15

It is well-known that there are non zero functions with derivatives of all orders at $1$ equal to zero, like $x \mapsto \exp\big(-\frac{1}{(x-1)^2}\big)$.

I'm trying to construct an explicit non zero series with a similar property, that is $F : x \mapsto \sum \limits_{k=0}^{\infty} a_k x^k$ converging for $|x| \le 1$ (including $x=1$), such that for all $k \ge 0$, $F^{(k)}(1) = 0$. Here $F^{(k)}(1)$ is defined as the limit (if it exists) of $F^{k}(z)$ when $z \to 1$ for $|z|<1$.

Is this possible with this interpretation? Is it possible if we take a derivative in the radial sense by taking $z$ to be real in the previous limit?


A similar question was asked some years ago, but I do not know whether the given solution converges for $|x|=1$, since it isn't quite explicit: $$\exp\Big(\frac{-1}{(x-1)^2}\Big) \cdot e = 1 - 2 x - x^2 + \dfrac{2}{3} x^3 + \dfrac{13}{6} x^4 + \dfrac{41}{15} x^5 + \ldots$$

Some numerical tests show that the coefficients are not even converging to zero, but I have no way of checking this.


Edit 2022/10/11

One additional comment on what I tried for $\exp\big(\frac{1}{x-1}\big)$, in order to get its Taylor series at $0$ and study its convergence at $1$. I am replicating Feng Qi's approach: with $B_{n,k}$ the Bell polynomials of the second kind, for $|x|<1$, \begin{align*} \bigl[e^{1/(x-1)}\bigr]^{(n)} &=\sum_{k=1}^ne^{1/(x-1)}B_{n,k}\biggl(\frac{-1!}{(x-1)^2}, \frac{2!}{(x-1)^3}, \dotsc,\frac{(-1)^{n-k+1}(n-k+1)!}{(x-1)^{n-k+2}}\biggr)\\ &=\sum_{k=1}^ne^{1/(x-1)}B_{n,k}\biggl(\frac{-1!}{(1-x)^2}, \frac{-2!}{(1-x)^3}, \dotsc,\frac{-(n-k+1)!}{(1-x)^{n-k+2}}\biggr)\\ &=e^{1/(x-1)}\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{(-1)^k}{(1-x)^{n+k}}B_{n,k}(1!, 2!, \dotsc,(n-k+1)!)\\ &=e^{1/(x-1)}\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{(-1)^k}{(1-x)^{n+k}}\binom{n}{k}\binom{n-1}{k-1}(n-k)!\\ &\to \frac{1}{e}\sum_{k=1}^n (-1)^k\binom{n}{k}\binom{n-1}{k-1}(n-k)!, \quad x\to0, \end{align*}

Consequently, the series expansion of $\exp\big(\frac{1}{x-1}\big)$ is $$\sum \limits_{n=0}^{\infty} \Biggl[\frac{1}{e} \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{(-1)^k}{k!}\binom{n-1}{k-1} \Biggl] x^n$$

Now the last step is to show that the sum of these coefficients converges (for $x=1$, in order to apply Abel's theorem). This doesn't seem obvious at all, considering that in the general term for the coefficients, the first terms of the sum grow arbitrarily large as $n$ increases.

charmd
  • 6,050
  • Take any constant function, except the zero function? Or did I misinterpret something? – SK19 Feb 18 '18 at 13:19
  • Also, if you already know a function with the smoothness properties, why don't you taylor that function? – SK19 Feb 18 '18 at 13:24
  • Ah, I get it. You want it to converging ONLY for $|x|\leq 1$. – SK19 Feb 18 '18 at 13:27
  • @SK19 well, if you take $F$ constant, taking $k=0$ gives you $f(1)=0$, so $F=0$. Regarding your second comment, note that the taylor series of the function $x \mapsto \exp\big(-\frac{1}{(x-1)^2}\big)$ does not converge at $1$ (see the linked question). And regarding your third comment, indeed, it can't converge for $|x|>1$ or otherwise using that the series is analytic inside the disk of convergence, you get that $F=0$... Again, about your 2nd comment, a solution could be to find an analytic smooth function flat at $1$ with small enough derivatives at $0$... I wonder if this can exist – charmd Feb 18 '18 at 13:32
  • 1
    I'm sorry, I don't take $0\in\mathbb{N}$ (Yeah, I'm one of those people ;)). Personally, regarding your question, I have no idea either. Still one last question for clarification and people who may have an idea: Are your coefficients real or can they be complex? – SK19 Feb 18 '18 at 13:46
  • @SK19 I am also one of those people ;) – Mr Pie Feb 18 '18 at 14:10
  • Haha I know many people prefer this notation for $\mathbb{N}$ but I just can't bring myself to write $\mathbb{N} \cup {0}$. For more precision, $F^{(k)}(1)$ must be understood as the left derivative or order k of $x \in [0,1] \mapsto \sum \limits_{k=0}^{\infty} a_k x^k$, so by taking the real and imaginary parts separately, the same question with either real or complex coefficients are equivalent – charmd Feb 18 '18 at 14:51
  • Some other reason this is misunderstood is because your question starts with "all derivatives" and soon after you write "$F^{(k)}$", so I think it is natural to assume you mean $0\notin\mathbb{N}$. However, for clarification I usually use $\mathbb{N}\ast$ (without $0$, like when I use $\mathbb{R}^\ast$ to denote non zero numbers) and $\mathbb{N}_0$. There are also plenty of other ways to clarify the issue, I will edit one in for you. – SK19 Feb 18 '18 at 16:17
  • I also took the freedom to change the title because it isn't really about "fast", because no Landau-Notation is involved. – SK19 Feb 18 '18 at 16:25

