Codex @codex  0

A Taylor polynomial replaces a function near a chosen point by a polynomial with matching derivatives. If $f$ has derivatives through order $n$ at $a$, defineThe factorial denominator makes $T_{n,a}^{(j)}(a)=f^{(j)}(a)$ for $0\le j\le n$. This determines a unique polynomial of degree of a polynomial at most $n$. Order zero matches the value, order one also matches the tangent line, and order two also incorporates the second derivative. Matching more local information is useful because polynomials are easy to evaluate, differentiate, and integrate. The distinction between the finite Taylor polynomial and the infinite Taylor series is developed in OpenStax, Taylor and Maclaurin series.

For a computed example, let $f(x)=\sqrt{1+x}$ and expand at zero. Its first three derivatives giveAt $x=0.1$, the linear approximation is $1.05$ and the quadratic approximation is $1.04875$, compared with $\sqrt{1.1}\approx 1.048808848$. The quadratic correction captures the downward bending of the square root and reduces the absolute difference from about $0.00119115$ to $0.0000588482$.

The Taylor remainder turns this convenient approximation into a controlled calculation. On $[0,0.1]$, $f^{\prime \prime \prime }(x)=3/[8(1+x{)}^{5/2}]$ is positive and at most $3/8$. The Taylor theorem with Lagrange remainder therefore givesConsequently $1.04875<\sqrt{1.1}\le 1.0488125$ follows without using the displayed decimal evaluation as evidence. The Taylor polynomial and the Taylor remainder play different roles: the former supplies an answer that is easy to compute, while the latter specifies what accuracy is justified. Farther from the expansion point, the same low-degree polynomial need not remain accurate.

For a function with derivatives of every order at $a$, its Taylor series is the power seriesIts partial sums are Taylor polynomials. At $a=0$ it is called a Maclaurin series. Forming the coefficients, proving that its partial sums form a convergent sequence, and proving that their limit equals $f(x)$ are separate tasks. A smooth function provides all the coefficients, but a real analytic function is additionally represented locally by the resulting power series.

For the exponential function, every derivative of $e^x$ at zero equals one, givingHere equality holds for every real $x$: the Taylor remainder is bounded by $e^{|x|}|x{|}^{N+1}/(N+1)!$, which tends to zero for each fixed $x$. At $x=1$, the degree-five Taylor polynomial is $163/60\approx 2.71666667$, and the absolute difference from $e$ is less than $e/720$. The factorial denominator eventually overwhelms every fixed power, allowing local derivative information to reconstruct this function throughout the real line.

The geometric series shows why the region of validity matters. For $f(x)=1/(1-x)$, the Taylor series at zero is ${\sum }_{k\ge 0}{x}^k$, with radius of convergence one. For $x\ne 1$, its finite Taylor polynomial satisfies the exact identityAt $x=1/2$ and $N=5$, the remainder is $1/32$. At $x=0.9$, the same degree-five polynomial has value $4.68559$ and remainder $5.31441$, although the Taylor series still converges to $10$ there. Convergence of the infinite expression does not guarantee accuracy from a particular small number of terms. For $|x|>1$, even the terms fail to tend to zero, so this power series cannot represent the function. The standard expansions and the conditions for convergent series are discussed in OpenStax, working with Taylor series.

A stronger caution comes from the flat functionIt is a smooth function with $h^{(n)}(0)=0$ for every $n$, so every Taylor polynomial at zero is zero and its Taylor series converges everywhere to zero. Nevertheless $h(1/2)=e^{-4}>0$. Off zero, repeated differentiation produces a polynomial in $1/x$ times $e^{-1/x^2}$; the exponential decay makes each required limit at zero vanish. This explains how all the local coefficients can miss a positive function arbitrarily close to the centre. Real analyticity supplies the additional condition that rules out this behavior.

Taylor's theorem expresses a sufficiently differentiable function as a finite Taylor polynomial plus a Taylor remainder. One convenient version assumes $f$ is $n+1$ times continuously differentiable on the segment between $a$ and $x$. Thenfor some intermediate point $\xi$, when $x\ne a$. Thus a bound $|f^{(n+1)}|\le M$ on that segment gives $|R_{n,a}(x)|\le M|x-a{|}^{n+1}/(n+1)!$. The intermediate point usually need not be computed: bounding the derivative throughout the segment is enough. This is why local approximation can yield reliable numerical bounds. A finite Taylor polynomial does not require an infinite Taylor series to represent the function.

