Generating functions and summation

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Pere Callahan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions Summation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on generating functions and their application in summation of sequences. The generating function for a real sequence \( (a_n)_{n \geq 1} \) is defined as \( A(z) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty{a_n z^n} \), which allows for the computation of the sum \( A(1) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty{a_n} \) if it converges. The user, Pere, questions whether a sequence of weights \( (w_n)_{n \geq 1} \) can yield a real number \( x \) such that \( \sum_{n=1}^\infty{w_n a_n} \) can be expressed as \( A(x) \). The example provided demonstrates that this is not universally applicable, particularly when \( w_1 = 1 \) and \( w_2 = 0 \).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of generating functions in mathematics
  • Familiarity with convergence of infinite series
  • Basic knowledge of sequences and series
  • Experience with mathematical notation and summation
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of generating functions in combinatorics
  • Explore the concept of weighted sums in series
  • Study convergence criteria for infinite series
  • Investigate specific examples of sequences and their generating functions
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying series and sequences, and anyone interested in the applications of generating functions in mathematical analysis.

Pere Callahan
Messages
582
Reaction score
1
Hello this is something that just crossed my mind:

For every real sequence (a_n)_{n\geq 1} we can define the generating function
<br /> A(z)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty{a_nz^n}.<br />
and this definition suggests that we can compute the sum of the sequence by evaluating A at 1:
<br /> A(1)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty{a_n}<br />
provided the sum converges.

This made me wonder if for any sequence of weights (w_n)_{n\geq 1} there is a real number x such that we can compute the sum
<br /> \sum_{n=1}^\infty{w_na_n}<br />
as A(x).

I haven't spent much time on this, but I would be very interested in any thoughts on the topic.

Thanks,
Pere
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No. w_1=1 and w_2=0 shows it's impossible, as w_n = w_1^n.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K