Find a function $f$ analytic at $x_{0} = 0$ so that $fleft(frac{1}{n}right) = frac{n}{n + 1}, n = 1, 2,...











up vote
3
down vote

favorite
2












I am learning about real analytic functions on my own right now. I've been
having trouble with one of the exercises, and it isn't much help that most of the resources online for analytic functions are for Complex Analysis. I am talking about real analytic functions.



For reference, here is a definition that I have been using:




A real function $f(x)$ is analytic at $x_{0}$ if there is a $r > 0$:



$$f(x) = sum_{n = 0}^{infty} a_{n}(x - x_{0})^{n}, |x - x_{0}| < r$$



i.e. there is some power series which converges to the function.




Using this definition, I want to solve the following exercise problem:




Find a function $f$ analytic at $x_{0} = 0$ so that
$fleft(frac{1}{n}right) = frac{n}{n + 1}$, $n = 1, 2, ldots$.



Show that such a function cannot be analytic on $(-2, 0)$.




So, working backwards, I found out that $frac{1}{1 + x}$ satisfies the property $f(frac{1}{n}) = frac{n}{n + 1}$. I'm really not so sure how to prove the analytic properties though. I think that now I need to show $frac{1}{1 + x}$ is analytic, and then I need to prove the second part of the claim, which is that such a function cannot be analytic on $(-2, 0)$.



I have an example in my book which shows $1 + x + x^{2} + x^{3} + cdots$ is analytic. Here's how they do it:



A prototypical example is the geometric series $$1 + x + x^{2} + cdots = lim_{ntoinfty} 1 + x + x^{2} + ldots x^{n} = lim_{ntoinfty}frac{1 - x^{n + 1}}{1 - x}$$



for which it is well known equals $f(x) = frac{1}{1 - x}$ for $|x| < 1$. To verify that the function is analytic, we need to expand about any point $x_{0} neq 1$:



$$
begin{align*}
frac{1}{1-x} = frac{1}{1 - x_{0} - (x - x_{0})} = frac{1}{1- x_{0}}left(1 - frac{x - x_{0}}{1 - x_{0}}right)^{-1}
end{align*}
$$



I tried outlining this example, but I couldn't make any progress. I would really appreciate some sort of help.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Your function is $f(z)=frac1{1+z}$ for $z_0=0$.
    – xpaul
    Nov 12 at 16:30






  • 1




    It seems the answer is already inside your own post! You know how to show that $g(x) = 1/(1-x)$ is analytic at $0$, now you only need to realize that $f(x) = 1/(1+x)$ can be related to this function $g$ by $f(x) = g(-x)$
    – Vincent
    Nov 12 at 16:33










  • @Vincent I don't see how it helps. I had also made that observation but couldn't make any progress. I also don't know how to show such a function cannot be analytic on (-2, 0).
    – joseph
    Nov 12 at 16:38










  • @joseph What can you use? Can you use the Identity Theorem for analytic functions?
    – Batominovski
    Nov 12 at 17:30






  • 1




    @Vincent I think it's because it's not defined at $x_{0} = -1$
    – joseph
    Nov 13 at 16:58

















up vote
3
down vote

favorite
2












I am learning about real analytic functions on my own right now. I've been
having trouble with one of the exercises, and it isn't much help that most of the resources online for analytic functions are for Complex Analysis. I am talking about real analytic functions.



For reference, here is a definition that I have been using:




A real function $f(x)$ is analytic at $x_{0}$ if there is a $r > 0$:



$$f(x) = sum_{n = 0}^{infty} a_{n}(x - x_{0})^{n}, |x - x_{0}| < r$$



i.e. there is some power series which converges to the function.




Using this definition, I want to solve the following exercise problem:




Find a function $f$ analytic at $x_{0} = 0$ so that
$fleft(frac{1}{n}right) = frac{n}{n + 1}$, $n = 1, 2, ldots$.



Show that such a function cannot be analytic on $(-2, 0)$.




So, working backwards, I found out that $frac{1}{1 + x}$ satisfies the property $f(frac{1}{n}) = frac{n}{n + 1}$. I'm really not so sure how to prove the analytic properties though. I think that now I need to show $frac{1}{1 + x}$ is analytic, and then I need to prove the second part of the claim, which is that such a function cannot be analytic on $(-2, 0)$.



