Rigorously Proving Direct Proportionality: Let's Find Out!

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MIB
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proportionality
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
5 replies · 3K views
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
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 ?