1 Answers1

4

Consider the singular inner function $H(z)=\exp{\frac{1+z}{z-1}}=\sum_{n \ge 0}a_nz^n, |z|<1$; since $\Re \frac{1+z}{z-1}<0, |z|<1$ it follows that $H$ is bounded by $1$ in the unit disc hence $\sum |a_n|^2\le 1$ (by Parseval).

In particular $\sum_{n \ge 0}{|a_n|/{n+1}} < \infty$ so if we take $F(z)=b_0+\sum_{n \ge 0}\frac{a_nz^{n+1}}{n+1}$ with $b_0$ chosen so $F(1)=0$ we have that $F$ converges absolutely on $|z| \le 1$

But $F^{(k)}=H^{(k-1)}, k \ge 1, |z|<1$ and it is very easy to see that for $r \to 1^-$ we have $H^{(m)}(r) \to 0, m \ge 0$ (and more generally $H^{(m)}(r)/(1-r)^k \to 0, k,m \ge 0$) so we can define $H^{(m)}(1)= 0, m \ge 1$ and we have $\frac{H^{(m)}(1)-H^{(m)}(r)}{1-r} \to 0, r \to 1^-$ so the extension of $F$ and all its derivatives at $1$ exists and is $0$ in the radial sense

(note that $H$ and all its derivatives are discontinuous at $1$ for more general convergence $z \to 1$ than radial)

Not sure that this is what OP wants as while the series of $F$ converges absolutely, the series of its derivatives do not and we can define their values only by radial limits at $1$, as they are discontinuous there in a general sense on the unit disc, but they are continuous and differentiable if we restrict to $[0,1]$

Edit later: Polya and Szego PTA I Pt III 4, Pr 250 has a class of examples $f_{\mu}(z), 0<\mu <1/2$ for which $f^{(k)}$ is continuous on the closed unit disc and analytic inside, while $f^{(k)}(1)=0$

For example for $\mu=1/4$ one can take:

$$f(z)=\int_0^{\infty}e^{-x^{1/4}/\sqrt 2}\sin (x^{1/4}/\sqrt 2)e^{-x(1-z)}dx$$

It is obvious that the integral is absolutely convergent for $\Re z \le 1$ so in particular on the closed unit disc and since $$f^{(k)}(z)=\int_0^{\infty}e^{-x^{1/4}/\sqrt 2}\sin (x^{1/4}/\sqrt 2)x^ke^{-x(1-z)}dx$$ same is true for all its derivatives, hence they are analytic on the open unit disc and continuous on the closed unit disc.

Now it is shown in the same book cited above,Problem 153 Pt III 1, (and follows by change of variables) that

$$\int_0^{\infty}e^{-x^{1/4}\cos \alpha}\sin (x^{1/4}\sin \alpha)x^kdx=4(4n+3)!\sin (4(k+1)\alpha), 0<\alpha <\pi/2, k \ge 0$$

so with $\alpha=\pi/4$ above we get that $f^{(k)}(1)=0$ for all $k \ge 0$ since $\sin (4(k+1)\pi/4)=0$ (!), while $|e^{-x^{1/4}/\sqrt 2}\sin (x^{1/4}/\sqrt 2)|<1$ so in particular if we let $z=-N$ for a large $N$ we have $$|f(-N-1)|\ge \int_0^{1}e^{-x^{1/4}/\sqrt 2}\sin (x^{1/4}/\sqrt 2)e^{-xN}dx-|\int_1^{\infty}e^{-x^{1/4}/\sqrt 2}\sin (x^{1/4}/\sqrt 2)e^{-xN}dx|$$ or $$|f(-N-1)| \ge \int_0^{1}e^{-x^{1/4}/\sqrt 2}\sin (x^{1/4}/\sqrt 2)e^{-xN}dx-\int_1^{\infty}e^{-xN}dx$$

But $$\int_0^{1}e^{-x^{1/4}/\sqrt 2}\sin (x^{1/4}/\sqrt 2)e^{-xN}dx \ge \int_0^{1/N}e^{-x^{1/4}/\sqrt 2}\sin (x^{1/4}/\sqrt 2)e^{-xN}dx \ge CN^{-5/4}$$

(where $C=8\sqrt 2e^{-2}/(5\pi)$ since the exponentials are at least $e^{-1}$ each and $\sin (x^{1/4}/\sqrt 2) \ge 2\sqrt 2 x^{1/4}/\pi $ when $0 \le x \le 1/N$ and the integrand is positive on $[0,1]$ as the sine term is)

Now $\int_1^{\infty}e^{-xN}=e^{-N}/N$ so $|f(-N-1)|>0$ for large $N$ hence $f$ doesn't vanish identically on $\Re z <1$, hence in the unit disc and while the same proof works for all derivatives we do not need it since, clearly $f$ cannot be a polynomial because of the vanishing at $1$ of all derivatives, so we are done!

