Find a function $f$ analytic at $x_{0} = 0$ so that $fleft(frac{1}{n}right) = frac{n}{n + 1}, n = 1, 2,...
I am learning about real analytic functions on my own right now. I've been
having trouble with one of the exercises, and it isn't much help that most of the resources online for analytic functions are for Complex Analysis. I am talking about real analytic functions.
For reference, here is a definition that I have been using:
A real function $f(x)$ is analytic at $x_{0}$ if there is a $r > 0$:
$$f(x) = sum_{n = 0}^{infty} a_{n}(x - x_{0})^{n}, |x - x_{0}| < r$$
i.e. there is some power series which converges to the function.
Using this definition, I want to solve the following exercise problem:
Find a function $f$ analytic at $x_{0} = 0$ so that
$fleft(frac{1}{n}right) = frac{n}{n + 1}$, $n = 1, 2, ldots$.
Show that such a function cannot be analytic on $(-2, 0)$.
So, working backwards, I found out that $frac{1}{1 + x}$ satisfies the property $f(frac{1}{n}) = frac{n}{n + 1}$. I'm really not so sure how to prove the analytic properties though. I think that now I need to show $frac{1}{1 + x}$ is analytic, and then I need to prove the second part of the claim, which is that such a function cannot be analytic on $(-2, 0)$.
I have an example in my book which shows $1 + x + x^{2} + x^{3} + cdots$ is analytic. Here's how they do it:
A prototypical example is the geometric series $$1 + x + x^{2} + cdots = lim_{ntoinfty} 1 + x + x^{2} + ldots x^{n} = lim_{ntoinfty}frac{1 - x^{n + 1}}{1 - x}$$
for which it is well known equals $f(x) = frac{1}{1 - x}$ for $|x| < 1$. To verify that the function is analytic, we need to expand about any point $x_{0} neq 1$:
$$
begin{align*}
frac{1}{1-x} = frac{1}{1 - x_{0} - (x - x_{0})} = frac{1}{1- x_{0}}left(1 - frac{x - x_{0}}{1 - x_{0}}right)^{-1}
end{align*}
$$
I tried outlining this example, but I couldn't make any progress. I would really appreciate some sort of help.
real-analysis complex-analysis functions analyticity
|
show 7 more comments
I am learning about real analytic functions on my own right now. I've been
having trouble with one of the exercises, and it isn't much help that most of the resources online for analytic functions are for Complex Analysis. I am talking about real analytic functions.
For reference, here is a definition that I have been using:
A real function $f(x)$ is analytic at $x_{0}$ if there is a $r > 0$:
$$f(x) = sum_{n = 0}^{infty} a_{n}(x - x_{0})^{n}, |x - x_{0}| < r$$
i.e. there is some power series which converges to the function.
Using this definition, I want to solve the following exercise problem:
Find a function $f$ analytic at $x_{0} = 0$ so that
$fleft(frac{1}{n}right) = frac{n}{n + 1}$, $n = 1, 2, ldots$.
Show that such a function cannot be analytic on $(-2, 0)$.
So, working backwards, I found out that $frac{1}{1 + x}$ satisfies the property $f(frac{1}{n}) = frac{n}{n + 1}$. I'm really not so sure how to prove the analytic properties though. I think that now I need to show $frac{1}{1 + x}$ is analytic, and then I need to prove the second part of the claim, which is that such a function cannot be analytic on $(-2, 0)$.
I have an example in my book which shows $1 + x + x^{2} + x^{3} + cdots$ is analytic. Here's how they do it:
A prototypical example is the geometric series $$1 + x + x^{2} + cdots = lim_{ntoinfty} 1 + x + x^{2} + ldots x^{n} = lim_{ntoinfty}frac{1 - x^{n + 1}}{1 - x}$$
for which it is well known equals $f(x) = frac{1}{1 - x}$ for $|x| < 1$. To verify that the function is analytic, we need to expand about any point $x_{0} neq 1$:
$$
begin{align*}
frac{1}{1-x} = frac{1}{1 - x_{0} - (x - x_{0})} = frac{1}{1- x_{0}}left(1 - frac{x - x_{0}}{1 - x_{0}}right)^{-1}
end{align*}
$$
I tried outlining this example, but I couldn't make any progress. I would really appreciate some sort of help.
real-analysis complex-analysis functions analyticity
Your function is $f(z)=frac1{1+z}$ for $z_0=0$.
