason for the radius of convergence to be $1$ also. However, when you consider the function $\frac{1}{z^2+1}$ in the complex plane, we see that there are poles at $\pm i$, and it is clear that the circle of convergence cannot include those points (at distance 1 from the origin).

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.