Problem regarding convergency: $sum_k=0^inftyfracx^kk! to e^x$

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash 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:




  1. 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...!!


  2. 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.







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    You have pointwise convergence. You have also uniform convergence on sets bounded from above (e.g. $(-infty, a]$ with $ainmathbbR$).
    – Rigel
    Aug 15 at 8:28











  • I don't think that the argument used in answer to that question is correct.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Aug 15 at 8:35














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:




  1. 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...!!


  2. 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.







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    You have pointwise convergence. You have also uniform convergence on sets bounded from above (e.g. $(-infty, a]$ with $ainmathbbR$).
    – Rigel
    Aug 15 at 8:28











  • I don't think that the argument used in answer to that question is correct.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Aug 15 at 8:35












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:




  1. 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...!!


  2. 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.







share|cite|improve this question















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:




  1. 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...!!


  2. 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.









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 15 at 8:59









Jneven

571319




571319










asked Aug 15 at 8:23









Indrajit Ghosh

684415




684415







  • 1




    You have pointwise convergence. You have also uniform convergence on sets bounded from above (e.g. $(-infty, a]$ with $ainmathbbR$).
    – Rigel
    Aug 15 at 8:28











  • I don't think that the argument used in answer to that question is correct.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Aug 15 at 8:35












  • 1




    You have pointwise convergence. You have also uniform convergence on sets bounded from above (e.g. $(-infty, a]$ with $ainmathbbR$).
    – Rigel
    Aug 15 at 8:28











  • I don't think that the argument used in answer to that question is correct.
    – 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 $ainmathbbR$).
– 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 $ainmathbbR$).
– Rigel
Aug 15 at 8:28













I don't think that the argument used in answer to that question is correct.
– José Carlos Santos
Aug 15 at 8:35




I don't think that the argument used in answer to that question is correct.
– José Carlos Santos
Aug 15 at 8:35










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.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • Okay........sir
    – Indrajit Ghosh
    Aug 15 at 8:42










  • I understand now...
    – Indrajit Ghosh
    Aug 15 at 8:47

















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)






share|cite|improve this answer




















    Your Answer




    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );








     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    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






























    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • Okay........sir
      – Indrajit Ghosh
      Aug 15 at 8:42










    • I understand now...
      – Indrajit Ghosh
      Aug 15 at 8:47














    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • Okay........sir
      – Indrajit Ghosh
      Aug 15 at 8:42










    • I understand now...
      – Indrajit Ghosh
      Aug 15 at 8:47












    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    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.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Aug 15 at 8:35









    Kavi Rama Murthy

    22.5k2933




    22.5k2933











    • Okay........sir
      – Indrajit Ghosh
      Aug 15 at 8:42










    • I understand now...
      – Indrajit Ghosh
      Aug 15 at 8:47
















    • Okay........sir
      – Indrajit Ghosh
      Aug 15 at 8:42










    • I understand now...
      – Indrajit Ghosh
      Aug 15 at 8:47















    Okay........sir
    – Indrajit Ghosh
    Aug 15 at 8:42




    Okay........sir
    – Indrajit Ghosh
    Aug 15 at 8:42












    I understand now...
    – Indrajit Ghosh
    Aug 15 at 8:47




    I understand now...
    – Indrajit Ghosh
    Aug 15 at 8:47










    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)






    share|cite|improve this answer
























      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)






      share|cite|improve this answer






















        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)






        share|cite|improve this answer












        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)







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Aug 15 at 9:03









        Sam Jackson

        11




        11






















             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


























             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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













































































            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

            Propositional logic and tautologies

            Distribution of Stopped Wiener Process with Stochastic Volatility