– xpaul
Nov 12 '18 at 16:30
1
It seems the answer is already inside your own post! You know how to show that $g(x) = 1/(1-x)$ is analytic at $0$, now you only need to realize that $f(x) = 1/(1+x)$ can be related to this function $g$ by $f(x) = g(-x)$
– Vincent
Nov 12 '18 at 16:33
@Vincent I don't see how it helps. I had also made that observation but couldn't make any progress. I also don't know how to show such a function cannot be analytic on (-2, 0).
– joseph
Nov 12 '18 at 16:38
@joseph What can you use? Can you use the Identity Theorem for analytic functions?
– Batominovski
Nov 12 '18 at 17:30
1
@Vincent I think it's because it's not defined at $x_{0} = -1$
– joseph
Nov 13 '18 at 16:58
|
show 7 more comments
I am learning about real analytic functions on my own right now. I've been
having trouble with one of the exercises, and it isn't much help that most of the resources online for analytic functions are for Complex Analysis. I am talking about real analytic functions.
For reference, here is a definition that I have been using:
A real function $f(x)$ is analytic at $x_{0}$ if there is a $r > 0$:
$$f(x) = sum_{n = 0}^{infty} a_{n}(x - x_{0})^{n}, |x - x_{0}| < r$$
i.e. there is some power series which converges to the function.
Using this definition, I want to solve the following exercise problem:
Find a function $f$ analytic at $x_{0} = 0$ so that
$fleft(frac{1}{n}right) = frac{n}{n + 1}$, $n = 1, 2, ldots$.
Show that such a function cannot be analytic on $(-2, 0)$.
So, working backwards, I found out that $frac{1}{1 + x}$ satisfies the property $f(frac{1}{n}) = frac{n}{n + 1}$. I'm really not so sure how to prove the analytic properties though. I think that now I need to show $frac{1}{1 + x}$ is analytic, and then I need to prove the second part of the claim, which is that such a function cannot be analytic on $(-2, 0)$.
I have an example in my book which shows $1 + x + x^{2} + x^{3} + cdots$ is analytic. Here's how they do it:
A prototypical example is the geometric series $$1 + x + x^{2} + cdots = lim_{ntoinfty} 1 + x + x^{2} + ldots x^{n} = lim_{ntoinfty}frac{1 - x^{n + 1}}{1 - x}$$
for which it is well known equals $f(x) = frac{1}{1 - x}$ for $|x| < 1$. To verify that the function is analytic, we need to expand about any point $x_{0} neq 1$:
$$
begin{align*}
frac{1}{1-x} = frac{1}{1 - x_{0} - (x - x_{0})} = frac{1}{1- x_{0}}left(1 - frac{x - x_{0}}{1 - x_{0}}right)^{-1}
end{align*}
$$
I tried outlining this example, but I couldn't make any progress. I would really appreciate some sort of help.
real-analysis complex-analysis functions analyticity
I am learning about real analytic functions on my own right now. I've been
having trouble with one of the exercises, and it isn't much help that most of the resources online for analytic functions are for Complex Analysis. I am talking about real analytic functions.
For reference, here is a definition that I have been using:
A real function $f(x)$ is analytic at $x_{0}$ if there is a $r > 0$:
$$f(x) = sum_{n = 0}^{infty} a_{n}(x - x_{0})^{n}, |x - x_{0}| < r$$
i.e. there is some power series which converges to the function.
Using this definition, I want to solve the following exercise problem:
Find a function $f$ analytic at $x_{0} = 0$ so that
$fleft(frac{1}{n}right) = frac{n}{n + 1}$, $n = 1, 2, ldots$.
Show that such a function cannot be analytic on $(-2, 0)$.
So, working backwards, I found out that $frac{1}{1 + x}$ satisfies the property $f(frac{1}{n}) = frac{n}{n + 1}$. I'm really not so sure how to prove the analytic properties though. I think that now I need to show $frac{1}{1 + x}$ is analytic, and then I need to prove the second part of the claim, which is that such a function cannot be analytic on $(-2, 0)$.
