Problem regarding convergency: $sum_k=0^inftyfracx^kk! to e^x$
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Question. Let $X$ be the space of all polynomials in one variable,with real coefficients. If $p=a_0+a_1x+dots+a_nx^nin X$, define $$|p|=|a_0|+|a_1|+dots+|a_n|,$$ which gives the metric $d(p,q)=|p-q|$ on $X$.
Does the metric space $X$ is complete?
Now, this question has been answered 'false' here.
According to that answer let $p_n(x)=sum_k=0^nfracx^kk!$
...
I know this is due to the fact of Taylor series (theorem) $$sum_k=0^infty fracx^kk!= e^x , text*as* n longrightarrow infty ,forall x in mathbbR: ~p_n to e^x$$
But still I have some questions:
When we say $p_n to e^x$ as $n to infty$.then In which space this convergency is happening...?? I mean w.r.to which norm? Does the space here is $X=C(mathbbR):= textSpace of continuous functions on~ mathbbR$ ...But then which norm?? I mean "sup-norm" shouldn't work here as $e^x$ is not bounded...!!
Now how does this convergency (i.e. $p_nto e^x$) remains independent of norm put on the space?
Please help me to clarify these confusions. Correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you.
real-analysis functional-analysis convergence normed-spaces
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Question. Let $X$ be the space of all polynomials in one variable,with real coefficients. If $p=a_0+a_1x+dots+a_nx^nin X$, define $$|p|=|a_0|+|a_1|+dots+|a_n|,$$ which gives the metric $d(p,q)=|p-q|$ on $X$.
Does the metric space $X$ is complete?
Now, this question has been answered 'false' here.
According to that answer let $p_n(x)=sum_k=0^nfracx^kk!$
...
I know this is due to the fact of Taylor series (theorem) $$sum_k=0^infty fracx^kk!= e^x , text*as* n longrightarrow infty ,forall x in mathbbR: ~p_n to e^x$$
But still I have some questions:
When we say $p_n to e^x$ as $n to infty$.then In which space this convergency is happening...?? I mean w.r.to which norm? Does the space here is $X=C(mathbbR):= textSpace of continuous functions on~ mathbbR$ ...But then which norm?? I mean "sup-norm" shouldn't work here as $e^x$ is not bounded...!!
Now how does this convergency (i.e. $p_nto e^x$) remains independent of norm put on the space?
Please help me to clarify these confusions. Correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you.
real-analysis functional-analysis convergence normed-spaces
1
You have pointwise convergence. You have also uniform convergence on sets bounded from above (e.g. $(-infty, a]$ with $ainmathbbR$).
â Rigel
Aug 15 at 8:28
I don't think that the argument used in answer to that question is correct.
â José Carlos Santos
Aug 15 at 8:35
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Question. Let $X$ be the space of all polynomials in one variable,with real coefficients. If $p=a_0+a_1x+dots+a_nx^nin X$, define $$|p|=|a_0|+|a_1|+dots+|a_n|,$$ which gives the metric $d(p,q)=|p-q|$ on $X$.
Does the metric space $X$ is complete?
Now, this question has been answered 'false' here.
According to that answer let $p_n(x)=sum_k=0^nfracx^kk!$
...
I know this is due to the fact of Taylor series (theorem) $$sum_k=0^infty fracx^kk!= e^x , text*as* n longrightarrow infty ,forall x in mathbbR: ~p_n to e^x$$
But still I have some questions:
When we say $p_n to e^x$ as $n to infty$.then In which space this convergency is happening...?? I mean w.r.to which norm? Does the space here is $X=C(mathbbR):= textSpace of continuous functions on~ mathbbR$ ...But then which norm?? I mean "sup-norm" shouldn't work here as $e^x$ is not bounded...!!
Now how does this convergency (i.e. $p_nto e^x$) remains independent of norm put on the space?
Please help me to clarify these confusions. Correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you.
real-analysis functional-analysis convergence normed-spaces
Question. Let $X$ be the space of all polynomials in one variable,with real coefficients. If $p=a_0+a_1x+dots+a_nx^nin X$, define $$|p|=|a_0|+|a_1|+dots+|a_n|,$$ which gives the metric $d(p,q)=|p-q|$ on $X$.
Does the metric space $X$ is complete?
Now, this question has been answered 'false' here.
According to that answer let $p_n(x)=sum_k=0^nfracx^kk!$
...
I know this is due to the fact of Taylor series (theorem) $$sum_k=0^infty fracx^kk!= e^x , text*as* n longrightarrow infty ,forall x in mathbbR: ~p_n to e^x$$
But still I have some questions:
When we say $p_n to e^x$ as $n to infty$.then In which space this convergency is happening...?? I mean w.r.to which norm? Does the space here is $X=C(mathbbR):= textSpace of continuous functions on~ mathbbR$ ...But then which norm?? I mean "sup-norm" shouldn't work here as $e^x$ is not bounded...!!
Now how does this convergency (i.e. $p_nto e^x$) remains independent of norm put on the space?
