4
$\begingroup$

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!

  • 0
    @Bill-Dubuque I read the last paragraph but don't get it. It says " .. by Proposition 1.1.8 that F(G(x)) is a well-defined formal power series" - but why? The message of Proposition 1.1.8 is only that F(G(x)) convergences, but not that it is a valid formal power series, isn't it?2011-06-05

2 Answers 2

6

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).

  • 0
    Lahtonen Great, thank you!2011-06-13
5

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 $x^m$.