I have an example in my book which shows $1 + x + x^{2} + x^{3} + cdots$ is analytic. Here's how they do it:
A prototypical example is the geometric series $$1 + x + x^{2} + cdots = lim_{ntoinfty} 1 + x + x^{2} + ldots x^{n} = lim_{ntoinfty}frac{1 - x^{n + 1}}{1 - x}$$
for which it is well known equals $f(x) = frac{1}{1 - x}$ for $|x| < 1$. To verify that the function is analytic, we need to expand about any point $x_{0} neq 1$:
$$
begin{align*}
frac{1}{1-x} = frac{1}{1 - x_{0} - (x - x_{0})} = frac{1}{1- x_{0}}left(1 - frac{x - x_{0}}{1 - x_{0}}right)^{-1}
end{align*}
$$
I tried outlining this example, but I couldn't make any progress. I would really appreciate some sort of help.
real-analysis complex-analysis functions analyticity
real-analysis complex-analysis functions analyticity
edited Nov 12 '18 at 16:31
Vincent
3,01611228
3,01611228
asked Nov 12 '18 at 16:22
joseph
4329
4329
Your function is $f(z)=frac1{1+z}$ for $z_0=0$.
– xpaul
Nov 12 '18 at 16:30
1
It seems the answer is already inside your own post! You know how to show that $g(x) = 1/(1-x)$ is analytic at $0$, now you only need to realize that $f(x) = 1/(1+x)$ can be related to this function $g$ by $f(x) = g(-x)$
– Vincent
Nov 12 '18 at 16:33
@Vincent I don't see how it helps. I had also made that observation but couldn't make any progress. I also don't know how to show such a function cannot be analytic on (-2, 0).
– joseph
Nov 12 '18 at 16:38
@joseph What can you use? Can you use the Identity Theorem for analytic functions?
– Batominovski
Nov 12 '18 at 17:30
1
@Vincent I think it's because it's not defined at $x_{0} = -1$
– joseph
Nov 13 '18 at 16:58
|
show 7 more comments
Your function is $f(z)=frac1{1+z}$ for $z_0=0$.
– xpaul
Nov 12 '18 at 16:30
1
It seems the answer is already inside your own post! You know how to show that $g(x) = 1/(1-x)$ is analytic at $0$, now you only need to realize that $f(x) = 1/(1+x)$ can be related to this function $g$ by $f(x) = g(-x)$
– Vincent
Nov 12 '18 at 16:33
@Vincent I don't see how it helps. I had also made that observation but couldn't make any progress. I also don't know how to show such a function cannot be analytic on (-2, 0).
– joseph
Nov 12 '18 at 16:38
@joseph What can you use? Can you use the Identity Theorem for analytic functions?
– Batominovski
Nov 12 '18 at 17:30
1
@Vincent I think it's because it's not defined at $x_{0} = -1$
– joseph
Nov 13 '18 at 16:58
Your function is $f(z)=frac1{1+z}$ for $z_0=0$.
– xpaul
Nov 12 '18 at 16:30
Your function is $f(z)=frac1{1+z}$ for $z_0=0$.
– xpaul
Nov 12 '18 at 16:30
1
1
It seems the answer is already inside your own post! You know how to show that $g(x) = 1/(1-x)$ is analytic at $0$, now you only need to realize that $f(x) = 1/(1+x)$ can be related to this function $g$ by $f(x) = g(-x)$
– Vincent
Nov 12 '18 at 16:33
It seems the answer is already inside your own post! You know how to show that $g(x) = 1/(1-x)$ is analytic at $0$, now you only need to realize that $f(x) = 1/(1+x)$ can be related to this function $g$ by $f(x) = g(-x)$
– Vincent
Nov 12 '18 at 16:33
@Vincent I don't see how it helps. I had also made that observation but couldn't make any progress. I also don't know how to show such a function cannot be analytic on (-2, 0).
– joseph
Nov 12 '18 at 16:38
@Vincent I don't see how it helps. I had also made that observation but couldn't make any progress. I also don't know how to show such a function cannot be analytic on (-2, 0).