Please help me to clarify these confusions. Correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you.
real-analysis functional-analysis convergence normed-spaces
edited Aug 15 at 8:59
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f8869/f886932add058ba024ac86d911c7eb0cf1c5cb4b" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f8869/f886932add058ba024ac86d911c7eb0cf1c5cb4b" alt=""
Jneven
571319
571319
asked Aug 15 at 8:23
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/956e2/956e230f1dea30e168796e503402748c55ef1022" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/956e2/956e230f1dea30e168796e503402748c55ef1022" alt=""
Indrajit Ghosh
684415
684415
1
You have pointwise convergence. You have also uniform convergence on sets bounded from above (e.g. $(-infty, a]$ with $ainmathbbR$).
â Rigel
Aug 15 at 8:28
I don't think that the argument used in answer to that question is correct.
â José Carlos Santos
Aug 15 at 8:35
add a comment |Â
1
You have pointwise convergence. You have also uniform convergence on sets bounded from above (e.g. $(-infty, a]$ with $ainmathbbR$).
â Rigel
Aug 15 at 8:28
I don't think that the argument used in answer to that question is correct.
â José Carlos Santos
Aug 15 at 8:35
1
1
You have pointwise convergence. You have also uniform convergence on sets bounded from above (e.g. $(-infty, a]$ with $ainmathbbR$).
â Rigel
Aug 15 at 8:28
You have pointwise convergence. You have also uniform convergence on sets bounded from above (e.g. $(-infty, a]$ with $ainmathbbR$).
â Rigel
Aug 15 at 8:28
I don't think that the argument used in answer to that question is correct.
â José Carlos Santos
Aug 15 at 8:35
I don't think that the argument used in answer to that question is correct.
â José Carlos Santos
Aug 15 at 8:35
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
The statement that $p_n$ converges to $e^x$ and hence it does not converge in the given space is just suppose to be a hint and not a complete proof. No norm is used in saying that $p_n$ converges to $e^x$. You have to give a rigorous proof along the following lines: if a sequence of polynomials converges in the given norm then the coefficients converge. So if $p_n$ converges to a polynomial $p$ then its coefficients have to be $frac 1 k!$, $k=0,1,2,...$. In particular no coefficient can be $0$ which contradicts the fact that $p$ is a polynomial. To be more explicit suppose $p$ has degree $m$. Since each each $p_n$ with $n >m$ has $frac 1 (m+1)!$ as the $m+1$-st coefficient the same must be true of $p$ but $p$ does not have this term.
Okay........sir
â Indrajit Ghosh
Aug 15 at 8:42
I understand now...
â Indrajit Ghosh
Aug 15 at 8:47
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Proving that a metric space is not complete means showing that there exists a Cauchy sequence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_sequence) of its elements which does not have a limit in this space.
So basically, you first want to prove that the elements of your sequence become arbitrary close (that for $ forall epsilon > 0, exists N: forall n, m > N, |p_n - p_m| < epsilon $).
Also, since your metric is defined only on polynomials, you can not directly prove that $ p_n $ converges to $ e^x $ (because ($e^x - p_n$) is not a polynomial). The easiest way around is to suppose that the given sequence has some polynomial as its limit, and come to a contradiction. (as it is done in the above comment)
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
The statement that $p_n$ converges to $e^x$ and hence it does not converge in the given space is just suppose to be a hint and not a complete proof. No norm is used in saying that $p_n$ converges to $e^x$. You have to give a rigorous proof along the following lines: if a sequence of polynomials converges in the given norm then the coefficients converge. So if $p_n$ converges to a polynomial $p$ then its coefficients have to be $frac 1 k!$, $k=0,1,2,...$. In particular no coefficient can be $0$ which contradicts the fact that $p$ is a polynomial. To be more explicit suppose $p$ has degree $m$. Since each each $p_n$ with $n >m$ has $frac 1 (m+1)!$ as the $m+1$-st coefficient the same must be true of $p$ but $p$ does not have this term.
Okay........sir
â Indrajit Ghosh
Aug 15 at 8:42
I understand now...
â Indrajit Ghosh
Aug 15 at 8:47
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
The statement that $p_n$ converges to $e^x$ and hence it does not converge in the given space is just suppose to be a hint and not a complete proof. No norm is used in saying that $p_n$ converges to $e^x$. You have to give a rigorous proof along the following lines: if a sequence of polynomials converges in the given norm then the coefficients converge. So if $p_n$ converges to a polynomial $p$ then its coefficients have to be $frac 1 k!$, $k=0,1,2,...$. In particular no coefficient can be $0$ which contradicts the fact that $p$ is a polynomial. To be more explicit suppose $p$ has degree $m$. Since each each $p_n$ with $n >m$ has $frac 1 (m+1)!$ as the $m+1$-st coefficient the same must be true of $p$ but $p$ does not have this term.
Okay........sir
â Indrajit Ghosh
Aug 15 at 8:42
I understand now...
