1
$\begingroup$

Denote the ring $\text{C}^{\infty}$ i.e. infinitely differentiable functions from $\mathbb{R}\mapsto\mathbb{R}$.

I have managed to prove that this ring is a Principal Ideal Domain.

I must also prove that $f(x)=e^{-x^{-2}}$ when $x\neq 0$ and $f(0)=0$ is in $\text{C}^{\infty}$.

It is clear that $0\in\text{C}^{\infty}$ and for $e^{-x^{-2}}$, I replaced the Taylor Series for $e^x$ and got terms which lie in $\text{C}^\infty$ when $x\neq 0$.

Now I must prove the ring is NOT Noetherian - So consider the set $I_n=\{f(x):f(x)=0, \forall x\geq n\}$. It follows on that the ascending chain of ideals in NOT stationary, and thus the ring is NOT Noetherian.

Finally, I must produce a homomorphism from $\text{C}^\infty\mapsto\mathbb{R}[x]$ using Taylor Series. So,

$$\phi:\text{C}^\infty\mapsto\mathbb{R}[x]$$ $$\phi(f)=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{f^{(n)}(0)\ x^n}{n!}$$

For the case of $e^{-x^{-2}}$, we will end up with a Taylor Series of the form

$$e^{-x_0^{-2}}\sum g_i(x)$$

(due to the nature of the exponential function) where $x_0=0$, and thus the Taylor Series is $0$ everywhere (since $f(0)=0$, as defined before). Therefore $e^{-x^{-2}}\in\text{ker}(\phi)$.

Is everything here correct? Or have I made an error somewhere?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your ring isn't even a domain (much less a principal ideal domain), as it has zero divisors. There's a function in it that's zero for all nonnegative $x$, and a function that's zero for all nonpositive $x$, and the product of those two functions is identically zero. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Mar 23 '15 at 9:54
  • $\begingroup$ Very good point actually $\endgroup$ – Naji Mar 23 '15 at 18:39
2
$\begingroup$

The proof that the function $$ f(x)=\begin{cases} 0 & \text{if $x=0$}\\ \exp(-1/x^2) & \text{if $x\ne0$} \end{cases} $$ belongs to $C^{\infty}$ is completely wrong. It's true that $f$ is infinitely differentiable at every point $\ne0$, but the difficult part is exactly showing that it is also infinitely differentiable at $0$. You find a full proof in every textbook (and also on this site, I believe).

Also the fact that $C^{\infty}$ is not noetherian is not sufficiently justified. You have to prove that $I_n$ is a proper subset of $I_{n+1}$; not difficult, though.

You get a homomorphism $C^\infty\to\mathbb{R}[[x]]$ (the ring of formal power series) by considering the Taylor series expansion at $0$.

The image of $f$ (defined above) under this homomorphism is the zero series. Why? When you have completed the proof that $f\in C^{\infty}$ you'll see.

Phrases like “due to the nature of the exponential function” are not allowed in a proof. Besides, if $x_0=0$, $e^{-1/x_0^2}$ means nothing, so you can't use it.

Finally, a principal ideal domain is noetherian. So you can't have possibly proved it is a PID and that it is not noetherian.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, what I meant was the ideal $I$ of functions vanishing at particular roots are principal - I didn't mean PID I will now look for a proof of an infinitely differentiable function $\endgroup$ – Naji Mar 22 '15 at 22:55
  • $\begingroup$ @Naji Your statement is false. The ideal of functions vanishing at $0$ is not principal. $\endgroup$ – egreg Mar 22 '15 at 22:59
  • $\begingroup$ But if a function f(x) vanishes at, say, $\alpha$, then f(x) multiplied by any function (in $C^\infty$) would also be $0$ at $\alpha$? $\endgroup$ – Naji Mar 22 '15 at 23:06
  • $\begingroup$ And with regards to the proof of $e^{-x^{-2}}$ being infinitely differentiable, I assume the proof would be similar to here math.stackexchange.com/questions/476195/… $\endgroup$ – Naji Mar 22 '15 at 23:07
  • $\begingroup$ @Naji See math.stackexchange.com/questions/119858/… $\endgroup$ – egreg Mar 22 '15 at 23:10

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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