– joseph
Nov 12 '18 at 16:38
@joseph What can you use? Can you use the Identity Theorem for analytic functions?
– Batominovski
Nov 12 '18 at 17:30
@joseph What can you use? Can you use the Identity Theorem for analytic functions?
– Batominovski
Nov 12 '18 at 17:30
1
1
@Vincent I think it's because it's not defined at $x_{0} = -1$
– joseph
Nov 13 '18 at 16:58
@Vincent I think it's because it's not defined at $x_{0} = -1$
– joseph
Nov 13 '18 at 16:58
|
show 7 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
This is a solution without the Identity Theorem. It is a bit lengthy, but I have no other tricks. Combinatorial identities I use in my proof can be proven using the technique from here.
Note that $$f(x)=dfrac{1}{1+x}tag{*}$$ for all $x$ such that $dfrac{1}{x}$ is a positive integer. We also see that $$f(0)=lim_{ntoinfty},fleft(dfrac1nright)=1,.$$
This means (*) is true when $x=0$ too.
We can try to find $f^{(k)}(0)$ for $k=1,2,3,ldots$ by noting that
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{hto 0^+},frac{1}{h^k},sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,fbig((k-r)hbig),.$$
Taking $h:=dfrac{1}{mcdot k!}$ for some positive integer $m$, we have
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,fleft(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right),.$$
Since $dfrac{mcdot k!}{k-r}$ is a positive integer for all $r=0,1,2,ldots,k-1$, and $f(0)=1$, we get
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}right),.$$
Because $sumlimits_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,(k-r)^t=0$ for $t=0,1,2,ldots,k-1$, we get
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}-sum_{t=0}^{k-1},(-1)^t,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^tright),.$$
Using Taylor's Theorem, we have
$$frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}-sum_{t=0}^{k-1},(-1)^t,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^t=(-1)^k,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^k+mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{m^{k+1}}right),.$$
That is,
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mtoinfty},left((-1)^k,(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^k+mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{m}right)right),.$$
Ergo,
$$f^{(k)}(0)=(-1)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(k-rright)^k=(-1)^k,k!,.$$
Therefore,
$$f(x)=sum_{k=0}^infty,frac{f^{(k)}(0)}{k!},x^k=sum_{k=0}^infty,(-1)^k,x^k=frac{1}{1+x}$$
for all $xin (-1,+1)$ because the radius of convergence is $1$. This proves the existence and the uniqueness of $f$.
To show that there is no analytic function with the given property that is defined on $(-2,0)$, you need to show that such a function $f$ cannot be defined at $-1$. One way to do this is noting that $x=-1$ is a pole of $dfrac{1}{1+x}$. Therefore, $x=-1$ is a natural boundary of $f(x)$.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2995507%2ffind-a-function-f-analytic-at-x-0-0-so-that-f-left-frac1n-right%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This is a solution without the Identity Theorem. It is a bit lengthy, but I have no other tricks. Combinatorial identities I use in my proof can be proven using the technique from here.
Note that $$f(x)=dfrac{1}{1+x}tag{*}$$ for all $x$ such that $dfrac{1}{x}$ is a positive integer. We also see that $$f(0)=lim_{ntoinfty},fleft(dfrac1nright)=1,.$$
This means (*) is true when $x=0$ too.
We can try to find $f^{(k)}(0)$ for $k=1,2,3,ldots$ by noting that
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{hto 0^+},frac{1}{h^k},sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,fbig((k-r)hbig),.$$
Taking $h:=dfrac{1}{mcdot k!}$ for some positive integer $m$, we have
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,fleft(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right),.$$
Since $dfrac{mcdot k!}{k-r}$ is a positive integer for all $r=0,1,2,ldots,k-1$, and $f(0)=1$, we get
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}right),.$$
Because $sumlimits_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,(k-r)^t=0$ for $t=0,1,2,ldots,k-1$, we get
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}-sum_{t=0}^{k-1},(-1)^t,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^tright),.$$
Using Taylor's Theorem, we have
$$frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}-sum_{t=0}^{k-1},(-1)^t,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^t=(-1)^k,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^k+mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{m^{k+1}}right),.$$
That is,
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mtoinfty},left((-1)^k,(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^k+mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{m}right)right),.$$
Ergo,
$$f^{(k)}(0)=(-1)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(k-rright)^k=(-1)^k,k!,.$$
Therefore,
$$f(x)=sum_{k=0}^infty,frac{f^{(k)}(0)}{k!},x^k=sum_{k=0}^infty,(-1)^k,x^k=frac{1}{1+x}$$
for all $xin (-1,+1)$ because the radius of convergence is $1$. This proves the existence and the uniqueness of $f$.
