In what follows, fix some with and . We shall abbreviate with , provided . Note that .
.
For all non-zero , if , , and , then
In particular, if , then .
Proof.
Note that implies . We work by induction on . For the base case, suppose that for some . Both conclusions are trivial for . For , we know that
Note that , so in particular . For , recall that the Taylor series of implies that when . Using , , we can verify inductively that , or in other words , and
For , we first prove the conclusions for with . Suppose that ; since , we have , and in particular , as . By inductive assumption, . Since for , we get
Since for , we similarly find that
For general , let be the leading term of . Note that by assumption . Since , we have
Since , we also have and , hence by Corollary 4.4,
When , or in other words , we find that indeed .
∎
To prove Taylor’s theorem, we now want to iterate the above approximation. To do that, we need to control the assumption when we replace with its derivatives.
Proof.
(1) We have , hence
This says that , and in particular also that . By induction, for all . Since , we also find .
(2) Let be the unique real number such that . Then . Since , we find
In particular, . Since for all , we have for all , so we deduce by induction that
In turn, for , and if , which can only happen if . Let if and otherwise to recover the desired conclusion. For we have , so by induction . Similarly, , hence .
∎
Two illustrative examples are the following. Take . In this case, , and Lemma 5.2 predicts that . Indeed,
Now take . Here , so we expect to see , with at most one exceptional . Indeed,
Proof.
We apply Lemma 5.2 to the ratio between two successive elements of the sequence:
When , then (Lemma 5.2(1)), so
The sequence is then strictly -decreasing when , which implies since , weakly -increasing when , which also implies , and it is strictly -increasing otherwise.
When , then , with for all but possibly one value of (Lemma 5.2(2)), hence
with equivalence for all but possibly one . The sequence is then strictly -decreasing when , which implies since , weakly -decreasing when , which implies , and it is eventually strictly -increasing otherwise.
∎
When , , and the conclusion follows directly from the Taylor expansion of . For , fix some , as in the assumptions. Note that . Write for ranging in , where by construction implies . Split as follows:
We first show that can be ignored. Suppose that . On the one hand, by construction , where is the leading monomial of , hence , thus necessarily and , whence for all ; since for all , . On the other, , so we cannot have , hence , and so by Lemma 5.2(1). It follows that
Similarly, consider . Note that : if not, by Corollary 5.4 applied to at , with in place of , we would get
a contradiction. Therefore, just as in the previous argument, we find
Since by Corollary 5.4,
Therefore,
Since , so , it is now enough to prove the conclusion with in place of . Suppose that is a monomial in the support of , thus , , and . We distinguish two cases.
If for some , then , hence . For each monomial in the support of , we have , so in particular , hence . When for all , since , we may apply the inductive hypothesis to deduce
When for some , then in fact , hence the above approximation still holds by the binomial theorem and the fact that . Moreover, in either case (by Lemma 5.2(2) in the former case, trivially in the latter), so for all . By strong linearity of composition and derivation, we can sum all the terms of to deduce that for all , and that
If for all , then we simply observe that , since , so the above equality holds by inductive hypothesis, and for by Corollary 5.3.
Therefore,
where on the second line, the argument of is , since for , and so we may use the fact that for any to proceed to the following step.
∎
.
The conclusion of Theorem C loses its significance at the boundary: if and , then the error terms all have the same size by Lemma 5.2, and the conclusion collapses to ; a comparable remark can be made for and , where the error terms can get smaller at most once.
Error terms even increase in size if or . In those cases, the conclusion of Theorem C may or may not be valid depending on . Consider the ‘first-order approximation’
When , consider , thus assume . Then the first-order approximation is valid for if and only if . More generally, the approximation remains valid if and , or if and , since Theorem A implies .
For , the first-order approximation is valid for and it fails for . Analogy with real functions suggests that the approximation is valid for exactly when . This is related to whether implies that is convex, namely for . As alluded to in the introduction, this does not seem to follow in a direct way from Theorem A.
The boundary is more subtle: the error terms do not increase in size, but the Taylor approximation may still hold or fail. For example, the first-order approximation fails for and (note that , so in both examples):
On the other hand, the approximation is valid for :
We can in fact give a full classification. Assume and (we ignore , as in that case implies ). Then the first-order approximation is valid if and only if and .
Indeed, suppose that . Note that the first-order approximation collapses to . We have for some non-zero , so
by Corollary 4.4. Note that is negative infinite. When , we have , so , hence the approximation fails. When , then , so , hence the approximation is valid.
Now suppose that . Let . We claim that satisfies the first-order approximation if and only if does. Since , the approximation for implies , while the one for implies . Crucially, in either case . The claim follows at once from . Moreover, , since . Therefore, to check whether satisfies the first-order approximation, we may replace with until . Since , Corollary 4.4 implies that we may further replace with . Applying the same argument in reverse, we may replace with . The approximation fails for , hence it fails for the starting .
.
Let and with , , . If for some and , suppose that ; otherwise, if , suppose that . Then for all ,
Proof.
If for all and , this is just Theorem C. If , the conclusion is trivial.
Now suppose that for some . Let be the sum of all the terms of that are for some , where necessarily . Note that . Then is a polynomial in of degree , and by construction satisfies for all . In particular, , so .
The conclusion of Theorem C is valid for by the binomial theorem and the fact that (and for , it is true even for , as the error term becomes ). If , we are done. If , we distinguish two cases. If , then implies . If , then by Lemma 5.2(1), so the assumptions guarantee that . In either case, we can apply Theorem C to . The conclusion now follows immediately from and the observations for , for .
∎