4
$\begingroup$

Hm, I do not even know the best formulation for my question in the header. It is not for the math but for the proper writing/terminology. I've come across the term "base change" recently but the context was a bit different, so I don't know whether this is possibly correct/incorrect here.

As I've said in the subject, I have two expressions of the same function; one time I express it as a power series in x, say $\small f(x) = a + bx + cx^2+dx^3 + ... $, and in a certain article I find the same problem handled, but with a formula like $\small g(x)=A + B(1-x) + C(1-x)(2-x) + D(1-x)(2-x)(3-x) + ... $ (the actual coefficients don't matter here)

If I expand $\small g(x) $ and collect like powers of x to make a power series of it, it is expected, that that power series has the same coefficients as f(x) (or: "they are identical"). (There is a problem in it, that the expansion leads to divergent sums for x but that need not be discussed here). Let's assume, I'm correct and the series come out to be identical. Btw, I know that the transformation behind this involves the Stirling numbers 1st kind.

My question is: how do I write in a small article, that the series f(x) is expressible by g(x) and vice versa? Perhaps "g(x) is a Stirling-transformation on f(x)" ? or "We do a change-of-basis from f(x) to g(x)" ?

  • 0
    For "vice versa" I worry a little: Suppose $1=A=B=C=\ldots$, then $g(0) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty n!$ or so, but $f(0) = a$. Not all $g$ can be expressed as $f$, I think.2012-10-17
  • 0
    I think the divided difference formula mentioned by lhf may mean that every $f$ that converges at all positive integers has a $g$, but that non-convergent $f$ (like $f(x)=1/(1.5-x)$) will have trouble.2012-10-17

1 Answers 1

5

$f$ is expressing a polynomial in the monomial basis.

$g$ is expressing the same polynomial in the Newton basis using data points in $\mathbb N$.

  • 0
    The Newton basis is actually $(x-1)(x-2)\cdots$, so $g$ is that except for a change of sign in the coefficients.2012-03-14
  • 0
    Ah, thanks. Can I use this also for the case, that I have not a polynomial but a series? And also, is the reference to "Newton" replacable by some other reference, since I've actually $\small (1-x),(1-x)(a-x),(1-x)(a-x)(a^2-x),... $ where a is some additional problemspecific fixed parameter ?2012-03-14
  • 0
    But he doesn't describe a polynomial, he describes a power series. While any polynomial can be written in the Newton basis, that's not true for any power series, I think.2012-03-14
  • 0
    Oh, I missed that it was a power series. Sorry for the noise.2012-03-14
  • 0
    @ThomasAndrews, I'd be very interested in seeing that result about power series.2012-03-14
  • 0
    @lhf I said "I think" because I'm not sure. But this Newton basis is related to Mahler's theorem which characterizes continuous $p$-adic functions on the naturals, and I suspect that every complex analytic function around $0$ is not associated with a particular $p$-adic continued function. But that's just instinct.2012-03-14
  • 0
    @lhf: coming just back to this question I see, that the power-series-remark has not yet really been resolved. Would you think, that an improvement can be made?2012-10-17
  • 0
    @GottfriedHelms, I don't know how to improve my answer, sorry.2012-10-17