To show that there is no analytic function with the given property that is defined on $(-2,0)$, you need to show that such a function $f$ cannot be defined at $-1$. One way to do this is noting that $x=-1$ is a pole of $dfrac{1}{1+x}$. Therefore, $x=-1$ is a natural boundary of $f(x)$.
add a comment |
This is a solution without the Identity Theorem. It is a bit lengthy, but I have no other tricks. Combinatorial identities I use in my proof can be proven using the technique from here.
Note that $$f(x)=dfrac{1}{1+x}tag{*}$$ for all $x$ such that $dfrac{1}{x}$ is a positive integer. We also see that $$f(0)=lim_{ntoinfty},fleft(dfrac1nright)=1,.$$
This means (*) is true when $x=0$ too.
We can try to find $f^{(k)}(0)$ for $k=1,2,3,ldots$ by noting that
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{hto 0^+},frac{1}{h^k},sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,fbig((k-r)hbig),.$$
Taking $h:=dfrac{1}{mcdot k!}$ for some positive integer $m$, we have
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,fleft(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right),.$$
Since $dfrac{mcdot k!}{k-r}$ is a positive integer for all $r=0,1,2,ldots,k-1$, and $f(0)=1$, we get
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}right),.$$
Because $sumlimits_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,(k-r)^t=0$ for $t=0,1,2,ldots,k-1$, we get
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}-sum_{t=0}^{k-1},(-1)^t,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^tright),.$$
Using Taylor's Theorem, we have
$$frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}-sum_{t=0}^{k-1},(-1)^t,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^t=(-1)^k,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^k+mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{m^{k+1}}right),.$$
That is,
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mtoinfty},left((-1)^k,(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^k+mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{m}right)right),.$$
Ergo,
$$f^{(k)}(0)=(-1)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(k-rright)^k=(-1)^k,k!,.$$
Therefore,
$$f(x)=sum_{k=0}^infty,frac{f^{(k)}(0)}{k!},x^k=sum_{k=0}^infty,(-1)^k,x^k=frac{1}{1+x}$$
for all $xin (-1,+1)$ because the radius of convergence is $1$. This proves the existence and the uniqueness of $f$.
To show that there is no analytic function with the given property that is defined on $(-2,0)$, you need to show that such a function $f$ cannot be defined at $-1$. One way to do this is noting that $x=-1$ is a pole of $dfrac{1}{1+x}$. Therefore, $x=-1$ is a natural boundary of $f(x)$.
add a comment |
This is a solution without the Identity Theorem. It is a bit lengthy, but I have no other tricks. Combinatorial identities I use in my proof can be proven using the technique from here.
Note that $$f(x)=dfrac{1}{1+x}tag{*}$$ for all $x$ such that $dfrac{1}{x}$ is a positive integer. We also see that $$f(0)=lim_{ntoinfty},fleft(dfrac1nright)=1,.$$
This means (*) is true when $x=0$ too.
We can try to find $f^{(k)}(0)$ for $k=1,2,3,ldots$ by noting that
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{hto 0^+},frac{1}{h^k},sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,fbig((k-r)hbig),.$$
Taking $h:=dfrac{1}{mcdot k!}$ for some positive integer $m$, we have
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,fleft(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right),.$$
Since $dfrac{mcdot k!}{k-r}$ is a positive integer for all $r=0,1,2,ldots,k-1$, and $f(0)=1$, we get
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}right),.$$
Because $sumlimits_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,(k-r)^t=0$ for $t=0,1,2,ldots,k-1$, we get
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}-sum_{t=0}^{k-1},(-1)^t,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^tright),.$$
Using Taylor's Theorem, we have
$$frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}-sum_{t=0}^{k-1},(-1)^t,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^t=(-1)^k,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^k+mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{m^{k+1}}right),.$$
That is,
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mtoinfty},left((-1)^k,(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^k+mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{m}right)right),.$$
Ergo,
$$f^{(k)}(0)=(-1)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(k-rright)^k=(-1)^k,k!,.$$
Therefore,
$$f(x)=sum_{k=0}^infty,frac{f^{(k)}(0)}{k!},x^k=sum_{k=0}^infty,(-1)^k,x^k=frac{1}{1+x}$$
for all $xin (-1,+1)$ because the radius of convergence is $1$. This proves the existence and the uniqueness of $f$.
