Rigorously Proving Direct Proportionality: Let's Find Out!

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MIB
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proportionality
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of direct proportionality in mathematics, particularly in relation to power series and analytic functions. Participants explore rigorous definitions and theorems related to convergence and uniqueness in mathematical representations, while also questioning the use of terms like "varying quantities" and "variables."

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the validity of a statement regarding the absolute convergence of a series and its implications for the terms involved.
  • Another participant seeks a rigorous definition of direct proportionality that avoids imprecise terms, suggesting that variables could be viewed as values of functions.
  • Several participants discuss power series and their role in proving the uniqueness of function representations.
  • A theorem regarding unique analytic continuation is introduced, with one participant unsure about its application and suggesting a specific set for analysis.
  • There is a query about the necessary mathematical background to prove a generalized theorem related to the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of familiarity with concepts such as power series and analytic functions, leading to some uncertainty about the application of certain theorems. No consensus is reached on the definitions or implications of direct proportionality.

Contextual Notes

Participants express limitations in their understanding of certain mathematical concepts and theorems, particularly regarding the definitions and implications of convergence and direct proportionality.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying advanced mathematics, particularly in the areas of series, functions, and the foundations of mathematical definitions.

MIB
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Is that true ?

Let be [itex]\Sigma_{n=1}^{\infty} a_n[/itex] a series in ℝ .Suppose that [itex]\Sigma_{n=1}^{\infty} a_n[/itex] is absolutely convergent . Suppose that for each Q [itex]\in[/itex] N , [itex]\Sigma_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{a_n}{Q^n}[/itex] is convergent and [itex]\Sigma_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{a_n}{Q^n} = 0[/itex].Then [itex]a_n = 0[/itex] for all n [itex]\in[/itex] N.

My second question is : How Can I view direct proportionality rigorously without referring to the terms which are not precise like " Varying quantities " , " Variable " ? I tried doing this and I reached some ideas like making this variable as the value of a function. Is there a definitions all mathematicians work with different from that which says that y varies directly as x if there is a constant k , where y = kx ?, here we can't consider variable and constant as mathematical terms , because each element of set is a single element , but we use variable as a conventions only in writing as the value of a function for example in order to make writing easy , so Is there a definitions all mathematicians work with ?

Thanks .
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello MIB!

Do you know some things about power series and analytic functions?
 
micromass said:
Hello MIB!

Do you know some things about power series and analytic functions?

yes , In fact I am using this to prove the uniqueness of the representations of functions as a power series , I yes I know about power series and series of functions and sequences of functions ... etc
 
MIB said:
yes , In fact I am using this to prove the uniqueness of the representations of functions as a power series , I yes I know about power series and series of functions and sequences of functions ... etc

Good. Do you know the theorem of "unique analytic continuation"?? That is: if X is a set with an accumulation point and if [itex]\sum{a_nx^n}=0[/itex] for all [itex]x\in X[/itex], then [itex]a_n=0[/itex]??

Do you see what to take as X here??
 
micromass said:
Good. Do you know the theorem of "unique analytic continuation"?? That is: if X is a set with an accumulation point and if [itex]\sum{a_nx^n}=0[/itex] for all [itex]x\in X[/itex], then [itex]a_n=0[/itex]??

Do you see what to take as X here??

no , I don't know it , but if I knew , I would put X as the set of 1/Q , where Q is a natural number and the number 0 , and the accumulation point is 0
 
Last edited:
ok must I begin know to prove the generalized theorem with this background in Mathematics ?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K