Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Math Help - Wilsons Theorem?

  1. #1
    Member
    Joined
    May 2008
    Posts
    140

    Wilsons Theorem?

    Hello,

    I posted this question some time ago and got a great response which I now understand. However, I am still struggling to understand the leap from (*) to (**). This is Wilsons Theorem right?


    Prove that

    (e^x)(e^x2/2)(e^x^3/3)...=1+x+x^2+... when |x|<1.

    Show that the coefficient of x^19 in the power series expansion on the LHS has the form

    1/19! + 1/19 + r/s,

    where 19 does not divide s. (*)

    Deduce that 18!= -1(mod 19). (**)

    Thanks in advance
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    From
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    409

    Assumptions? Quasi-proof?

    Can we assume that if \sum_{n=0}^\infty a_nx^n=\sum_{n=0}^\infty b_nx^n for all values of |x|<1, then a_n=b_n for all n? Somehow I don't think this is valid, but let's run with it for a moment.

    If this is true, then the whole point of the two-part exercise was to make the connection that \frac{1}{19!}+\frac{1}{19}+\frac{r}{s}=1 for some r,s where 19\not|s

    Multiplying gives us 1+18!=19!-19!\frac{r}{s} . Now reduce the \frac{r}{s} term and because the LHS is a whole number, the RHS must reduce fully. Since 19\not|s, 19 will still be a factor in this term after reducing, so it can be written 1+18!=19k for some positive integer k, which implies your hypothesis.

    Not sure if this quasi-proof holds water, but it is the only connection I see between the two parts of the question.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Media_Man View Post
    Can we assume that if \sum_{n=0}^\infty a_nx^n=\sum_{n=0}^\infty b_nx^n for all values of |x|<1, then a_n=b_n for all n? Somehow I don't think this is valid, but let's run with it for a moment.
    Yes. Power series for analytic functions on (-1,1) must be unique. The proof is easy.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Member
    Joined
    May 2008
    Posts
    140

    Thanks

    Thanks Media Man. Your assumption is valid and it now makes sense.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    From
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    409

    Analytic functions

    Yes. Power series for analytic functions on (-1,1) must be unique. The proof is easy.
    That is interesting. What is the proof? Does this hold for x \not\in (-1,1) provided the series converges?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Media_Man View Post
    That is interesting. What is the proof? Does this hold for x \not\in (-1,1) provided the series converges?
    Say that, a_0+a_1x+a_2x^2 + ... = b_0 + b_1 x + b_2 x^2 + ... for all |x|<1.
    If x=0 then we get a_0 = b_0, subtract it off both sides.
    That gives us, a_1 x + a_2 x^2 + .... = b_1 x + b_2 x^2 + ... for all |x|<1.
    Differenciate and let x=0 then we get a_1 = b_1, subtract it off both sides.
    That gives us, a_2 x^2 + ... = b_2 x^2 + ... for all |x|<1.
    Differenciate twice and let x=0 then we get 2a_2 = 2b_2 \implies a_2 = b_2.
    Now keep on going.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    From
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    409

    Cool

    Sensible enough. Why would this proof not work on some other interval of convergence besides (-1,1)? Aren't there Taylor series expansions for functions that converge within other radii?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Media_Man View Post
    Sensible enough. Why would this proof not work on some other interval of convergence besides (-1,1)? Aren't there Taylor series expansions for functions that converge within other radii?
    It works on all other intervals too. I just proved it for that interval because that was the assumption you were using in this problem.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    From
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    409
    I know I am being picky, but it seems to me that it would be possible to construct two series f(x)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_nx^n and g(x)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty b_nx^n such that f(x)=g(x) for |x|<1 but f(x)\neq g(x) for |x|\geq 1, both of which converging within, say, [-2,2].