To show that there is no analytic function with the given property that is defined on $(-2,0)$, you need to show that such a function $f$ cannot be defined at $-1$. One way to do this is noting that $x=-1$ is a pole of $dfrac{1}{1+x}$. Therefore, $x=-1$ is a natural boundary of $f(x)$.
This is a solution without the Identity Theorem. It is a bit lengthy, but I have no other tricks. Combinatorial identities I use in my proof can be proven using the technique from here.
Note that $$f(x)=dfrac{1}{1+x}tag{*}$$ for all $x$ such that $dfrac{1}{x}$ is a positive integer. We also see that $$f(0)=lim_{ntoinfty},fleft(dfrac1nright)=1,.$$
This means (*) is true when $x=0$ too.
We can try to find $f^{(k)}(0)$ for $k=1,2,3,ldots$ by noting that
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{hto 0^+},frac{1}{h^k},sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,fbig((k-r)hbig),.$$
Taking $h:=dfrac{1}{mcdot k!}$ for some positive integer $m$, we have
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,fleft(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right),.$$
Since $dfrac{mcdot k!}{k-r}$ is a positive integer for all $r=0,1,2,ldots,k-1$, and $f(0)=1$, we get
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}right),.$$
Because $sumlimits_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,(k-r)^t=0$ for $t=0,1,2,ldots,k-1$, we get
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}-sum_{t=0}^{k-1},(-1)^t,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^tright),.$$
Using Taylor's Theorem, we have
$$frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}-sum_{t=0}^{k-1},(-1)^t,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^t=(-1)^k,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^k+mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{m^{k+1}}right),.$$
That is,
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mtoinfty},left((-1)^k,(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^k+mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{m}right)right),.$$
Ergo,
$$f^{(k)}(0)=(-1)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(k-rright)^k=(-1)^k,k!,.$$
Therefore,
$$f(x)=sum_{k=0}^infty,frac{f^{(k)}(0)}{k!},x^k=sum_{k=0}^infty,(-1)^k,x^k=frac{1}{1+x}$$
for all $xin (-1,+1)$ because the radius of convergence is $1$. This proves the existence and the uniqueness of $f$.
To show that there is no analytic function with the given property that is defined on $(-2,0)$, you need to show that such a function $f$ cannot be defined at $-1$. One way to do this is noting that $x=-1$ is a pole of $dfrac{1}{1+x}$. Therefore, $x=-1$ is a natural boundary of $f(x)$.
edited Nov 26 '18 at 7:12
answered Nov 12 '18 at 17:53
Batominovski
33.8k33292
33.8k33292
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2995507%2ffind-a-function-f-analytic-at-x-0-0-so-that-f-left-frac1n-right%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Your function is $f(z)=frac1{1+z}$ for $z_0=0$.
– xpaul
Nov 12 '18 at 16:30
1
It seems the answer is already inside your own post! You know how to show that $g(x) = 1/(1-x)$ is analytic at $0$, now you only need to realize that $f(x) = 1/(1+x)$ can be related to this function $g$ by $f(x) = g(-x)$
– Vincent
Nov 12 '18 at 16:33
@Vincent I don't see how it helps. I had also made that observation but couldn't make any progress. I also don't know how to show such a function cannot be analytic on (-2, 0).
– joseph
Nov 12 '18 at 16:38
@joseph What can you use? Can you use the Identity Theorem for analytic functions?
– Batominovski
Nov 12 '18 at 17:30
1
@Vincent I think it's because it's not defined at $x_{0} = -1$
– joseph
Nov 13 '18 at 16:58