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.

Definitons

Let $$\mathbb{C}[[x]] := \left\{ \sum_{n\geq 0} a_n x^n : a_n \in \mathbb{C} \right\}$$ be the set of formal power series of x and $$F(x) = \sum_{n\geq 0} a_n x^n, \; G(x) = \sum_{n\geq 0} b_n x^n \in \mathbb C[[x]] \text{ with } G(0) = b_0 = 0.$$

Exercise

i)

Prove that $$(F \circ G)(x) = F(G(x)) = \lim\limits_{k \rightarrow\infty} \sum\limits_{n=0}^k a_n G(x)^n$$ exists in $\mathbb{C}[[x]]$.

ii)

Prove that $$(F\circ G)'(x) = F'(G(x))G'(x).$$


To i)

I am not sure what "existing in $\mathbb{C}[[x]]$" really means. What exactly do I need to show here?

To ii)

I had few problems differentiating the terms. If $b_n$ and $a_n$ would be constant it would be easy and e.g. $G(x)'$ would be $(\sum_{n\geq 0} b x^n)' = \frac{b}{(x-1)^2}$, but it isn't. So how do I handle that?

Thanks in advance!

share|improve this question
    
See my answer here. –  Bill Dubuque Jun 4 '11 at 15:10
    
Yes, the question immediately reminded me of that answer :-) –  joriki Jun 4 '11 at 15:11
    
For formal power series I recommend Peter Henrici: Applied and computational complex analysis, Vol. 1, John Wiley (1974). –  Christian Blatter Jun 4 '11 at 15:53
    
@Bill-Dubuque Thank you for this hint! Your explanation shows by Proposition 1.1.8 that the composition F(G(x)) convergences. But why does this imply that F(G(x)) is a well-defined formal power series (if F(x) and G(x) are well-defined)? –  muffel Jun 4 '11 at 15:57
    
@muffell What do you mean by a "well-defined" formal power series? Did you read the last paragraph of the excerpt in my linked post? –  Bill Dubuque Jun 4 '11 at 16:01

2 Answers 2

up vote 5 down vote accepted

I don't know if this is according to the site rules/practice, but since no one else bites, I will move my comments here in more editable and hopefully also edible form. I will remove my comments now as that seems to be the usual practice.

To prove part i) we start with the observation that the assumption $b_0=0$ implies that the for all positive integers the power series $G(x)^k$ is of the form $$ G(x)^k=b_1^kx^k+\sum_{n=k+1}^\infty c_{k,n}x^n $$ for some coefficients $c_{k,n}$. In the language of the notes (the link is given in Bill Dubuque's comment) we have $\deg G(x)^k\ge k$. Therefore the sum $$ \sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n(G_n(x))^n $$ converges to a formal power series $H(x)\in\mathbf{C}[[x]]$ with respect to the $I$-adic topology. Here $I$ is the ideal $I=x\mathbf{C}[[x]]$ (see also Prop. 1.1.8 in Dubuque's link). Part i) is now solved.

To do part ii) we need two Lemmas. I don't know, if they have been given in your textbook and/or lecture notes. The first Lemma is easy.

Lemma 1. If $F_1(x)$ and $F_2(x)$ are power series in $\mathbf{C}[[x]]$, and $F_3(x)=F_1(x)F_2(x)$ is their product, then their formal derivatives satisfy the usual 'derivative of the product' formula $$ F_3'(x)=F_1(x)F_2'(x)+F_1'(x)F_2(x). $$

If you have problems in proving this result (or finding a proof), please comment, and I will insert one here.

Corollary. If $F(x)\in \mathbf{C}[[x]]$ and $k$ is a positive integer, then $$ D(F(x)^k)=k F'(x) F(x)^{k-1}. $$

Proof. This follows from Lemma 1 as usual by induction on $k$.

Lemma 2. If the series $$ \sum_{n=0}^\infty F_n(x) $$ converges to a sum $F(x)$ in the ring $\mathbf{C}[[x]]$ w.r.t to the $I$-adic topology (i.e. in the sense of Dubuque's notes), then so does the series $$ \sum_{n=0}^\infty F_n'(x). $$ Furthermore, we have the identity $$ F'(x)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty F_n'(x). $$

Proof. If $x^\ell$ divides a summand $F_n(x)$, then clearly $x^{\ell-1}$ divides its derivative $F_n'(x)$. In other words, $\deg F_n'(x)=\deg F_n(x)-1$. As we assume that $\deg F_n(x)\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$, this implies that $\lim_{n\to\infty}\deg F_n'(x)=\infty$, so the series $\sum_{n=0}F_n'(x)$ converges by Prop. 1.1.8. The claim of the Lemma follows from this, because the sequence of coefficients of any power $x^i$ in the sum eventually becomes a constant.

Again, if you want more details here, just ask!

Now we are in a position to finish off part ii). Let $H(x)=F(G(x))$ that we know to exist in the ring $\mathbf{C}[[x]]$ by part i). First $$ H'(x)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty D(a_n(G(x))^n $$ by Lemma 2. Here for each $n$ we have $D(a_n(G(x))^n=na_n(G(x))^{n-1}G'(x)$ by our Corollary. Therefore $$ H'(x)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty na_n(G(x))^{n-1}G'(x). $$ By applying part i) to the power series $F'(x)$ and $G(x)$ we see that the series on the right hand side is actually $F'(G(x))G'(x)$. This completes the proof of part ii).

share|improve this answer
    
Lahtonen Great, thank you! –  muffel Jun 13 '11 at 18:11

For question #1, I would ask you to make sure you understand why, if the constant term of $G$ is nonzero, the composition need not exist.

Then, as a satisfactory answer to #1, I would accept an argument showing very explicitly that you know how to calculate the $n$-th degree coefficient of $F\circ G$ in finitely many steps. In particular, I might want to see the remark that this coefficient depends only on the polynomials you get from $F$ and $G$ by lopping off the terms of degree greater than $n$.

For question #2, you might notice that it's sufficient to show the identity for $F(x)=x^m$, each $m\ge 0$. This would require some argument, of course. Then, proceeding along the lines suggested by Jyrki, verify that the identity does indeed hold for $x^m$.

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.