Proving f(x)=0 in [-1,1] | Analytical Function Homework Statement

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that a function \( f \) defined on the interval \([-1,1]\) is identically zero, given that it is infinitely differentiable and vanishes at specific points \( f(1/k) = 0 \) for all natural numbers \( k \). Participants are exploring the implications of the function's properties and theorems related to analytic functions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the potential use of Taylor series and the implications of the function being zero at rational points. There are questions about the continuity and behavior of the function at zero, as well as the relevance of bounded derivatives.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with some participants suggesting that the function must be zero everywhere due to the density of rational numbers, while others express uncertainty about specific points and the application of certain theorems. Hints have been provided regarding the evaluation of the function and its derivatives at zero.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted distinction between functions that are infinitely differentiable and those that are analytic, which has led to some confusion in the discussion. Participants are also grappling with the implications of the boundedness of derivatives and how it relates to the overall proof.

talolard
Messages
119
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I had this question on a test. No one I talked to had a clue how to solve it, and our professor will not be publishing solutions. Any insight as to how to approach this would be great because I am totally stumped.

Let [tex]f \in C^\infty[-1,1][/tex] such that for all [tex]j \in N |f^{(j)}|<M[/tex]. given that [tex]f(1/k)=0 \forall k \in N[/tex] prove that [tex]f=0[/tex] in [tex][-1,1][/tex]



The Attempt at a Solution



The only idea I've had is that I need to use the taylor series. But I have no idea what to do with it.
Thanks
Tal
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hmm. can only offer comments really as I am not much of an analyst. but if its zero at every rational number in the interval then by the density of the rationals, it would need to be zero everywhere else since the derivatives are bounded which prevents things such as discontinuities etc.
 
I thought of that, but it's npot the case. we know nothing about, say, F(5/7)
 
Can you make use of the theorem that says analytic functions have at least one singular point or are constant?
 
Never heard that one, so I guess not.
 
Hints:

1) What is f(0) ?

2) What are the derivatives of f at zero?
 
By the way, you title this "analytic functions" but refer [math]f\in C^\infty [-1, 1][/math]. That is NOT the set of "analytic functions on [-1, 1]. The fact that a function has all derivatives continuous does NOT imply that it is analytic. For example, the function
[tex]f(x)= \begin{array}{c}0 if x= 0 \\ e^{-\frac{1}{x}} if x\ne 0[/tex]
is in [tex]C^\infty[-1, 1][/tex] but is not analytic on that set.
 
@countbliss
I asume f(0) is 0 but I don't know how to prove it. I thought that since K can go to infity values of 1/k that are arbitrarily close to 0 are zero implies that f(0) is 0. But I'm not sure that really proves it and I don't have an idea as to how to prove it.

Halls ofIvy, duly noted. Thanks
 
That's a general property of continuous functions. A function is continuous if and only if given any convergent sequence [tex]x_n \to x[/tex], you get [tex]f(x_n) \to f(x)[/tex]
 
  • #10
Gee, I wish I remebered thaat on the exam.
Ok, having established that f(0)=0 I'm clear on how to prove this for [0,1]. But what about [-1,0]? I'm assuming it has something to do with the bounded deriviatives, but that is just because we haven't used that information yet.
 
  • #11
You got the proof for x = 0 only so far. The next step is to use the Nth order Taylor formula with an appropriate form of the error term.
 
  • #12
I don't see it. I can prove f=0 for [0,1] using rolles theorem and induction. I don't see how to do this on [-1,0]. And I don't see where the error term can help. I'm stumped!
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K