0
$\begingroup$

If we have a function $f(s)$ with this form:

$$ f(s) = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} p_i s^i $$

We also know that:

$$ f(1) = 1 $$

and

$$ p_i \ge 0 \quad \text {for all $ i \ge 0$} $$

Assume we can calculate $f(s)$ for any $s$, is it possible that with all the info we know, we would be able to get $p_n$ for any n?

(Actually $p_i$ is the probability that $[Z=i]$ where Z is a random variable.)

  • 0
    This is not a polynomial (unless all but finitely many $p_n$'s vanish); the degree of the polynomial has to be finite.2011-10-01
  • 0
    Coefficients of a *power series*, you mean. If you can evaluate $f$ for any **complex** $s$, then sure...2011-10-01
  • 0
    Your series will necessarily be the Taylor series of $f(s)$ about $s = 0$. Then ${\displaystyle p_i = {f^{(i)}(0) \over i!}}$ for all $i$, where $f^{(i)}(0)$ denotes the $i$th derivative of $f(s)$ at $s = 0$.2011-10-01
  • 1
    [In any event...](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/64302)2011-10-01
  • 0
    Could you answer my question? Can you, or can you not, evaluate $f(s)$ for *complex* $s$, or are you restricted to evaluating for real $s$?2011-10-01
  • 0
    No, I can't, although the problem doesn't indicate the domain of s explicitly, in the context, $s$ is a real number.2011-10-02
  • 0
    Then either the Richardson or Lanczos methods in the answer I linked to might be of service.2011-10-02

1 Answers 1

0

This is the discrete version of the moment problem or the infinite version of a Vandermonde matrix. One approach is that $p_0=f(0),\quad p_1=\left.\dfrac{\mathrm df(s)}{\mathrm ds}\right|_{s=0}$ and the higher $p$'s are higher derivatives at $0$. Of course, this is rather unstable numerically.

  • 0
    The thing is, according to my understanding of the problem. What I can get is only $f(s)$, not $f'(s)$. In fact, I'm trying to construct a random variable with the same distribution as $Z$, but without knowing $p_0, p_1, p_2, \ldots $, it seems impossible . That's why I'm trying to get all $p_i$'s.2011-10-01
  • 0
    You can take a numeric derivative. Take $s$ smaller and smaller and check $\frac{f(s}-f(0)}{s}$. That is where the instability comes from-you are subtracting two nearly equal quantities.2011-10-02
  • 0
    @ablmf: you can do [Richardson extrapolation](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/65569/65619#65619) in conjunction with Ross's "take $s$ smaller and smaller" strategem. It doesn't completely cure the numerical instability, but you might manage to squeeze out a few more digits of accuracy as long as you don't shrink $s$ too much.2011-10-02