â Indrajit Ghosh
Aug 15 at 8:47
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
The statement that $p_n$ converges to $e^x$ and hence it does not converge in the given space is just suppose to be a hint and not a complete proof. No norm is used in saying that $p_n$ converges to $e^x$. You have to give a rigorous proof along the following lines: if a sequence of polynomials converges in the given norm then the coefficients converge. So if $p_n$ converges to a polynomial $p$ then its coefficients have to be $frac 1 k!$, $k=0,1,2,...$. In particular no coefficient can be $0$ which contradicts the fact that $p$ is a polynomial. To be more explicit suppose $p$ has degree $m$. Since each each $p_n$ with $n >m$ has $frac 1 (m+1)!$ as the $m+1$-st coefficient the same must be true of $p$ but $p$ does not have this term.
The statement that $p_n$ converges to $e^x$ and hence it does not converge in the given space is just suppose to be a hint and not a complete proof. No norm is used in saying that $p_n$ converges to $e^x$. You have to give a rigorous proof along the following lines: if a sequence of polynomials converges in the given norm then the coefficients converge. So if $p_n$ converges to a polynomial $p$ then its coefficients have to be $frac 1 k!$, $k=0,1,2,...$. In particular no coefficient can be $0$ which contradicts the fact that $p$ is a polynomial. To be more explicit suppose $p$ has degree $m$. Since each each $p_n$ with $n >m$ has $frac 1 (m+1)!$ as the $m+1$-st coefficient the same must be true of $p$ but $p$ does not have this term.
answered Aug 15 at 8:35
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2c472/2c4724832a09dd937b32042e548836ab159f60a6" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2c472/2c4724832a09dd937b32042e548836ab159f60a6" alt=""
Kavi Rama Murthy
22.5k2933
22.5k2933
Okay........sir
â Indrajit Ghosh
Aug 15 at 8:42
I understand now...
â Indrajit Ghosh
Aug 15 at 8:47
add a comment |Â
Okay........sir
â Indrajit Ghosh
Aug 15 at 8:42
I understand now...
â Indrajit Ghosh
Aug 15 at 8:47
Okay........sir
â Indrajit Ghosh
Aug 15 at 8:42
Okay........sir
â Indrajit Ghosh
Aug 15 at 8:42
I understand now...
â Indrajit Ghosh
Aug 15 at 8:47
I understand now...
â Indrajit Ghosh
Aug 15 at 8:47
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Proving that a metric space is not complete means showing that there exists a Cauchy sequence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_sequence) of its elements which does not have a limit in this space.
So basically, you first want to prove that the elements of your sequence become arbitrary close (that for $ forall epsilon > 0, exists N: forall n, m > N, |p_n - p_m| < epsilon $).
Also, since your metric is defined only on polynomials, you can not directly prove that $ p_n $ converges to $ e^x $ (because ($e^x - p_n$) is not a polynomial). The easiest way around is to suppose that the given sequence has some polynomial as its limit, and come to a contradiction. (as it is done in the above comment)
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Proving that a metric space is not complete means showing that there exists a Cauchy sequence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_sequence) of its elements which does not have a limit in this space.
So basically, you first want to prove that the elements of your sequence become arbitrary close (that for $ forall epsilon > 0, exists N: forall n, m > N, |p_n - p_m| < epsilon $).
Also, since your metric is defined only on polynomials, you can not directly prove that $ p_n $ converges to $ e^x $ (because ($e^x - p_n$) is not a polynomial). The easiest way around is to suppose that the given sequence has some polynomial as its limit, and come to a contradiction. (as it is done in the above comment)
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Proving that a metric space is not complete means showing that there exists a Cauchy sequence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_sequence) of its elements which does not have a limit in this space.
So basically, you first want to prove that the elements of your sequence become arbitrary close (that for $ forall epsilon > 0, exists N: forall n, m > N, |p_n - p_m| < epsilon $).
Also, since your metric is defined only on polynomials, you can not directly prove that $ p_n $ converges to $ e^x $ (because ($e^x - p_n$) is not a polynomial). The easiest way around is to suppose that the given sequence has some polynomial as its limit, and come to a contradiction. (as it is done in the above comment)
Proving that a metric space is not complete means showing that there exists a Cauchy sequence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_sequence) of its elements which does not have a limit in this space.
So basically, you first want to prove that the elements of your sequence become arbitrary close (that for $ forall epsilon > 0, exists N: forall n, m > N, |p_n - p_m| < epsilon $).
Also, since your metric is defined only on polynomials, you can not directly prove that $ p_n $ converges to $ e^x $ (because ($e^x - p_n$) is not a polynomial). The easiest way around is to suppose that the given sequence has some polynomial as its limit, and come to a contradiction. (as it is done in the above comment)
answered Aug 15 at 9:03
Sam Jackson
11
11
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2883343%2fproblem-regarding-convergency-sum-k-0-infty-fracxkk-to-ex%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
You have pointwise convergence. You have also uniform convergence on sets bounded from above (e.g. $(-infty, a]$ with $ainmathbbR$).
â Rigel
Aug 15 at 8:28
I don't think that the argument used in answer to that question is correct.
â José Carlos Santos
Aug 15 at 8:35