$f$ is analytic in the unit disk such that $|f(1/n)|leq e^{-sqrt{n}}$. Prove that $f$ Is identically zero.
$f(z)$ is analytic in the unit disk such that $|f(1/n)|leq e^{-sqrt{n}}$ for $n=2,3,...$ Prove that $f$ Is identically equal to zero.
My Attempt:
Consider the Taylor expansion $$f(z)=f(0)+f'(0)+frac{f''(0)}{2!}+frac{f'''(0)}{3!}+...$$By Cauchy estimate, for some $r=frac{1}{n}$, we have $$frac{|f^{(k)}|}{k!}leqfrac{e^{-sqrt{n}}}{(1/n)^k}$$
As $nrightarrow infty$, for each $k$, we have $frac{|f^{(k)}|}{k!}=0$. Then, Taylor expansion suggests that $f(z)$ is identically zero.
I feel like I'm missing a lot of pieces. Any help or input is appreciated.
complex-analysis analytic-functions
add a comment |
$f(z)$ is analytic in the unit disk such that $|f(1/n)|leq e^{-sqrt{n}}$ for $n=2,3,...$ Prove that $f$ Is identically equal to zero.
My Attempt:
Consider the Taylor expansion $$f(z)=f(0)+f'(0)+frac{f''(0)}{2!}+frac{f'''(0)}{3!}+...$$By Cauchy estimate, for some $r=frac{1}{n}$, we have $$frac{|f^{(k)}|}{k!}leqfrac{e^{-sqrt{n}}}{(1/n)^k}$$
As $nrightarrow infty$, for each $k$, we have $frac{|f^{(k)}|}{k!}=0$. Then, Taylor expansion suggests that $f(z)$ is identically zero.
I feel like I'm missing a lot of pieces. Any help or input is appreciated.
complex-analysis analytic-functions
You're not applying Cauchy's estimate correctly. The RHS of Cauchy's estimate involves a $sup_{|z| = r} |f(z)|$ term, not just $|f(r)|$.
– mathworker21
2 days ago
add a comment |
$f(z)$ is analytic in the unit disk such that $|f(1/n)|leq e^{-sqrt{n}}$ for $n=2,3,...$ Prove that $f$ Is identically equal to zero.
My Attempt:
Consider the Taylor expansion $$f(z)=f(0)+f'(0)+frac{f''(0)}{2!}+frac{f'''(0)}{3!}+...$$By Cauchy estimate, for some $r=frac{1}{n}$, we have $$frac{|f^{(k)}|}{k!}leqfrac{e^{-sqrt{n}}}{(1/n)^k}$$
As $nrightarrow infty$, for each $k$, we have $frac{|f^{(k)}|}{k!}=0$. Then, Taylor expansion suggests that $f(z)$ is identically zero.
I feel like I'm missing a lot of pieces. Any help or input is appreciated.
complex-analysis analytic-functions
$f(z)$ is analytic in the unit disk such that $|f(1/n)|leq e^{-sqrt{n}}$ for $n=2,3,...$ Prove that $f$ Is identically equal to zero.
My Attempt:
Consider the Taylor expansion $$f(z)=f(0)+f'(0)+frac{f''(0)}{2!}+frac{f'''(0)}{3!}+...$$By Cauchy estimate, for some $r=frac{1}{n}$, we have $$frac{|f^{(k)}|}{k!}leqfrac{e^{-sqrt{n}}}{(1/n)^k}$$
As $nrightarrow infty$, for each $k$, we have $frac{|f^{(k)}|}{k!}=0$. Then, Taylor expansion suggests that $f(z)$ is identically zero.
I feel like I'm missing a lot of pieces. Any help or input is appreciated.
complex-analysis analytic-functions
complex-analysis analytic-functions
edited 2 days ago
José Carlos Santos
152k22123226
152k22123226
asked 2 days ago
Ya GYa G
47629
47629
You're not applying Cauchy's estimate correctly. The RHS of Cauchy's estimate involves a $sup_{|z| = r} |f(z)|$ term, not just $|f(r)|$.
– mathworker21
2 days ago
add a comment |
You're not applying Cauchy's estimate correctly. The RHS of Cauchy's estimate involves a $sup_{|z| = r} |f(z)|$ term, not just $|f(r)|$.
– mathworker21
2 days ago
You're not applying Cauchy's estimate correctly. The RHS of Cauchy's estimate involves a $sup_{|z| = r} |f(z)|$ term, not just $|f(r)|$.
– mathworker21
2 days ago
You're not applying Cauchy's estimate correctly. The RHS of Cauchy's estimate involves a $sup_{|z| = r} |f(z)|$ term, not just $|f(r)|$.
– mathworker21
2 days ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
I don't know what you mean when you write “for some $r=frac1n$”.
