13

Note: [2015-03-08] A proof of the identity below was aimed to close the gap of a rather extensive elaboration of this answer of mine. The identity (1) below is part of a more complex one, which is stated in Part 3, (39)-(42) in this follow-up answer. The split in two answers was necessary due to the restriction of up to $30000$ characters per answer. I could prove the other parts, but this final part still needed a verification.

In the meanwhile I found an answer and the solution is now provided as part of my follow-up answer starting there with expression (48).

I've checked the validity of the identity for small values of $n$. It was also checked in somewhat different representations all along the work of my related answer.

In order to keep the calculations manageable, I've introduced some abbreviations:

Let's consider a function $f=f(z)$ and its Taylor series expansion at a point $x$ \begin{align*} f(z+x)=\sum_{n\geq 0}\frac{f^{(n)}(x)}{n!}z^n \end{align*} then we use the following abbreviation for the Bell polynomials \begin{align*} B^{f}_{n,k}(x):=B_{n,k}(f^{\prime},f^{\prime\prime},\ldots,f^{(n-k+1)}) \end{align*} We use the Pochhammer symbol \begin{align*} \left(f(x)\right)_k:= f(x)f(x-1)\cdot\ldots\cdot f(x-k+1) \end{align*} and a relationship with the Stirling numbers of the first kind, namely \begin{align*} (x)_n=\sum_{k=0}^{n}(-1)^{n-k}\begin{bmatrix}n\\k\end{bmatrix}x^{k} \end{align*}

I have also omitted the argument $x$ in the identity below, so for example

\begin{align*} \frac{(\ln\circ g)^{m-j}}{g^k} := \frac{\left(\ln(g(x))\right)^{m-j}}{\left(g(x)\right)^k} \end{align*}

Problem: Show that the identity is valid for $n \geq 2, 1\leq l \leq n-1$ and $1\leq m \leq l$:

\begin{align*} \sum_{k=1}^{n-l}&\sum_{j=0}^{m}\binom{m}{j} \frac{(\ln\circ g)^{m-j}}{g^k}\frac{d^j}{d(f)^j}[(f)_k]B_{n-l,k}^{g}\\ &=\sum_{j=m}^{n}\sum_{q=1}^{j}\sum_{k=q}^{n-l}(-1)^{k-q}\frac{q!}{(j-m)!}\\ &\qquad\qquad\cdot\binom{m}{j-q}\begin{bmatrix}k\\q\end{bmatrix}f^{j-m} \frac{ (\ln \circ g)^{j-q}}{g^k}B^{g}_{n-l,k} \end{align*}

Please note, that the indices of the Bell polynomials of the LHS and RHS in (1) coincide.

Markus Scheuer
  • 108,315
  • It seems right to me, i just don't know how to prove it. – Eric L Feb 11 '15 at 23:41
  • @EricLawson: At first I thought, that my approach to answer your question will directly lead to your expression. It was surprising (and a little disappointing), that this wasn't the case. But now I think that since the proof of this gap is not obvious, it contains presumably an interesting transformation which could provide some more insights into Bell polys. So, it's again a nice challenge! :-) – Markus Scheuer Feb 15 '15 at 08:20
  • I have tried to do it by using the falling factorial identity and then differentiating that an arbitrary amount of times but it just doesn't seem to match up for me, but im guessing you have probably tried this approach many times. – Eric L Feb 16 '15 at 20:58
  • @EricLawson: I've checked the identity for small $n$ in various ways, but up to now I didn't intensively work on this problem. :-) You may observe that it's just a complicated identity without directly involving the Bell polys. You could replace $B_{n-l,k}^g$ with any formal parameter $X_{n,l,k}$ and the identity is still valid. Hmm, in fact this identity seems to encode the different approaches between your expression and the expression I have found. – Markus Scheuer Feb 16 '15 at 21:25
  • The only problems i am having are the variables are different, other than that i can make the LHS look vaguely like the RSH,i just can not determine whether the variables match up. I can show you where i got to as an answer or something if you wish. – Eric L Feb 19 '15 at 21:12
  • @EricLawson: Yes, Eric! Good idea to present your current work as answer. I'm curious about your elaboration. Regards, – Markus Scheuer Feb 19 '15 at 21:57
  • You said you have checked this for small $n$'s and it has worked out fine? This is also the final part and the whole thing is proven? – Eric L Feb 21 '15 at 05:32
  • @EricLawson: That's right, Eric! – Markus Scheuer Feb 21 '15 at 07:16

1 Answers1

3

This is not an answer but just presenting current work i have done on the problem

We know that:

$$ (f)_n = \sum_{k=0}^n (-1)^{n-k}{n\brack k} f^k $$

Therefore

$$ \frac{d^j}{df^j}[(f)_k] = \sum_{v=j}^k (-1)^{k-v}{k \brack v} \frac{v!}{(v-j)!} f^{v-j} $$

Therefore by placing this in the formula presented, (Using $x_{n-l,k}$ for $B_{n-l,k}^g$)

$$ \sum_{k=1}^{n-l} \sum_{j=0}^m {m \choose j} \frac{d^j}{df^j}[(f)_k] \frac{\ln(g)^{m-j}}{g^k} X_{n-l,k} $$

Then turns into

$$ \sum_{k=1}^{n-l} \sum_{j=0}^m \sum_{v=j}^k {m \choose j} (-1)^{k-v}{k \brack v} \frac{v!}{(v-j)!} f^{v-j} \frac{\ln(g)^{m-j}}{g^k} X_{n-l,k} $$

When looking at the RHS of the expression i see that the $\frac{\ln(g)^{m-j}}{g^k}$ was converted to $\frac{\ln(g)^{p-q}}{g^k}$ Therefore to me it seems that $m=p$ and $j=q$ because i see no reason that this would not be true, But yet i see that the RHS of the expression contains $m$ variables which confuses me, Or perhaps these $m$ variables differ from the LHS to the RHS. Either way i will continue to convert the variables in this way:

$$ \sum_{k=1}^{n-l} \sum_{q=0}^p \sum_{v=q}^k {p \choose q} \frac{v! (-1)^{k-v}}{(v-q)!} {k \brack v} f^{v-q} \frac{\ln(g)^{p-q}}{g^k} X_{n-l,k} $$ Also it interests me that the $q$ variable is in the stirling numbers on the RHS of equation (1), perhaps there is some manipulation with the summations that can be done?

I will add more if needed to this answer when the information presents itself.

Eric L
  • 1,957
  • Good approach. Comparing LHS and RHS we see, that leftmost sum of LHS and rightmost sum of RHS correlate. So, somehow we have to find a transformation, which exchange on one side the innermost sum with the outermost part. – Markus Scheuer Feb 20 '15 at 07:28
  • @MarkusScheuer i am completely lost on how to do this next part any advice or help would be great. – Eric L Feb 21 '15 at 23:10
  • Although I've nourished hope for some more substantial information I award you the bounty, because I suppose you were seriously trying to answer this question. Since nobody else could provide a solution up to now, it really seems to be challenging! At the time I like to clarify some other open problems. But I'm sure, I will focus on finalizing this little challenge soon! Best regards, – Markus Scheuer Feb 22 '15 at 08:51
  • @MarkusScheuer i have sent you an email asking what I should be doing while the proof is not done. – Eric L Mar 04 '15 at 03:45