`f(x)=sinhx` Prove that the Maclaurin series for the function converges to the function for all x

Maclaurin series is a special case of Taylor series that is centered at `c=0.` The expansion of the function about `0` follows the formula:

`f(x)=sum_(n=0)^oo (f^n(0))/(n!) x^n`

`f(x)= f(0)+(f'(0))/(1!)x+(f^2(0))/(2!)x^2+(f^3(0))/(3!)x^3+(f^4(0))/(4!)x^4 +...`

To determine the Maclaurin series for the given function` f(x)=sinh(x)` , we may apply the formula for Maclaurin series.

For the list of `f^n(x)` , we may apply the derivative formula for hyperbolic trigonometric functions: `d/(dx) sinh(x) = cosh(x)` and `d/(dx) cosh(x) = sinh(x)` .

`f(x) =sinh(x)`

`f'(x) = d/(dx) sinh(x)= cosh(x)`

`f^2(x) = d/(dx) cosh(x)= sinh(x)`

`f^3(x) = d/(dx) sinh(x)=cosh(x)`

`f^4(x) = d/(dx) cosh(x)= sinh(x)`

`f^5(x) = d/(dx) sinh(x)= cosh(x)`

Plug-in `x=0` on each `f^n(x)` , we get:

`f(0) =sinh(0)=0`

`f'(0) = cosh(0)=1`

`f^2(0) = sinh(0)=0`

`f^3(0) = cosh(0)=1`

`f^4(0) = sinh(0)=0`

`f^5(0) = cosh(0)=1`

Plug-in the values on the formula for Maclaurin series, we get:

`sum_(n=0)^oo (f^n(0))/(n!) x^n`

`= 0+1/(1!)x+0/(2!)x^2+1/(3!)x^3+0/(4!)x^4+1/(5!)x^5+...`

`= 1/(1!)x+1/(3!)x^3+1/(5!)x^5+...`

`=sum_(n=0)^oo x^(2n+1)/((2n+1)!)`

The Maclaurin series is `sum_(n=0)^oo x^(2n+1)/((2n+1)!)` for the function `f(x)=sinh(x)` .

To determine the interval of convergence for the Maclaurin series: `sum_(n=0)^oo x^(2n+1)/((2n+1)!)` , we may apply Ratio Test.

In Ratio test, we determine the limit as: `lim_(n-gtoo)|a_(n+1)/a_n| = L` .

The series converges absolutely when it satisfies `Llt1` .

In the Maclaurin series: `sum_(n=0)^oo x^(2n+1)/((2n+1)!)` , we have:

`a_n=x^(2n+1)/((2n+1)!)`

Then,

`1/a_n=((2n+1)!)/x^(2n+1)`

`a_(n+1)=x^(2(n+1)+1)/((2(n+1)+1)!)`

`=x^(2n+2+1)/((2n+2+1)!)`

`=x^((2n+1)+2)/((2n+3)!)`

`=(x^(2n+1)*x^2)/((2n+3)(2n+2)((2n+1)!))`

Applying the Ratio test, we set-up the limit as:

`lim_(n-gtoo)|a_(n+1)/a_n|=lim_(n-gtoo)|a_(n+1)*1/a_n|`

`=lim_(n-gtoo)|(x^(2n+1)*x^2)/((2n+3)(2n+2)((2n+1)!))*((2n+1)!)/x^(2n+1)|`

Cancel out common factors: `x^(2n+1) and ((2n+1)!)` .

`lim_(n-gtoo)|x^2/((2n+3)(2n+2))|`

Evaluate the limit.

`lim_(n-gtoo)|x^2/((2n+3)(2n+2))| = |x^2|lim_(n-gtoo)|1/((2n+3)(2n+2))|`

`=|x^2|*1/oo`

`= |x^2|*0`

`=0`

The `L=0` satisfies` Llt1` for all `x` .

Thus, the Maclaurin series: `sum_(n=0)^oo x^(2n+1)/((2n+1)!)` is absolutely converges for all `x` .

Interval of convergence: `-ooltxltoo` .

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

nouns - what do you call the person who passes the trophies to the prize giver/presenter?

The person who gives out the trophies to the winners are called award presenters. So what do u call the person who passes the trophies to the presenter? Thanks!

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.

Notes

Search This Blog