Unif. conv. of fx=Σc_n*x^n on |x|<h implies unif. conv. on |x|<=h?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter omyojj
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the uniform convergence of power series, specifically whether uniform convergence on the interval |x| < h implies uniform convergence on the closed interval |x| ≤ h. Participants explore the implications of uniform convergence, the existence of limits, and related theorems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asks for help in proving that uniform convergence of the power series implies uniform convergence on the closed interval.
  • Another participant questions the implications of not having uniform convergence on the closure, particularly regarding the behavior of the function as |x| approaches h.
  • A participant introduces Abel's theorem but later suggests it may not apply to this problem.
  • Several facts about uniform convergence and limits of continuous functions are presented, including the existence of limits and the behavior of Cauchy sequences.
  • There is a discussion about the necessity of showing that the limit of the sequence converges to the function value at the boundary point.
  • One participant asserts that once the limit exists, it can be defined as the function value at that point, referencing the definition of power series.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of demonstrating that the limit tends to the function value at the boundary. Some agree on the existence of limits, while others question the implications of uniform convergence on the closed interval.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the definitions of uniform convergence and the behavior of power series at the boundary points. The discussion does not resolve whether uniform convergence on |x| < h necessarily leads to uniform convergence on |x| ≤ h.

omyojj
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
[SOLVED] unif. conv. of fx=Σc_n*x^n on |x|&lt;h implies unif. conv. on |x|&lt;=h?

my whole question is on the title..uniform convergence of power series..

The answer is yes..how can I prove that? help me lol

and I`d like to know..the existence of limit..

[1 3 5 ''' (2n-1)]/[2 4 6 ''' (2n)] -> ? as n goes infinity..

(sorry for my bad Eng..)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Suppose there is no unif. conv. on the closure (|x| < h). What does that imply about the behavior of the function as |x| ---> h (versus at |x| = h)?
 
I liked this problem because I hadn't thought about it before and my initial thought was to apply Abel's theorem, but it turned out not to be the thing to do here.


Fact 1) Suppose f_n -> f uniformly on [a,b), and f_n(b) -> f(b).
prove: f_n -> f uniformly on [a,b].


Fact 2) If f_n is a sequence of continuous functions on [a,b] that converges
uniformly to f(x) on [a,b), then lim f_n(b) exists.

proof:

Fix e > 0.
By uniform convergence, choose N such that such that |f_n(x)-f_m(x)| < e for n,m > N, x in [a,b).
By continuity, |f_n(b)-f_m(b)| = lim |f_n(x)-f_m(x)| <= e.
Hence f_n(b) is Cauchy, thus converges.


Applying 1),2) above, you get:

If f_n is a sequence of continuous functions on [a,b] such that f_n -> f(x) uniformly on [a,b),
then f_n -> f(x) uniformly on [a,b]. (Where in the hypothesis, it is not assumed lim f_n(b) exists.)

(*note: f(b) is defined to be lim f_n(b), in the conclusion of the proof.)
 
Last edited:
thx much..:)

but after showing that lim f_n(b) exists(f_n Cauchy seq. at x=b)..

isn`t it necessary to show that the limit tends to f(b)=Σc_n b^n??

so |f_n(b)-f(b)| -> 0 as n-> infinity..?
 
You have [tex]f_n(b) = \sum_{i=0}^n c_i b^i[/tex] is a Cauchy sequence. By definition, [tex]\sum_{i=0}^\infty c_i b^i[/tex] is the limit of this sequence. So no, there's nothing to show.

In the above proof, I didn't assume lim f_n(b) existed. Once I showed it existed, of course we have to define f(b) = lim f_n(b). But in the case of power series, that is precisely what the definition of f(x) is.
 
Last edited:
Got it~! thanks very much for saving me!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
129K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
7K