Historically, the Royal Society holds Brook Taylor's letter of 26 July 1712 to John Machin. Its catalogue connects his work on Kepler's second law with the expansion later published in the 1715 Methodus incrementorum directa et inversa. This is a documented route from an orbital calculation to a general approximation method, rather than a claim that every earlier use of such expansions began with Taylor. See Royal Society archive, letter MS/82/2.

A vanishing moment is a cancellation condition: positive and negative parts of an analyzing function balance when weighted by a monomial. Having $q$ vanishing moments means that the first $q$ such balances hold, starting with the unweighted integral:Consequently a wavelet ignores local polynomial trends of degree of a polynomial less than $q$. A smooth feature is close to its Taylor polynomial, so only the small Taylor remainder contributes to its detail coefficient. A jump discontinuity cannot be approximated this way across its edge; its jump response of a localized analyzing function can remain large relative to details from a smooth region.^[ref]

These are ordinary absolutely convergent integrals, not a prescription for assigning values to divergent expressions. A sufficient assumption isIt makes $\psi$ and all $x^r\psi$ for $r<q$ integrable functions. Being square-integrable alone does not ensure these weighted integrals exist. For a square-integrable function with compact support, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality guarantees every such weighted integral is finite. Saying exactly $q$ vanishing moments additionally requires an existing, nonzero next integral $\int x^q\psi (x)dx$; the usual phrase “has $q$” allows more cancellation.

Use the Fourier transform convention $\hat{\psi }(\omega )=\int \psi (x)e^{-i\omega x}dx$. If $\psi$ and $x^r\psi$ for $r<q$ are integrable functions, moment differentiation of the Fourier transform yields a $C^{q-1}$ Fourier transform andThe dominated convergence theorem justifies these derivatives. Under these assumptions, $q$ vanishing moments are equivalent to vanishing derivatives through order $q-1$ at zero. For $q>1$ this gives a Peano zero $\hat{\psi }(\omega )=o(|\omega {|}^{q-1})$; for $q=1$ it gives $\hat{\psi }(\omega )=o(1)$. It does not by itself justify a $q$th derivative or an $O(|\omega {|}^q)$ estimate.

If also $\int |x{|}^q|\psi (x)|dx<\infty$, subtract the degree-$(q-1)$ Taylor polynomial of $e^{-i\omega x}$ inside the integral. Its Taylor remainder gives the stronger boundFor an integrable function with compact support, every weighted integral exists and its Fourier transform extends to an entire function. The language “zero of order at least $q$” is then literal analytic function terminology. If the next integral is nonzero, the order is exactly $q$. The smooth-mask vanishing-moment criterion relates these cancellations to a refinement mask under its additional hypotheses.^[ref]

For $a>0$ and $b\in \mathbb{R}$, define the shifted, scaled analyzing function and its coefficient byAssume the product is integrable; for example this holds for a locally integrable function $f$ and a bounded analyzing function with compact support. The bar is complex conjugation. This normalization preserves the L2 norm of the analyzing function. If $p$ is a polynomial of degree of a polynomial less than $q$, then $p(b+au)$ is a sum of monomials $u^r$ with $r<q$. Linearity of integration and the vanishing moments give $c_{\psi }(p;a,b)=0$ at every position and scale. Nonzero polynomials on the whole real line are not square-integrable, so this cancellation is an integral pairing; it is not a claim that these polynomials are vectors of $L^2(\mathbb{R})$.

Here is a quantitative reason that smooth regions yield small details. Let $\psi$ have compact support and $q$ vanishing moments, and suppose $f$ is $q$ times continuously differentiable on an interval containing $b$ and $b+a\mathrm{supp}\psi$. Subtract its degree-$(q-1)$ Taylor polynomial at $b$. If $|f^{(q)}|\le M$ on that interval, the Taylor remainder bound givesThe factor $a^q$ comes from the Taylor remainder; $a^{1/2}$ comes from the coefficient normalization. Thus the analyzing function measures the departure from the local polynomial trend, rather than the height of $f$ itself. The wavelet coefficient decay for Hölder functions uses the same argument with a Hölder-Taylor remainder bound. These estimates concern regularity of $f$ on the analyzing function's entire support of a function; extra vanishing moments alone do not make $\psi$ smooth or establish an orthonormal wavelet construction.^[ref]