I have an example in my book which shows $1 + x + x^{2} + x^{3} + cdots$ is analytic. Here's how they do it:



A prototypical example is the geometric series $$1 + x + x^{2} + cdots = lim_{ntoinfty} 1 + x + x^{2} + ldots x^{n} = lim_{ntoinfty}frac{1 - x^{n + 1}}{1 - x}$$



for which it is well known equals $f(x) = frac{1}{1 - x}$ for $|x| < 1$. To verify that the function is analytic, we need to expand about any point $x_{0} neq 1$:



$$
begin{align*}
frac{1}{1-x} = frac{1}{1 - x_{0} - (x - x_{0})} = frac{1}{1- x_{0}}left(1 - frac{x - x_{0}}{1 - x_{0}}right)^{-1}
end{align*}
$$



I tried outlining this example, but I couldn't make any progress. I would really appreciate some sort of help.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Your function is $f(z)=frac1{1+z}$ for $z_0=0$.
    – xpaul
    Nov 12 at 16:30






  • 1




    It seems the answer is already inside your own post! You know how to show that $g(x) = 1/(1-x)$ is analytic at $0$, now you only need to realize that $f(x) = 1/(1+x)$ can be related to this function $g$ by $f(x) = g(-x)$
    – Vincent
    Nov 12 at 16:33










  • @Vincent I don't see how it helps. I had also made that observation but couldn't make any progress. I also don't know how to show such a function cannot be analytic on (-2, 0).
    – joseph
    Nov 12 at 16:38










  • @joseph What can you use? Can you use the Identity Theorem for analytic functions?
    – Batominovski
    Nov 12 at 17:30






  • 1




    @Vincent I think it's because it's not defined at $x_{0} = -1$
    – joseph
    Nov 13 at 16:58















up vote
3
down vote

favorite
2









up vote
3
down vote

favorite
2






2





I am learning about real analytic functions on my own right now. I've been
having trouble with one of the exercises, and it isn't much help that most of the resources online for analytic functions are for Complex Analysis. I am talking about real analytic functions.



For reference, here is a definition that I have been using:




A real function $f(x)$ is analytic at $x_{0}$ if there is a $r > 0$:



$$f(x) = sum_{n = 0}^{infty} a_{n}(x - x_{0})^{n}, |x - x_{0}| < r$$



i.e. there is some power series which converges to the function.




Using this definition, I want to solve the following exercise problem:




Find a function $f$ analytic at $x_{0} = 0$ so that
$fleft(frac{1}{n}right) = frac{n}{n + 1}$, $n = 1, 2, ldots$.



Show that such a function cannot be analytic on $(-2, 0)$.




So, working backwards, I found out that $frac{1}{1 + x}$ satisfies the property $f(frac{1}{n}) = frac{n}{n + 1}$. I'm really not so sure how to prove the analytic properties though. I think that now I need to show $frac{1}{1 + x}$ is analytic, and then I need to prove the second part of the claim, which is that such a function cannot be analytic on $(-2, 0)$.



I have an example in my book which shows $1 + x + x^{2} + x^{3} + cdots$ is analytic. Here's how they do it:



A prototypical example is the geometric series $$1 + x + x^{2} + cdots = lim_{ntoinfty} 1 + x + x^{2} + ldots x^{n} = lim_{ntoinfty}frac{1 - x^{n + 1}}{1 - x}$$



for which it is well known equals $f(x) = frac{1}{1 - x}$ for $|x| < 1$. To verify that the function is analytic, we need to expand about any point $x_{0} neq 1$:



$$
begin{align*}
frac{1}{1-x} = frac{1}{1 - x_{0} - (x - x_{0})} = frac{1}{1- x_{0}}left(1 - frac{x - x_{0}}{1 - x_{0}}right)^{-1}
end{align*}
$$



I tried outlining this example, but I couldn't make any progress. I would really appreciate some sort of help.










share|cite|improve this question















I am learning about real analytic functions on my own right now. I've been
having trouble with one of the exercises, and it isn't much help that most of the resources online for analytic functions are for Complex Analysis. I am talking about real analytic functions.



For reference, here is a definition that I have been using:




A real function $f(x)$ is analytic at $x_{0}$ if there is a $r > 0$:



$$f(x) = sum_{n = 0}^{infty} a_{n}(x - x_{0})^{n}, |x - x_{0}| < r$$



i.e. there is some power series which converges to the function.




Using this definition, I want to solve the following exercise problem:




Find a function $f$ analytic at $x_{0} = 0$ so that
$fleft(frac{1}{n}right) = frac{n}{n + 1}$, $n = 1, 2, ldots$.



Show that such a function cannot be analytic on $(-2, 0)$.




So, working backwards, I found out that $frac{1}{1 + x}$ satisfies the property $f(frac{1}{n}) = frac{n}{n + 1}$. I'm really not so sure how to prove the analytic properties though. I think that now I need to show $frac{1}{1 + x}$ is analytic, and then I need to prove the second part of the claim, which is that such a function cannot be analytic on $(-2, 0)$.



I have an example in my book which shows $1 + x + x^{2} + x^{3} + cdots$ is analytic. Here's how they do it:



A prototypical example is the geometric series $$1 + x + x^{2} + cdots = lim_{ntoinfty} 1 + x + x^{2} + ldots x^{n} = lim_{ntoinfty}frac{1 - x^{n + 1}}{1 - x}$$



for which it is well known equals $f(x) = frac{1}{1 - x}$ for $|x| < 1$. To verify that the function is analytic, we need to expand about any point $x_{0} neq 1$:



$$
begin{align*}
frac{1}{1-x} = frac{1}{1 - x_{0} - (x - x_{0})} = frac{1}{1- x_{0}}left(1 - frac{x - x_{0}}{1 - x_{0}}right)^{-1}
end{align*}
$$



I tried outlining this example, but I couldn't make any progress. I would really appreciate some sort of help.







real-analysis complex-analysis functions analyticity






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 12 at 16:31









Vincent

2,90711228




2,90711228










asked Nov 12 at 16:22









joseph

666




666












  • Your function is $f(z)=frac1{1+z}$ for $z_0=0$.
    – xpaul
    Nov 12 at 16:30






  • 1




    It seems the answer is already inside your own post! You know how to show that $g(x) = 1/(1-x)$ is analytic at $0$, now you only need to realize that $f(x) = 1/(1+x)$ can be related to this function $g$ by $f(x) = g(-x)$
    – Vincent
    Nov 12 at 16:33










  • @Vincent I don't see how it helps. I had also made that observation but couldn't make any progress. I also don't know how to show such a function cannot be analytic on (-2, 0).
    – joseph
    Nov 12 at 16:38










  • @joseph What can you use? Can you use the Identity Theorem for analytic functions?
    – Batominovski
    Nov 12 at 17:30






  • 1




    @Vincent I think it's because it's not defined at $x_{0} = -1$
    – joseph
    Nov 13 at 16:58




















  • Your function is $f(z)=frac1{1+z}$ for $z_0=0$.
    – xpaul
    Nov 12 at 16:30






  • 1




    It seems the answer is already inside your own post! You know how to show that $g(x) = 1/(1-x)$ is analytic at $0$, now you only need to realize that $f(x) = 1/(1+x)$ can be related to this function $g$ by $f(x) = g(-x)$
    – Vincent
    Nov 12 at 16:33










  • @Vincent I don't see how it helps. I had also made that observation but couldn't make any progress. I also don't know how to show such a function cannot be analytic on (-2, 0).
    – joseph
    Nov 12 at 16:38










  • @joseph What can you use? Can you use the Identity Theorem for analytic functions?
    – Batominovski
    Nov 12 at 17:30






  • 1




    @Vincent I think it's because it's not defined at $x_{0} = -1$
    – joseph
    Nov 13 at 16:58


















Your function is $f(z)=frac1{1+z}$ for $z_0=0$.
– xpaul
Nov 12 at 16:30




Your function is $f(z)=frac1{1+z}$ for $z_0=0$.
– xpaul
Nov 12 at 16:30




1




1




It seems the answer is already inside your own post! You know how to show that $g(x) = 1/(1-x)$ is analytic at $0$, now you only need to realize that $f(x) = 1/(1+x)$ can be related to this function $g$ by $f(x) = g(-x)$
– Vincent
Nov 12 at 16:33




It seems the answer is already inside your own post! You know how to show that $g(x) = 1/(1-x)$ is analytic at $0$, now you only need to realize that $f(x) = 1/(1+x)$ can be related to this function $g$ by $f(x) = g(-x)$
– Vincent
Nov 12 at 16:33












@Vincent I don't see how it helps. I had also made that observation but couldn't make any progress. I also don't know how to show such a function cannot be analytic on (-2, 0).
– joseph
Nov 12 at 16:38




@Vincent I don't see how it helps. I had also made that observation but couldn't make any progress. I also don't know how to show such a function cannot be analytic on (-2, 0).
– joseph
Nov 12 at 16:38












@joseph What can you use? Can you use the Identity Theorem for analytic functions?
– Batominovski
Nov 12 at 17:30




@joseph What can you use? Can you use the Identity Theorem for analytic functions?
– Batominovski
Nov 12 at 17:30




1




1




@Vincent I think it's because it's not defined at $x_{0} = -1$
– joseph
Nov 13 at 16:58






@Vincent I think it's because it's not defined at $x_{0} = -1$
– joseph
Nov 13 at 16:58












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote













This is a solution without the Identity Theorem. It is a bit lengthy, but I have no other tricks. Combinatorial identities I use in my proof can be proven using the technique from here.



Note that $$f(x)=dfrac{1}{1+x}tag{*}$$ for all $x$ such that $dfrac{1}{x}$ is a positive integer. We also see that $$f(0)=lim_{ntoinfty},fleft(dfrac1nright)=1,.$$
This means (*) is true when $x=0$ too.



We can try to find $f^{(k)}(0)$ for $k=1,2,3,ldots$ by noting that
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{hto 0^+},frac{1}{h^k},sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,fbig((k-r)hbig),.$$
Taking $h:=dfrac{1}{mcdot k!}$ for some positive integer $m$, we have
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,fleft(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right),.$$
Since $dfrac{mcdot k!}{k-r}$ is a positive integer for all $r=0,1,2,ldots,k-1$, and $f(0)=1$, we get
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}right),.$$
Because $sumlimits_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,(k-r)^t=0$ for $t=0,1,2,ldots,k-1$, we get
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}-sum_{t=0}^{k-1},(-1)^t,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^tright),.$$
Using Taylor's Theorem, we have
$$frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}-sum_{t=0}^{k-1},(-1)^t,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^t=(-1)^k,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^k+mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{m^{k+1}}right),.$$
That is,
$$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mtoinfty},left((-1)^k,(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^k+mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{m}right)right),.$$
Ergo,
$$f^{(k)}(0)=(-1)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(k-rright)^k=(-1)^k,k!,.$$
Therefore,
$$f(x)=sum_{k=0}^infty,frac{f^{(k)}(0)}{k!},x^k=sum_{k=0}^infty,(-1)^k,x^k=frac{1}{1+x}$$
for all $xin (-1,+1)$ because the radius of convergence is $1$. This proves the existence and the uniqueness of $f$.



To show that there is no analytic function with the given property that is defined on $(-2,0)$, you need to show that such a function $f$ cannot be defined at $1$. One way to do this is noting that $x=-1$ is a pole of $dfrac{1}{1+x}$. Therefore, $x=-1$ is a natural boundary of $f(x)$.






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: 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
    });


    }
    });














     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2995507%2ffind-a-function-f-analytic-at-x-0-0-so-that-f-left-frac1n-right%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








    up vote
    1
    down vote













    This is a solution without the Identity Theorem. It is a bit lengthy, but I have no other tricks. Combinatorial identities I use in my proof can be proven using the technique from here.



    Note that $$f(x)=dfrac{1}{1+x}tag{*}$$ for all $x$ such that $dfrac{1}{x}$ is a positive integer. We also see that $$f(0)=lim_{ntoinfty},fleft(dfrac1nright)=1,.$$
    This means (*) is true when $x=0$ too.



    We can try to find $f^{(k)}(0)$ for $k=1,2,3,ldots$ by noting that
    $$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{hto 0^+},frac{1}{h^k},sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,fbig((k-r)hbig),.$$
    Taking $h:=dfrac{1}{mcdot k!}$ for some positive integer $m$, we have
    $$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,fleft(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right),.$$
    Since $dfrac{mcdot k!}{k-r}$ is a positive integer for all $r=0,1,2,ldots,k-1$, and $f(0)=1$, we get
    $$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}right),.$$
    Because $sumlimits_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,(k-r)^t=0$ for $t=0,1,2,ldots,k-1$, we get
    $$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}-sum_{t=0}^{k-1},(-1)^t,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^tright),.$$
    Using Taylor's Theorem, we have
    $$frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}-sum_{t=0}^{k-1},(-1)^t,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^t=(-1)^k,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^k+mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{m^{k+1}}right),.$$
    That is,
    $$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mtoinfty},left((-1)^k,(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^k+mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{m}right)right),.$$
    Ergo,
    $$f^{(k)}(0)=(-1)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(k-rright)^k=(-1)^k,k!,.$$
    Therefore,
    $$f(x)=sum_{k=0}^infty,frac{f^{(k)}(0)}{k!},x^k=sum_{k=0}^infty,(-1)^k,x^k=frac{1}{1+x}$$
    for all $xin (-1,+1)$ because the radius of convergence is $1$. This proves the existence and the uniqueness of $f$.



    To show that there is no analytic function with the given property that is defined on $(-2,0)$, you need to show that such a function $f$ cannot be defined at $1$. One way to do this is noting that $x=-1$ is a pole of $dfrac{1}{1+x}$. Therefore, $x=-1$ is a natural boundary of $f(x)$.






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      up vote
      1
      down vote













      This is a solution without the Identity Theorem. It is a bit lengthy, but I have no other tricks. Combinatorial identities I use in my proof can be proven using the technique from here.



      Note that $$f(x)=dfrac{1}{1+x}tag{*}$$ for all $x$ such that $dfrac{1}{x}$ is a positive integer. We also see that $$f(0)=lim_{ntoinfty},fleft(dfrac1nright)=1,.$$
      This means (*) is true when $x=0$ too.



      We can try to find $f^{(k)}(0)$ for $k=1,2,3,ldots$ by noting that
      $$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{hto 0^+},frac{1}{h^k},sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,fbig((k-r)hbig),.$$
      Taking $h:=dfrac{1}{mcdot k!}$ for some positive integer $m$, we have
      $$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,fleft(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right),.$$
      Since $dfrac{mcdot k!}{k-r}$ is a positive integer for all $r=0,1,2,ldots,k-1$, and $f(0)=1$, we get
      $$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}right),.$$
      Because $sumlimits_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,(k-r)^t=0$ for $t=0,1,2,ldots,k-1$, we get
      $$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}-sum_{t=0}^{k-1},(-1)^t,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^tright),.$$
      Using Taylor's Theorem, we have
      $$frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}-sum_{t=0}^{k-1},(-1)^t,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^t=(-1)^k,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^k+mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{m^{k+1}}right),.$$
      That is,
      $$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mtoinfty},left((-1)^k,(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^k+mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{m}right)right),.$$
      Ergo,
      $$f^{(k)}(0)=(-1)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(k-rright)^k=(-1)^k,k!,.$$
      Therefore,
      $$f(x)=sum_{k=0}^infty,frac{f^{(k)}(0)}{k!},x^k=sum_{k=0}^infty,(-1)^k,x^k=frac{1}{1+x}$$
      for all $xin (-1,+1)$ because the radius of convergence is $1$. This proves the existence and the uniqueness of $f$.



      To show that there is no analytic function with the given property that is defined on $(-2,0)$, you need to show that such a function $f$ cannot be defined at $1$. One way to do this is noting that $x=-1$ is a pole of $dfrac{1}{1+x}$. Therefore, $x=-1$ is a natural boundary of $f(x)$.






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        1
        down vote










        up vote
        1
        down vote









        This is a solution without the Identity Theorem. It is a bit lengthy, but I have no other tricks. Combinatorial identities I use in my proof can be proven using the technique from here.



        Note that $$f(x)=dfrac{1}{1+x}tag{*}$$ for all $x$ such that $dfrac{1}{x}$ is a positive integer. We also see that $$f(0)=lim_{ntoinfty},fleft(dfrac1nright)=1,.$$
        This means (*) is true when $x=0$ too.



