Can falling factorials be a Schauder basis for formal power series?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential for falling factorials to serve as a Schauder basis for formal power series within the context of topological vector spaces. Participants explore the implications of different topologies on the space of formal power series and the conditions under which a Schauder basis can be defined.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that the set of falling factorials, ##\{(x)_n:n\in\mathbb{N}\}##, is not a Schauder basis for ##F[[x]]## under the standard topology, as the series ##\Sigma_na_n(x)_n## does not converge if infinitely many coefficients ##a_n## are nonzero.
  • Another participant questions whether the definition of a Schauder basis is restricted to topologies defined by a norm, or if any topology allowing for unique limits would suffice.
  • A different participant expresses skepticism about the possibility of defining a topology that would allow the falling factorials to act as a Schauder basis, suggesting that it seems difficult to construct such a topology without contradictions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement regarding the nature of topologies that can be applied to define a Schauder basis, with some believing that normed topologies are necessary while others argue for broader definitions. The overall discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the limitations of their arguments based on the assumptions about topologies and convergence, indicating that the discussion is contingent on these factors.

lugita15
Messages
1,553
Reaction score
15
We usually talk about ##F[[x]]##, the set of formal power series with coefficients in ##F##, as a topological ring. But we can also view it as a topological vector space over ##F## where ##F## is endowed with the discrete topology. And viewed in this way, ##\{x^n:n\in\mathbb{N}\}## is a Schauder basis for ##F[[x]]##.

Now in contrast, ##\{(x)_n:n\in\mathbb{N}\}##, where ##(x)_n## denotes the falling factorial, is not a Schauder basis for ##F[[x]]##. That’s because if ##\Sigma_na_n(x)_n## never converges in the standard topology on ##F[[x]]## if infinitely many of the ##a_n##’s are nonzero. But my question is, does there exist some alternate topology on ##F[[x]]## which makes ##\{(x)_n:n\in\mathbb{N}\}## a Schauder basis for ##F[[x]]## as a topological vector space over ##F## endowed with the discrete topology?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A schauder basis per the wikipedia article is typically defined based on a norm, which I think means you don't get to pick any particular topology on the field. Do you only care about topologies defined by a norm on the vector space, or would any topology that happens to permit you to compute unique limits suffice?
 
Office_Shredder said:
A schauder basis per the wikipedia article is typically defined based on a norm, which I think means you don't get to pick any particular topology on the field. Do you only care about topologies defined by a norm on the vector space, or would any topology that happens to permit you to compute unique limits suffice?
I’m not interested in normed vector spaces at all. As Wikipedia says “Schauder bases can also be defined analogously in a general topological vector space.”
 
It feels like the answer has to be no, but it's tough. For example can you just define a topology where the sequence ##\sum_{i =0}^n a_i(x)_i## converges to ##\sum_{0}^{\infty} a_i x^i##? I poked around a little bit and can't generate an obvious contradiction where you just assume the normal topology on the polynomials and then pick some open sets around the infinite series that make those limits true.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
11K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
13K