Formal Power Series - Interpreting Formal Power Series As Functions

Interpreting Formal Power Series As Functions

In mathematical analysis, every convergent power series defines a function with values in the real or complex numbers. Formal power series can also be interpreted as functions, but one has to be careful with the domain and codomain. If f = ∑an Xn is an element of R], S is a commutative associative algebra over R, I is an ideal in S such that the I-adic topology on S is complete, and x is an element of I, then we can define

f(X) = \sum_{n\ge 0} a_n X^n.

This latter series is guaranteed to converge in S given the above assumptions on X. Furthermore, we have

and

Unlike in the case of bona fide functions, these formulas are not definitions but have to be proved.

Since the topology on R] is the (X)-adic topology and R] is complete, we can in particular apply power series to other power series, provided that the arguments don't have constant coefficients (so that they belong to the ideal (X)): f(0), f(X2−X) and f( (1 − X)−1 − 1) are all well defined for any formal power series f∈R].

With this formalism, we can give an explicit formula for the multiplicative inverse of a power series f whose constant coefficient a = f(0) is invertible in R:

f^{-1} = \sum_{n \ge 0} a^{-n-1} (a-f)^n.

If the formal power series g with g(0) = 0 is given implicitly by the equation

f(g) = X \,

where f is a known power series with f(0) = 0, then the coefficients of g can be explicitly computed using the Lagrange inversion formula.

Read more about this topic:  Formal Power Series

Famous quotes containing the words interpreting, formal, power, series and/or functions:

    “Drawing is a struggle between nature and the artist, in which the better the artist understands the intentions of nature, the more easily he will triumph over it. For him it is not a question of copying, but of interpreting in a simpler and more luminous language.”
    —Charles Baudelaire (1821–1867)

    “It is in the nature of allegory, as opposed to symbolism, to beg the question of absolute reality. The allegorist avails himself of a formal correspondence between “ideas” and “things,” both of which he assumes as given; he need not inquire whether either sphere is “real” or whether, in the final analysis, reality consists in their interaction.”
    —Charles, Jr. Feidelson, U.S. educator, critic. Symbolism and American Literature, ch. 1, University of Chicago Press (1953)

    “What is charm then? The free giving of a grace, the spending of something given by nature in her role of spendthrift ... something extra, superfluous, unnecessary, essentially a power thrown away.”
    —Doris Lessing (b. 1919)

    “Every man sees in his relatives, and especially in his cousins, a series of grotesque caricatures of himself.”
    —H.L. (Henry Lewis)

    “Let us stop being afraid. Of our own thoughts, our own minds. Of madness, our own or others’. Stop being afraid of the mind itself, its astonishing functions and fandangos, its complications and simplifications, the wonderful operation of its machinery—more wonderful because it is not machinery at all or predictable.”
    —Kate Millett (b. 1934)