        We can try to find $f^{(k)}(0)$ for $k=1,2,3,ldots$ by noting that
        $$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{hto 0^+},frac{1}{h^k},sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,fbig((k-r)hbig),.$$
        Taking $h:=dfrac{1}{mcdot k!}$ for some positive integer $m$, we have
        $$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,fleft(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right),.$$
        Since $dfrac{mcdot k!}{k-r}$ is a positive integer for all $r=0,1,2,ldots,k-1$, and $f(0)=1$, we get
        $$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}right),.$$
        Because $sumlimits_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,(k-r)^t=0$ for $t=0,1,2,ldots,k-1$, we get
        $$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}-sum_{t=0}^{k-1},(-1)^t,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^tright),.$$
        Using Taylor's Theorem, we have
        $$frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}-sum_{t=0}^{k-1},(-1)^t,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^t=(-1)^k,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^k+mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{m^{k+1}}right),.$$
        That is,
        $$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mtoinfty},left((-1)^k,(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^k+mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{m}right)right),.$$
        Ergo,
        $$f^{(k)}(0)=(-1)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(k-rright)^k=(-1)^k,k!,.$$
        Therefore,
        $$f(x)=sum_{k=0}^infty,frac{f^{(k)}(0)}{k!},x^k=sum_{k=0}^infty,(-1)^k,x^k=frac{1}{1+x}$$
        for all $xin (-1,+1)$ because the radius of convergence is $1$. This proves the existence and the uniqueness of $f$.



        To show that there is no analytic function with the given property that is defined on $(-2,0)$, you need to show that such a function $f$ cannot be defined at $1$. One way to do this is noting that $x=-1$ is a pole of $dfrac{1}{1+x}$. Therefore, $x=-1$ is a natural boundary of $f(x)$.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        This is a solution without the Identity Theorem. It is a bit lengthy, but I have no other tricks. Combinatorial identities I use in my proof can be proven using the technique from here.



        Note that $$f(x)=dfrac{1}{1+x}tag{*}$$ for all $x$ such that $dfrac{1}{x}$ is a positive integer. We also see that $$f(0)=lim_{ntoinfty},fleft(dfrac1nright)=1,.$$
        This means (*) is true when $x=0$ too.



        We can try to find $f^{(k)}(0)$ for $k=1,2,3,ldots$ by noting that
        $$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{hto 0^+},frac{1}{h^k},sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,fbig((k-r)hbig),.$$
        Taking $h:=dfrac{1}{mcdot k!}$ for some positive integer $m$, we have
        $$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,fleft(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right),.$$
        Since $dfrac{mcdot k!}{k-r}$ is a positive integer for all $r=0,1,2,ldots,k-1$, and $f(0)=1$, we get
        $$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}right),.$$
        Because $sumlimits_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,(k-r)^t=0$ for $t=0,1,2,ldots,k-1$, we get
        $$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mto infty},(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}-sum_{t=0}^{k-1},(-1)^t,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^tright),.$$
        Using Taylor's Theorem, we have
        $$frac{1}{1+frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}}-sum_{t=0}^{k-1},(-1)^t,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^t=(-1)^k,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^k+mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{m^{k+1}}right),.$$
        That is,
        $$f^{(k)}(0)=lim_{mtoinfty},left((-1)^k,(mcdot k!)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(frac{k-r}{mcdot k!}right)^k+mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{m}right)right),.$$
        Ergo,
        $$f^{(k)}(0)=(-1)^k,sum_{r=0}^k,binom{k}{r},(-1)^r,left(k-rright)^k=(-1)^k,k!,.$$
        Therefore,
        $$f(x)=sum_{k=0}^infty,frac{f^{(k)}(0)}{k!},x^k=sum_{k=0}^infty,(-1)^k,x^k=frac{1}{1+x}$$
        for all $xin (-1,+1)$ because the radius of convergence is $1$. This proves the existence and the uniqueness of $f$.



        To show that there is no analytic function with the given property that is defined on $(-2,0)$, you need to show that such a function $f$ cannot be defined at $1$. One way to do this is noting that $x=-1$ is a pole of $dfrac{1}{1+x}$. Therefore, $x=-1$ is a natural boundary of $f(x)$.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Nov 12 at 17:58

























        answered Nov 12 at 17:53









        Batominovski

        30.9k23187




        30.9k23187






























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded



















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2995507%2ffind-a-function-f-analytic-at-x-0-0-so-that-f-left-frac1n-right%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

            ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

            Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?