Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

A function $f$ is defined as follow:

$$ f(x)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{b_{n}}{(x-a_{n})^{2}+b_{n}^{2}}\;\;, x\in \mathbb R $$

where $(a_{n}, b_{n})$ are points in the $xy$-plane, $b_{n}>0$ for all $n$. When is the function $f(x)$ bounded away from zero? that is $f(x)\geq a>0$, for some $a>0$, for all $x\in \mathbb R$. I believe that this would somehow depend on the points $(a_{n}, b_{n})$, for example if $\{b_{n}\}$ converges to zero or not, but I cannot find out how!

Thanks

*EDIT: I still don't know when $f(x)$ will be bownded away from zero! *

Edit: $f(x)$ is bounded above by some constant, say $C>0$.

share|improve this question
1  
Instead of "strictly positive" you can say: "bounded away from zero". –  GEdgar Feb 20 '12 at 0:51
    
Yes, thanks! I fixed it. –  Chelsea Feb 20 '12 at 1:10

3 Answers 3

All summands are strictly positive, so if the series converges (or if you accept $+\infty$ as strictly positive) the sum is strictly positive.

share|improve this answer
    
So this means that the case $\lim_{x\rightarrow x_{0}} f(x)=0$ is not possible for any $x_{0}\in \mathbb R$?! –  Chelsea Feb 20 '12 at 0:42
    
Of course; again, for any summand the limit is strictly positive. –  Robert Israel Feb 20 '12 at 0:53
1  
Changing "strictly positive" to "bounded away from zero" changes the question completely. –  Robert Israel Feb 20 '12 at 4:41
    
My fault! I meant bounded away from zero. –  Chelsea Feb 20 '12 at 17:23

How about $$ \lim_{x\to-\infty}\sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{(x-n)^2 + 1} = 0 $$

share|improve this answer
1  
And somewhat more generally, if there is $x_0$ such that all $a_n \ge x_0$ and $\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{b_n}{(x_0 - a_n)^2 + b_n^2} < \infty$, then $\lim_{x \to -\infty} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{b_n}{(x-a_n)^2 + b_n^2} = 0$ so in that case your sum is not bounded away from $0$. –  Robert Israel Feb 20 '12 at 5:42
    
@Robert Israel: We can assume that $f(x)$ is bounded above, but does the $b_{n}$'s play any role here? –  Chelsea Feb 20 '12 at 13:27
    
How do you see that the limit is zero? –  Chelsea Feb 21 '12 at 19:57
    
@Chelsea: take $x<-k$, $k\in\mathbb{N}$. Then $\sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{(x-n)^2 + 1}\leq\sum_{n = k}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^2 + 1}$. –  Martin Argerami Feb 25 '12 at 16:29
    
@Chelsea: Note that if $x<x_0$, then the smaller $x$ the smaller $f(x)$ (because every summand gets smaller). If you want it $f(x)$ to be smaller than $\varepsilon$, then you find $N$ such that $\sum_{n=N}^\infty \frac{b_n}{(x_0-a_n)^2 + b_n^2} < \varepsilon/2$ and look for $x$ so close to $-\infty$, that the beginning of the series gets smaller than $\varepsilon/2$. –  savick01 Feb 25 '12 at 16:43

Here's one in the opposite direction. Note that for any $c > 0$ the curve $y/(x^2 + y^2) = c$ is a circle in the upper half plane, tangent to the $x$ axis at the origin. If there is some $r > 0$ such that every circle of radius $r$ with centre on the line $y=r$ contains at least one $(a_n, b_n)$, then $f(x)$ is bounded below.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.