A Expansion with respect to ##z_1##

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter MathLearner123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Complex analysis
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the manipulation of formal power series in the context of complex variables, specifically regarding the expansion of a function f in terms of z_1 and z'. It explains how f can be expressed as a sum over λ, where each term involves a function f_λ dependent on z'. The participants clarify that changing the order of factors in the series does not affect the overall expression due to the nature of formal power series, which do not require convergence. Additionally, the discussion raises questions about the ordering of terms in the expansion, emphasizing the need for a systematic approach to order elements in multi-index notation. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the flexibility and structure of formal power series in complex analysis.
MathLearner123
Messages
25
Reaction score
4
I'm reading "From Holomorphic Functions to Complex Manifolds" - Fritzsche & Grauert and I have something that I don't understand very well: If ##\nu \in \mathbb{N}_0^n, t \in \mathbb{R}^n_+## and ##z \in \mathbb{C}^n##, write ##\nu = (\nu_1, \nu'), t = (t_1, t')## and ##z = (z_1, z')##. \ An element ##f=\sum_{\nu \geq 0} a_\nu \mathbf{z}^\nu \in \mathbb{C} [\![ z ]\!]## (formal power series ring) can be written in the form ##f=\sum_{\lambda = 0}^\infty f_\lambda z_1^\lambda## where ##f_\lambda(z')=\sum_{\nu' \ge 0} a_{(\lambda, \nu')} (z')^{\nu'}##. Why can we write this? Changing the order of factors doesn't affect the formal power series? We have that ##f=\sum_{\nu \ge 0} a_\nu z^\nu = \sum_{(\nu_1, \nu')\ge 0} a_{(\nu_1, \nu')}z_1^{\nu_1} (z')^{\nu'} = \sum_{\nu_1 \ge 0} \sum_{\nu' \ge 0} a_{(\nu_1, \nu')}z_1^{\nu_1} (z')^{\nu'} = \sum_{\nu_1 \ge 0} \left(\sum_{\nu' \ge 0} a_{(\nu_1, \nu')} (z')^{\nu'}\right)z_1^{\nu_1} = \sum_{\lambda \ge 0} \left(\sum_{\nu' \ge 0} a_{(\lambda, \nu')} (z')^{\nu'}\right)z_1^{\lambda} = \sum_{\lambda \ge 0} f_\lambda z_1^{\lambda}##. But taking out that common factor ##z_1^{\nu_1}## doesn't change the formal power series? And another thing that I dont't understand: In what order the terms appear in the expansion ##f = \sum_{\nu \ge 0} a_\nu z^\nu##. For example, in ##\mathbb{C}[\![z_1,z_2,z_3]\!]## both terms ##a_{(1,2,3)} z^{(1,2,3)}## and ##a_{(1,3,2)} z^{(1,3,2)}## have "order" ##1+2+3=6## but who comes first in the expansion? I need to consider some order on ##\mathbb{N}_0^3## or something?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The order of summation does not matter in formal power series (we aren't actually summing them, so issues of convergence do not arise). Hence<br /> \sum_{n=0}^\infty \sum_{m=0}^\infty a_{nm}z_1^nz_2^m = \sum_{n=0}^\infty\left(\sum_{m=0}^\infty a_{nm}z_2^m\right)z_1^n = \sum_{n=0}^\infty f_n(z_2) z_1^n.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top