Conrad
  • 27,433
  • To be honest, what I had in mind at first was some series with all derivatives converging, i e., $\sum | a_n| n^k$ being finite for all $k$. I will go with your interpretation, which is interesting in its own right – charmd Oct 14 '22 at 14:44
  • For my understanding, why take $\exp\big(\frac{1+z}{z-1}\big)$ and not just $\exp\big(\frac{1}{z-1}\big)$? I'm interested in the answer because I haven't even been able to show that the coefficients of the power series for $\exp\big(\frac{1}{z-1}\big)$ go to zero (see the end of my post), but it seems that we can derive it immediately from your reasoning – charmd Oct 14 '22 at 14:51
  • $\Re \frac{1+z}{z-1}<0, |z|<1$ gives the boundness of $H$ hence the $L^2$ bound on the coefficients (so they go to zero etc) which by Cauchy gives the absolute convergence of the antiderivative; $\Re \frac{1}{z-1}<1/2, |z|<1$ only; but at the singularity $z=1$ the real part is still negative so the function still goes fast to zero, hence we can argue similarly about $\exp (1/(z-1))$; however $H$ is a standard and often used function in complex analysis on the unit disc precisely because it's bounded by $1$ and is indeed $1$ in absolute value on the unit circle except at the singularity – Conrad Oct 14 '22 at 15:01
  • as for the other question, about all the derivatives being absolutely convergent on the unit circle, I have to think about it a bit and see if there is any argument for it not being possible or if one can bash one such from the above – Conrad Oct 14 '22 at 15:08
  • added an example (from Polya PTA 1) but worked out in some detail of $f$ analytic inside the unit disc for which all derivatives are continuous on the unit circle, while satisfying the vanishing condition you wanted – Conrad Oct 14 '22 at 21:06
  • Thank you, I am looking into your last class of functions, which seem to be exactly what I was looking for. One last clarification regarding the choice for $H$: you mention that the real part of $\frac{1}{z-1}$ is less than $\frac{1}{2}$ when $|z|<1$. Where does this come from? It seems to me we can prove that the real part is negative, just like for $\frac{1+z}{z-1}$ – charmd Oct 15 '22 at 10:16
  • 1
    Yes you are right - actually $1/(z-1)$ sends the unit circle to the vertical line passing through $-1/2$ not $1/2$ (that is $1/(1-z)$) so yes the real part of $1/(z-1)$ is negative in the unit disc - as noted $H$ above is an important function so that's why I use it, but you can definitely use $\exp(1/(z-1))$ and integrate it once or a few times to get a simple example that converges on the unit disc (with some derivatives if you integrate more than once); for all derivatives though a more complicated example like the one from Polya Szego is needed – Conrad Oct 15 '22 at 12:22
  • also note that once you prove that $\exp 1/(z-1)$ is bounded in the unit disc, the fact that the coefficients go to zero is automatic from Parseval since they form an $l^2$ sequence; however, the function is definitely not continuous at $1$ since it has absolute value $1/\sqrt e$ on the unit circle except at $1$ where radially is $0$; taking integrals adds continuity; there is also an alternative way of adding continuity, namely multiplying with $(1-z)$ or with higher powers of it to add some (finite degrees of) differentiability - eg $(1-z)^3\exp 1/(z-1)$ is $C^1$ etc – Conrad Oct 15 '22 at 15:04
  • I do not understand how you prove that $f$ is not zero on the unit disc, although I am quite ready to accept this assertion. You show that $f(-N)$ is not zero for $N$ large enough, and we also know that $f$ is analytic on the unit disk, but we cannot say anything more. $f$ could be defined as $1_{|z|>2}$ and we would have the same properties (analytic on the unit disc and continuous on its closure; with all derivatives zero at $1$; but not identically zero on $\Re z < 1$); yet it would be identically zero on the unit disk – charmd Oct 16 '22 at 13:45
  • 1
    by definition $f$ is analytic for $\Re z<1$ and continuous for $\Re z\le 1$ so if it is zero in the unit disc is zero everywhere – Conrad Oct 16 '22 at 14:15
  • Ok, this makes sense now. And I assume we automatically know that $f$ and its Taylor series around zero coincide on the (open) unit disk – charmd Oct 16 '22 at 14:37
  • 1
    Yes $f$ analytic means that its power series converges to it to the maximal radius allowed by the original domain ($\Re z <1$) so in particular if we center it at zero, the radius is $1$; – Conrad Oct 16 '22 at 14:40