1

Define $f(z) = \frac{1}{\exp(\exp(z))} - \frac{1}{\exp(\exp(2z))} + \frac{1}{\exp(\exp(3z))} - \frac{1}{\exp(\exp(4z))} + ...$

$$f(z) = \sum_{n = 1}^{\infty} (-1)^{n-1} \exp(-\exp(n z))$$.

Is $f(z)$ analytic anywhere in the complex plane, such that $f(z)$ converges to its Taylor series? Are there values of $z$ where $f(z)$ doesn't converge? For real$(z)>0$, is the function real analytic, infinitely differentiable?

This question is inspired by the stack exchange post: Is $\frac{1}{\exp(z)} - \frac{1}{\exp(\exp(z))} + \frac{1}{\exp(\exp(\exp(z)))} -\ldots$ entire?, where I tried to modify the function so as to emphasize the behavior of exp(-exp(z)).

mick
  • 17,886
Sheldon L
  • 4,599
  • 1
  • 18
  • 33
  • 4
    This does not converge for $z=0$. – Julien Feb 09 '13 at 22:01
  • Alternative question : what happens to the limit $z f(z)$ as $z$ goes to $0$ ? If that limit does not exist then $z f(z)$ is not meromorphic on $C$ ! – mick Feb 11 '13 at 22:46

3 Answers3

1

Clearly the function $f(z)$ does not converge for $\operatorname{Re}(z)=0$. Hence the function is not entire and has no non-zero radius Taylor series when expanded at $\operatorname{Re}(z)=0$.

This is because $\exp(-\exp(nxi))$ for real $x$ and integer $n$ is just $\exp((-1)^{nx})$ and hence the terms of the series do not converge. And taking terms together does not help.

Thus the sum of those terms does not converge. The average of terms converges only weakly but that is a completely different function.

Notice that $\exp(nz)$ has a very simple limit for $n$ very large and $\operatorname{Re}(z)$ not equal to $0$.

If $\operatorname{Re}(z)>0$ and $f(z)$ is differentiable then it is termwise differentiable. This is consistent with the fact that the termwise differentiated $f(z)$ also converges for $\operatorname{Re}(z) > 0$, suggesting that it might be true that $f(z)$ is analytic for $\operatorname{Re}(z)>0$.

The terms decline exponentially for $\operatorname{Re}(z) > 0$ which also suggest it might be true that $f(z)$ is analytic for $\operatorname{Re}(z)>0$. (similar to fast declining real Fourier series within its period always being $C^\infty$ (=theorem !) ).

( @Sheldon : Btw this is partially similar logic as used by tommy1729's sinh method for tetration, however here we have no need for analytic continuation since we have convergeance already .. which is also another pro analytic argument. Imho tommy1729' sinh method is more complicated yet at the same time intuitive )

Avi Steiner
  • 4,309
mick
  • 17,886
  • A conjecture : $f(z)$ for $Re(z)>0$ is of the form $\dfrac{A(z+a)B(z+b)Q(z)}{C(z+c)D(z+d)}$ where $a,b,c,d$ are real numbers ,$A,B,C,D$ are dirichlet series and $Q(z)$ is a rational function. – mick Feb 12 '13 at 22:25
  • Hey Mick. I agree that f(z) is not analytic at $\Re(z)=0$. If $\frac{\Im(z)}{2\pi}$ is a rational number in simplest form and the denominator is even, then there is a singularity at z, so it seems there is a dense wall of singularities at the imaginary axis. Presumably, you accept my argument for the function being analytic for $\Re(z)<0$.

    The problem for $\Re(z)>0$ at the real axis, is that the derivatives grow arbitrarily large, but I need some more time to give a bullet proof argument. One hint is that for each n, $\exp(-\exp(nz))$ has imag period=$2\pi/n$, gets smaller as n grows.

    – Sheldon L Feb 13 '13 at 01:48
  • I'm still working on finding an elegant way to approximate the Taylor series for $\exp(-\exp(z))$. At the real axis, it is very small. At $\Re(z)+\pi i$, it is growing very large. I suspect the key is approximating midway, at $\Im(z)=0.5 \pi i$. Then use that to extrapolate to the real axis. At that midway point, the absolute value of $|\exp(-\exp(\Re(z)+0.5\pi i))|=1$, but the frequency is increasing. I may post something tomorrow, or maybe next week, maybe longer. After I can generate a Taylor series for $\exp(-\exp(z))$, then I can generate a Taylor series for f(z) for real(z)>0. – Sheldon L Feb 13 '13 at 09:06
  • @SheldonL how about substitute $t = \exp(\exp(z))$ ? This gives a laurent type series with analytic continuation, right ? – mick Nov 07 '23 at 23:43
  • 1
    Been awhile mick! I think the math only works for a substitution of t=exp(z), then exp(t); exp(t^2); exp(t^3); exp(t^4). I don't think the substitution exp(exp(z)) works for any other terms. – Sheldon L Nov 11 '23 at 13:16
  • @SheldonL You are still alive ! good ! Lol. I have not seen you at the tetration forum for a long time. Anyways I am with my friend tommy now, exploring new ideas and conjectures. As for your question , I am talking to tommy and now I think this implies it is nowhere analytic. Maybe more later. I upvoted your question just now. I have many open questions here and on MO and more to come. – mick Nov 12 '23 at 14:00
  • On the other hand, a summability method might just work... thinking – mick Nov 12 '23 at 14:16
  • 1
    Hey Mick, yeah, I'm fine. just think I was pretending to have a math background that I never got. I'm really an engineer who understands enough graduate level mathematics to be dangerous but who wishes he had a solid undergraduate math background. Perhaps when I retire I'll go back to school. Anyway, say hello to Tommy. – Sheldon L Nov 13 '23 at 04:34
  • @SheldonL well your name is linked to " fake function theory " and you are in the top 6% here on mathstack, so that aint too bad ;) We learned a few things from you. Tommy is going hard into " strange math " (tetration, twin primes , halting problems etc ) and number theory. And he is teaching me alot of stuff. I might be his successor one day. I will say hi :) – mick Nov 15 '23 at 22:33
  • Last post here , this is getting chatty sorry @SheldonL check this out : https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4714585/o-exp-lnx-ln-lnx2-sum-n-0-infty-a-n-xn-and-0-a-n-asym – mick Nov 17 '23 at 22:23
1