It follows from the squeeze theorem that $lim_{ntoinfty}fleft(frac1nright)=0$. So, unless $f$ is the null function, the Taylor series of $f$ about $0$ will be of the type$$f(z)=a_kz^k+a_{k+1}z^{k+1}+cdots$$with $kinmathbb N$ and $a_kneq0$. So $left(leftlvert fleft(frac1nright)rightrvertright)_{ninmathbb N}$ behaves as $frac{lvert a_krvert}{n^k}$. But $left(e^{-sqrt n}right)_{ninmathbb N}$ goes to $0$ much faster than that:$$lim_{ntoinfty}frac{frac{lvert a_krvert}{n^k}}{e^{-sqrt n}}=lvert a_krvertlim_{ntoinfty}frac{e^{sqrt n}}{n^k}=infty.$$
I'm just curious about the last line. What's the purpose of that in the proof? How does showing the ratio diverges show that $f$ is identically zero?
– Ya G
2 days ago
I assumed that $f$ is not the null function. Then I reached a contradiction (that final limit shouldn't be $infty$). Therefore, $f$ is the null function.
– José Carlos Santos
2 days ago
@JoséCarlosSantos Nobody is saying $f$ behaves as $e^{-sqrt{n}}$, just that $f$ decays quicker than it. The inequalities implicit in your proof work in your favor though, so all is fine.
– mathworker21
2 days ago
@mathworker21 You are right. I've edited my answer. I hope that everything is correct now.
– José Carlos Santos
2 days ago
@JoséCarlosSantos I think you mean "with $k in mathbb{N}$ and $a_k not = 0$"
– mathworker21
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062782%2ff-is-analytic-in-the-unit-disk-such-that-f1-n-leq-e-sqrtn-prove-t%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I don't know what you mean when you write “for some $r=frac1n$”.
It follows from the squeeze theorem that $lim_{ntoinfty}fleft(frac1nright)=0$. So, unless $f$ is the null function, the Taylor series of $f$ about $0$ will be of the type$$f(z)=a_kz^k+a_{k+1}z^{k+1}+cdots$$with $kinmathbb N$ and $a_kneq0$. So $left(leftlvert fleft(frac1nright)rightrvertright)_{ninmathbb N}$ behaves as $frac{lvert a_krvert}{n^k}$. But $left(e^{-sqrt n}right)_{ninmathbb N}$ goes to $0$ much faster than that:$$lim_{ntoinfty}frac{frac{lvert a_krvert}{n^k}}{e^{-sqrt n}}=lvert a_krvertlim_{ntoinfty}frac{e^{sqrt n}}{n^k}=infty.$$
I'm just curious about the last line. What's the purpose of that in the proof? How does showing the ratio diverges show that $f$ is identically zero?
– Ya G
2 days ago
I assumed that $f$ is not the null function. Then I reached a contradiction (that final limit shouldn't be $infty$). Therefore, $f$ is the null function.
– José Carlos Santos
2 days ago
@JoséCarlosSantos Nobody is saying $f$ behaves as $e^{-sqrt{n}}$, just that $f$ decays quicker than it. The inequalities implicit in your proof work in your favor though, so all is fine.
– mathworker21
2 days ago
@mathworker21 You are right. I've edited my answer. I hope that everything is correct now.
– José Carlos Santos
2 days ago
@JoséCarlosSantos I think you mean "with $k in mathbb{N}$ and $a_k not = 0$"
– mathworker21
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
I don't know what you mean when you write “for some $r=frac1n$”.
It follows from the squeeze theorem that $lim_{ntoinfty}fleft(frac1nright)=0$. So, unless $f$ is the null function, the Taylor series of $f$ about $0$ will be of the type$$f(z)=a_kz^k+a_{k+1}z^{k+1}+cdots$$with $kinmathbb N$ and $a_kneq0$. So $left(leftlvert fleft(frac1nright)rightrvertright)_{ninmathbb N}$ behaves as $frac{lvert a_krvert}{n^k}$. But $left(e^{-sqrt n}right)_{ninmathbb N}$ goes to $0$ much faster than that:$$lim_{ntoinfty}frac{frac{lvert a_krvert}{n^k}}{e^{-sqrt n}}=lvert a_krvertlim_{ntoinfty}frac{e^{sqrt n}}{n^k}=infty.$$
I'm just curious about the last line. What's the purpose of that in the proof? How does showing the ratio diverges show that $f$ is identically zero?
– Ya G
2 days ago
I assumed that $f$ is not the null function. Then I reached a contradiction (that final limit shouldn't be $infty$). Therefore, $f$ is the null function.
– José Carlos Santos
2 days ago
@JoséCarlosSantos Nobody is saying $f$ behaves as $e^{-sqrt{n}}$, just that $f$ decays quicker than it. The inequalities implicit in your proof work in your favor though, so all is fine.
– mathworker21
2 days ago
@mathworker21 You are right. I've edited my answer. I hope that everything is correct now.
– José Carlos Santos
2 days ago
@JoséCarlosSantos I think you mean "with $k in mathbb{N}$ and $a_k not = 0$"
– mathworker21
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
I don't know what you mean when you write “for some $r=frac1n$”.
