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.

For the function $$f(x)=b^x-1 = x_1 \qquad g(x)=\log(1+x)/\log(b) $$ and its iterative notation $$ x_0=x \qquad x_h=f(x_{h-1})=g(x_{h+1}) \qquad x_{-1}=g(x_0) $$ with b from the interval $1 \lt b \lt e$ we can define alternating series with infinitely many terms with negative as well with positive indexes. Let us denote the idea $$A(x) = \ldots + x_{-2} - x_{-1} + x - x_1 + x_2 - \ldots $$ and define it by $$ \begin{eqnarray}A(x) &=& A_n(x) + A_p(x) - x \\ \text{ where } \qquad A_n &=& \sum_{k=0}^\infty (-1)^k x_{-k} \\ \text{ and } \qquad A_p &=& \sum_{k=0}^\infty (-1)^k x_{k} \\ \end{eqnarray} $$ With, say, $b=1.3$ and $x=3$ the series $A_p$ is convergent and $A_n$ must be evaluated using Cesaro/Euler-summation. It is obvious that this is 2-periodic, that means $$A(x)=A(x_2)=A(x_4)=...=A(x_{-2})=... $$
such that it is irrelevant where I define the center $x$ as long as I choose the iterates in steps of 2.


I expect, that this should be true for the derivatives in the same way, but with some examples I find, that this is not the case. $$ ... \ne A'(x_{-2}) \ne A'(x) \ne A'(x_2) \ne ... \\ ... \ne A''(x_{-2}) \ne A''(x) \ne A''(x_2) \ne ... $$
where I compute the derivatives in various ways, for instance simply by $$A'(x)=\lim_{h\to0} {A(x+h/2)-A(x-h/2) \over h} $$ Q: I think I must have some basic misunderstanding here (which, I think, is not specific to the given example function $f(x)$ and $g(x)$ here). Can someone explain this to me?
[Added:] It seems, I've found one hint myself: checking numerically I found that $$A(x_0)' = - x_1' \cdot A(x_1)' \quad \text{ where } \quad x_1' = \lim_{h\to0} {f(x_0+h/2)-f(x_0-h/2)\over h}$$ So at least the result is not completely random (and in particular not depending on problems with the Cesaro/Euler-summation), but my intuition is still unable to grasp this conceptually...
Numerical example using $ b=1.3 , x_0=3.2 $ $$ \small \begin{array} {rclll} & x_0 & A(x_0) & A'(x_0) & A''(x_0) \\ & 3.20000000000 & -0.00119822450167& 0.0175377529574& 0.000817628416425 \\ & x_1 & A(x_1) & A'(x_1) & A''(x_1) \\ &1.31536107268& 0.00119822450167& -0.0288702496568& 0.0102533145478 \\ & x_2 & A(x_2) & A'(x_2) & A''(x_2) \\ &0.412136407584& -0.00119822450167& 0.0779236358328& -0.129878114856 \end{array} $$

share|improve this question
    
Just to check, with Cesaro Summation, are you allowed to take derivatives? –  Calvin Lin Jan 3 '13 at 8:31
    
@cal: hmm, good question. I didn't think about it; perhaps I can check this with another example-function, where the terms decrease to zero on both sides infinite indexes - however, at the moment I don't have an idea for such a function... –  Gottfried Helms Jan 3 '13 at 8:35
    
@calvinLin : It seems, that the Cesaro-summation does not disturb; it seems there is some systematic effect which I'm simply lacking to understand correctly; please see my added remark in the question –  Gottfried Helms Jan 3 '13 at 14:03
    
Before I try to understand this any deeper, are you familiar with this? Conditionally convergent series sum ambiguously depending on their ordering, and a 2-sided series would seem to aggravate this. –  Zook yesterday
    
@Zook: yes, I'm aware of that; but I think this does not apply here because we do not reorder. It's more that I think I have some "fiddling-error" while I'm trying to discuss the formal derivative of a function and then the derivative at some x. I think it must have something to do with this - but I'm not sure... –  Gottfried Helms yesterday
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.