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

Is there two sequences of real numbers $a_i$ and $b_i\neq 8$, not depending on $x$, such that $x^8=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}a_kx^{b_k}$ for all $x$?

If $\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}a_kx^{b_k}=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}c_kx^{d_k}$ for all $x>1$, and all coefficients are real and $b_k>b_{k+1}$, and $d_k>d_{k+1}$, is there a way to prove that $a_k=c_k$ and $b_k=d_k$ for all $k$?

If $\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}a_kx^{b_k}=0$ for all $x>1$ and $b_i\neq b_j$, and all coefficients are real, must $a_k=0$?

share|cite|improve this question
For the second: what happens if you perform the usual algorithm for generating Taylor series on $x^8$? – J. M. Nov 20 '11 at 16:27
Well, "Taylor series" usually refers to power series in which the exponents are integers, so you should probably edit your title to avoid confusions. Two convergent power series series (with non-negative integral exponents) which converge to the same function are equal term by term; this is easily proved by considering the iterated derivatives, for example. – Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Nov 20 '11 at 16:28
Also, your first sentence is quite confusing: what exactly is the condition? – Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Nov 20 '11 at 16:31
@MarianoSuárez-Alvarez Ok, if we allow non-integers, still only 1 series? – TROLLKILLER Nov 20 '11 at 16:32
@J.M. Then you get an x^8 term? – TROLLKILLER Nov 20 '11 at 16:44

Note that these questions are the same as asking whether non-zero $a_i$, $b_i$ can satisfy $\sum_{k=1}^\infty a_kx^{b_k}=0$ for all $x$ (or for $x>1$). This assumes the series converge absolutely, so that we can combine them. If we're not assuming absolute convergence, then can prove absolute convergence assuming that the $b_i$ are positive (this can be relaxed a bit, but not done away with).

Assuming the $b_i$ are strictly decreasing, we can answer it as follows. Assume the series converges absolutely for $x\ge A$ (that such an $A> 1$ exists will be shown at the end). Without loss of generality, assume $a_1\ne 0$. For $x\ge A$, we have $$0=a_1 x^{b_1}+\sum_{n=2}^\infty a_nx^{b_n}$$ So we solve for $a_1$ and take absolute values $$|a_1|\le x^{-b_1}\sum_{n=2}^\infty |a_n|x^{b_n}=x^{-b_1+b_2}\sum_{n=2}^\infty |a_n|x^{b_n-b_2}$$ Since the $b_i$ are strictly decreasing, both $-b_1+b_2$ and $b_n-b_2$ are negative (or zero, for $n=2$), thus for $x\ge A$, $x^{b_n-b_2}\le A^{b_n-b_2}$. Therefore, for $x\ge A$, $$|a_1|\le x^{-b_1+b_2}\sum_{n=2}^\infty |a_n|A^{b_n-b_2}$$ Since $x$ can be arbitrarily large, this implies that $a_1=0$. Contradiction.

We now prove the existence of such an $A$. Assume the series converges at $x_0$. Fix $\epsilon>0$ and set $$x_n=x_0e^{\log(n^{-(1+\epsilon)})/b_n}$$ Then $$|a_n|x_n^{b_n}=|a_n|x_0^{b_n}(x_n/x_0)^{b_n}\le (|a_n|x_0^{b_n})n^{-(1+\epsilon)}$$ Set $A=\lim\sup_n x_n$. Since the series converges at $x_0$, the terms $|a_n|x_0^{b_n}$ are bounded, hence the series will converge absolutely for $x\ge A$. A priori, $A$ could be infinite. But this won't happen as the $b_n$ are decreasing and positive.

share|cite|improve this answer
Why do the series in the intermediate steps converge? – user7530 Nov 21 '11 at 10:05
I'll edit the answer to make that clear. Thanks! – B R Nov 21 '11 at 10:27

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.