It follows from the squeeze theorem that $lim_{ntoinfty}fleft(frac1nright)=0$. So, unless $f$ is the null function, the Taylor series of $f$ about $0$ will be of the type$$f(z)=a_kz^k+a_{k+1}z^{k+1}+cdots$$with $kinmathbb N$ and $a_kneq0$. So $left(leftlvert fleft(frac1nright)rightrvertright)_{ninmathbb N}$ behaves as $frac{lvert a_krvert}{n^k}$. But $left(e^{-sqrt n}right)_{ninmathbb N}$ goes to $0$ much faster than that:$$lim_{ntoinfty}frac{frac{lvert a_krvert}{n^k}}{e^{-sqrt n}}=lvert a_krvertlim_{ntoinfty}frac{e^{sqrt n}}{n^k}=infty.$$
I don't know what you mean when you write “for some $r=frac1n$”.
It follows from the squeeze theorem that $lim_{ntoinfty}fleft(frac1nright)=0$. So, unless $f$ is the null function, the Taylor series of $f$ about $0$ will be of the type$$f(z)=a_kz^k+a_{k+1}z^{k+1}+cdots$$with $kinmathbb N$ and $a_kneq0$. So $left(leftlvert fleft(frac1nright)rightrvertright)_{ninmathbb N}$ behaves as $frac{lvert a_krvert}{n^k}$. But $left(e^{-sqrt n}right)_{ninmathbb N}$ goes to $0$ much faster than that:$$lim_{ntoinfty}frac{frac{lvert a_krvert}{n^k}}{e^{-sqrt n}}=lvert a_krvertlim_{ntoinfty}frac{e^{sqrt n}}{n^k}=infty.$$
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
152k22123226
152k22123226
I'm just curious about the last line. What's the purpose of that in the proof? How does showing the ratio diverges show that $f$ is identically zero?
– Ya G
2 days ago
I assumed that $f$ is not the null function. Then I reached a contradiction (that final limit shouldn't be $infty$). Therefore, $f$ is the null function.
– José Carlos Santos
2 days ago
@JoséCarlosSantos Nobody is saying $f$ behaves as $e^{-sqrt{n}}$, just that $f$ decays quicker than it. The inequalities implicit in your proof work in your favor though, so all is fine.
– mathworker21
2 days ago
@mathworker21 You are right. I've edited my answer. I hope that everything is correct now.
– José Carlos Santos
2 days ago
@JoséCarlosSantos I think you mean "with $k in mathbb{N}$ and $a_k not = 0$"
– mathworker21
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
I'm just curious about the last line. What's the purpose of that in the proof? How does showing the ratio diverges show that $f$ is identically zero?
– Ya G
2 days ago
I assumed that $f$ is not the null function. Then I reached a contradiction (that final limit shouldn't be $infty$). Therefore, $f$ is the null function.
– José Carlos Santos
2 days ago
@JoséCarlosSantos Nobody is saying $f$ behaves as $e^{-sqrt{n}}$, just that $f$ decays quicker than it. The inequalities implicit in your proof work in your favor though, so all is fine.
– mathworker21
2 days ago
@mathworker21 You are right. I've edited my answer. I hope that everything is correct now.
– José Carlos Santos
2 days ago
@JoséCarlosSantos I think you mean "with $k in mathbb{N}$ and $a_k not = 0$"
– mathworker21
2 days ago
I'm just curious about the last line. What's the purpose of that in the proof? How does showing the ratio diverges show that $f$ is identically zero?
– Ya G
2 days ago
I'm just curious about the last line. What's the purpose of that in the proof? How does showing the ratio diverges show that $f$ is identically zero?
– Ya G
2 days ago
I assumed that $f$ is not the null function. Then I reached a contradiction (that final limit shouldn't be $infty$). Therefore, $f$ is the null function.
– José Carlos Santos
2 days ago
I assumed that $f$ is not the null function. Then I reached a contradiction (that final limit shouldn't be $infty$). Therefore, $f$ is the null function.
– José Carlos Santos
2 days ago
@JoséCarlosSantos Nobody is saying $f$ behaves as $e^{-sqrt{n}}$, just that $f$ decays quicker than it. The inequalities implicit in your proof work in your favor though, so all is fine.
– mathworker21
2 days ago
@JoséCarlosSantos Nobody is saying $f$ behaves as $e^{-sqrt{n}}$, just that $f$ decays quicker than it. The inequalities implicit in your proof work in your favor though, so all is fine.
– mathworker21
2 days ago
@mathworker21 You are right. I've edited my answer. I hope that everything is correct now.
– José Carlos Santos
2 days ago
@mathworker21 You are right. I've edited my answer. I hope that everything is correct now.
– José Carlos Santos
2 days ago
@JoséCarlosSantos I think you mean "with $k in mathbb{N}$ and $a_k not = 0$"
– mathworker21
2 days ago
@JoséCarlosSantos I think you mean "with $k in mathbb{N}$ and $a_k not = 0$"
– mathworker21
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062782%2ff-is-analytic-in-the-unit-disk-such-that-f1-n-leq-e-sqrtn-prove-t%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
You're not applying Cauchy's estimate correctly. The RHS of Cauchy's estimate involves a $sup_{|z| = r} |f(z)|$ term, not just $|f(r)|$.
– mathworker21
2 days ago