    The preceding proof seems to imply that no such differentiable functions f and g can ever be found.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Media_Man View Post
    I know I am being picky, but it seems to me that it would be possible to construct two series f(x)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_nx^n and g(x)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty b_nx^n such that f(x)=g(x) for |x|<1 but f(x)\neq g(x) for |x|\geq 1, both of which converging within, say, [-2,2].


    Once they agree on (-1,1) then it will mean a_n = b_n and so if the series converge all the way up to (-2,2) then definitely f(x) = g(x) on the entire interval since the coefficients are the same.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    From
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    409

    Infinitely Differentiable

    I think I worked it out in my head now. One of the stipulations of the proof is that the function expressible by the series is infinitely differentiable in the interval of convergence. So defining h(x)=f(x)-g(x), h could not possibly be equal to zero within some interval x\in(a-\epsilon, a+\epsilon) and nonzero at a point outside this interval. Otherwise the nth derivative of h at a+\epsilon would have a left hand limit of zero and a nonzero right hand limit for some n.

    *Not trying to argue with mathematical proof, I'm just trying to get my intuition to catch up to it. Lemma: No infinitely differentiable function can be constant on an interval no matter how small, unless it is constant everywhere.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #12
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Media_Man View Post
    *Not trying to argue with mathematical proof, I'm just trying to get my intuition to catch up to it. Lemma: No infinitely differentiable function can be constant on an interval no matter how small, unless it is constant everywhere.
    Careful, let f(x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{c} 0 \text{ if }x\leq 0 \\ e^{-1/x} \text{ if }x>0 \end{array} \right. then f is infinite differenciable with Taylor series identically 0 centered at 0.

    The function is identically zero if the interval is contained in the left-hand side of
    the number line but it is not identically zero if the line crosses into the right hand side of the number line.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    From
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    409
    Ah, yes, this is just the kind of function I feared. But alas, let's rephrase again: Lemma: No infinitely differentiable function expressible by a single Taylor series on some interval A can be constant on an interval B\subset A no matter how small, unless it is constant everywhere in A. The point is you can't have two distinct Taylor series that converge at the same value on some interval and converge on different values on some other interval. The above example requires two different Taylor series to fully describe it.

    Sure, the values of the functions g(x)=0 and f(x) defined above agree on the interval (-\infty,0] and disagree on the interval (0,\infty) but that is because f(x), though an infinitely differentiable function at every point, cannot be expressed by a Taylor series which converges on +a and -a, for some a\neq 0.

    *I may be getting caught up in technicalities, but we have already posed a sound proof here. This is just me making sure my intuition follows suit.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  14. #14
    MHF Contributor chiph588@'s Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    From
    Champaign, Illinois
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker View Post
    Say that, a_0+a_1x+a_2x^2 + ... = b_0 + b_1 x + b_2 x^2 + ... for all |x|<1.
    If x=0 then we get a_0 = b_0, subtract it off both sides.
    That gives us, a_1 x + a_2 x^2 + .... = b_1 x + b_2 x^2 + ... for all |x|<1.
    Differenciate and let x=0 then we get a_1 = b_1, subtract it off both sides.
    That gives us, a_2 x^2 + ... = b_2 x^2 + ... for all |x|<1.
    Differenciate twice and let x=0 then we get 2a_2 = 2b_2 \implies a_2 = b_2.
    Now keep on going.
    Are we assuming we can differentiate term by term though? If the sum doesn't converge absolutely isn't this invalid?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  15. #15
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by chiph588@ View Post
    Are we assuming we can differentiate term by term though? If the sum doesn't converge absolutely isn't this invalid?
    If you have a power series and the terms a_n are sufficiently bounded, say, |a_n| \leq n! then the series converges absolutely on (-1,1) and so it is okay to differenciate term-by-term.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 10th 2011, 09:51 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 14th 2010, 11:04 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 3rd 2010, 05:41 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 13th 2009, 06:41 AM
  5. Wilsons Proof help please
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 18th 2007, 03:45 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum