Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Suppose $(z_i)$ is a sequence of complex numbers such that $|z_i|\to 0$ strictly decreasing. If $(a_i)$ is a sequence of complex numbers that has the property that for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$

$$ \sum_{i}a_iz_i^{n}=0 $$ does this imply that $a_i=0$ for any $i$?

Edit: For the "finite dimensional" case, when we have $n$ distinct $(z_i)$, then $(a_i)$ must be $0$. This amounts to solving a homogeneous system of $n$ equations with $n$ unknowns, which only has the trivial solution in the case of distinct $(z_i)$. I am really curious what happens in the infinite dimensional case. My intuition tells me the same must be true, but I don't have a proof for it.

Edit 2: Very interesting, looking were this question originated, the fact that all $a_i=0$ when $(a_i)\in l_1$ is "expected". I was hoping to get a counterexample otherwise. However, if a non-trivial sequence $a_i$ exists (at least for some sequences $z_i$), I would "expect" to be able to choose it in $l_2$. Looking at Davide and Julien answers below, it seems $(a_i)\in l_1$ is an essential assumption in their argument.

share|cite|improve this question
For the sake of clarity: am I right that the series is not assumed absolutely convergent? – user53153 Dec 21 '12 at 6:44
No, it is not. All it is known is that $(z_i)$ converge to $0$, decreasing. So I cannot assume a priori anything about the convergence of $\sum a_i z_i$. – Theo Dec 21 '12 at 20:06
@picakhu Your example shows that $\sum a_i z_i=0$, but not $\sum a_i z_i^n$ when $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $n\geq 2$. – Theo Dec 24 '12 at 21:29
The following special cases already looks interesting: the case $z_i = \frac{i}$ is equivalent to showing that if a Dirichlet series vanishes on the integers then it is identically zero. – Ofir Dec 25 '12 at 22:15
If we know that $(a_i)\in \ell^1$, can we conclude? Just for curiosity, if we define $T:\ell^1\rightarrow\ell^{\infty}$ by $Ta=(\sum_i a_iz_i,\sum_i a_iz_i^2,...,\sum_i a_iz^n,...)$,where $a=(a_1,a_2,...,a_n,...)$, can we conclude that the only solution of the equation $Ta=0$ is $a=0$ – Tomás Dec 26 '12 at 19:25
up vote 4 down vote accepted

Under the assumption that $\sum_{i=0}^\infty |a_i| < \infty$, we can use power series. This assumption can be weakened: it is enough to assume that there exists $n \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $(a_i z_i^n) \in \ell^1$ (since we can work with $a'_i = a_i z_i^n$).

For $|\lambda| < |z_0|^{-1}$, define $$ f(\lambda) = \sum_{i=0}^\infty \frac{a_i}{1 - \lambda z_i} = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \sum_{i=0}^\infty (\lambda z_i)^na_i =0. $$ If $k = \min\{i \in \mathbb{N} \mid a_i \neq 0\}$ exists, then $f(\lambda) \sim \dfrac{a_k}{1-\lambda z_k}$ when $\lambda \to z_k^{-1}$, wich is absurd.

share|cite|improve this answer
While this does not completely answer my question, it is enough to settle the problem from which the question originated. My sequences $(z_i)$ converge very fast to $0$, so in particular are in $l_1$. In this situation it is impossible to find a non-trivial, bounded (let alone in $l_2$ as I require) sequence $(a_i)$. By your observation, $(a_i z_i)$ will be in $l_1$, thus $(a_i)$ is necessarily trivial. Thanks guys, this was very helpful! – Theo Dec 28 '12 at 4:36
Just one more comment. I would be still very much interested what happens in the general case. For example, if $z_i=1/\log(i+1)$ as Pavel M suggested in the comments, can one find a sequence $(a_i)$ which is in $l_2$? Perhaps I should formulate this as a different question. – Theo Dec 28 '12 at 4:47

It's a partial answer to @Tomas' comment which ask what happens if we assume the sequence $\{a_j\}$ in $\ell^1$, and it would be too long for a comment.

I interpret the hypothesis $\sum_{j=0}^{+\infty}a_jz_j^n=0$ for all $n$ as "the sequence of partial sums converges and its limit is $0$". In particular, it implies that $\{a_j\}$ is convergent to $0$, hence $\{|a_j|\}$ is in particular a bounded sequence, say by $M$. We show by induction that $a_j=0$ for all $j$. First, we have for all integer $p$ that $$|a_0z_0^p|\leqslant\sum_{j\geqslant 1}|a_j||z_j|^p$$ so $$|a_0|\leqslant \sum_{j\geqslant 1}|a_j|\left(\frac{|z_j|}{|z_0|}\right)^p.$$ Let $b_{j,p}:=|a_j|\left(\frac{|z_j|}{|z_0|}\right)^p$. We have $|b_{j,p}|\leqslant |a_j|\left(\frac{|z_j|}{|z_0|}\right)^p$, and as $\{a_j\}\in\ell^1$, we can conclude by monotone convergence theorem that $a_0=0$.

Now assume that $a_0=\dots=a_n=0$. Then $$|a_{n+1}|\leqslant \sum_{j\geqslant n+2}|a_j|\left(\frac{|z_j|}{|z_{n+1}|}\right)^p,$$ and an other application of monotone convergence theorem yields $a_{n+1}=0$.

share|cite|improve this answer
I think you dont need monotone convergence theorem. In the second inequality you can use the fact that $$\Big(\frac{|z_j|}{|z_0|}\Big)^p\leq \Big(\frac{|z_1|}{|z_0|}\Big)^p,\ \forall\ i\geq 1$$ and by hypothesis $\frac{|z_1|}{|z_0|}<1$, hence, by making $p\rightarrow\infty$ you can conclude. Am I right? – Tomás Dec 27 '12 at 12:37
@Tomás I think yes. So the case $\{a_j\}\in\ell^1$ seems to be too simple with respect to the complexity of the problem. – Davide Giraudo Dec 27 '12 at 13:21
Maybe it is possible to show that $(a_i)\in\ell^1$. – Tomás Dec 27 '12 at 13:25
@DavideGiraudo Just an observation: when I say $\sum a_i z_i^n=0$, for all $n$, I actually mean $n>0$. So the conclusion in your second sentence follows from the added assumption that $(a_i)\in l_1$, but not from the original hypothesis alone. – Theo Dec 27 '12 at 14:30
@Theo Ok. (in France, $\Bbb N$ usually mean the set of integers greater or equal than $0$) – Davide Giraudo Dec 27 '12 at 16:52

Suppose that the statement is not true, and let $N$ be the smallest index such that $a_N \neq 0$. Then $-a_N z_N^n= \sum_{i > N} a_i z_i^n \neq 0$ for all $n$. Then $0 < |a_N| \leq |\sum_{i \geq N} a_i \frac{z_i^n}{z_N^n}| \leq \sum_{i > N}|a_i|(|z_i|/|z_N|)^n$. Taking $n \to \infty$ in this strict inequality would yield $0 < 0$, a contradiction.

share|cite|improve this answer
I don't think you can interchange the limits to conclude the RHS converges to $0$. Or am I missing something? – Theo Dec 19 '12 at 17:33
Indeed the RHS could even be infinite for all n. – user53153 Dec 20 '12 at 7:51

Your Answer


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.