For $Re(z) \neq 0$ , substitute $t = \exp(z)$. (the case $Re(z) = 0$ does not converge without a summability method as already explained in my other answer)

Then we consider :

$$f(t) = \sum_{n = 1}^{\infty} (-1)^{n-1} \exp(-t^n)$$.

We rewrite that as :

$$f(t) = \sum_{j>-1} \sum_{n = 1}^{\infty} (-1)^{n-1} \frac{(-t^n)^j}{j!}$$.

and change the order of summation

$$f(t) = \sum_{n = 1}^{\infty} \sum_{j>-1}(-1)^{n-1} \frac{(-t^n)^j}{j!}$$

Now we see the problem is the case $j=0$ aka the constant $1$ terms of the exponentials.

Otherwise we could have made it analytic.

However by splitting $j$ in odd and even terms,

$$f(t) = \sum_{n = 1}^{\infty} \sum_{j>-1}(-1)^{n-1} \frac{(-t^n)^j}{j!}$$

becomes

$$f(t) = \sum_{n = 1}^{\infty} \sum_{j>-1}(-1)^{n-1} \frac{(t^n)^{2j}}{(2j)!} + \sum_{n = 1}^{\infty} \sum_{j>-1}(-1)^{n-1} \frac{-(t^n)^{2j+1}}{(2j+1)!}$$

and by doing the same with $n$ we get a well defined analytic Cesàro sum for all $z$.

More precisely, after splitting the $n$ in odd and even we simply apply the taylor formula

$$\frac{1}{1-t^v} = 1 + t^v + t^{2v} + t^{3v} + t^{4v} + t^{5v} + ...$$

which is valid for all $t$ not on the unit circle.

mick
  • 17,886
  • can you give an example using your sum to calculate f(z) for a few values of z. For example; f(-1); f(1); f(-0.1+I)? I wanted to verify your equation but I couldn't figure out how to use your equation. In the negative real half of the complex plane, it should match the simple summation where f(z) is analytic. – Sheldon L Nov 13 '23 at 14:09
  • @SheldonL for $|t| < 1$ this is absolutely convergeant and each terms is smaller then the previous, so that is easy. So I guess that for $|t| < 1$ using the double sums is best. And for $|t| > 1 $ we probably use only the sum over $n$ , since that makes the terms decay fast. – mick Nov 15 '23 at 21:13
  • Where does the value of "v" come from in the equation $f(t)=\frac{1}{1-t^v}$? – Sheldon L Nov 20 '23 at 12:57
  • @SheldonL $v$ is just a dummy variable plugged in. No specific value. But plugging in stuff like $2n$ or $2n+1$ is typical. It depends on what index you sum over first, which in essence does not matter due to the absolute convergeance, but computationally it makes a difference. – mick Nov 20 '23 at 18:50
0

This is an answer to half the question, which is the case for real<0. For all real(z)<0, f(z) alternates between two different values, both of which are analytic. This is because $\exp(nz)=\exp(\Re(nz))\times\exp(\Im(nz))$, and $\Re(nz)$ gets exponentially close to zero as nz gets arbitrarily large negative. It doesn't matter what $\Im(z)$ is, because zero times anything is still zero. As $\exp(nz)$ approaches arbitrarily close to zero, $(-1)^n\exp(-\exp(nz))$ approaches arbitrarily close to one for n large and even, and it approaches arbitrarily close to negative one for n large and odd. One substitution one can make is $y=\exp(z)$

$f(y)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}(-1)^n\exp(-y^n)$

This can be expanded as a taylor series, for which the first few 20 terms are listed below. notice that here, f(y=0) alternates between 1 and 0 as n goes to even infinity and 0 as n goes to odd infinity. Alternatively, the terms $a_n$ terms for the taylor series of f(y) can be used as the coefficients for a $2\pi i$ periodic complex function $f(z)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a_n\exp(nz)$. In "y", this function has a natural boundary of the unit circle. if |y|=1, and y^n doesn't repeat in an odd cycle, and does repeat in an even cycle. This condition is met if $\Re(z)=0$ and $\frac{\Im(z)}{2\pi}$ can be expressed as a rational number in simplest form, then if the denominator is even, there ia a singularity at z. Then f(y)=f(exp(z)) gets arbitrarily large since the (-1)^n terms are cyclic instead of cancelling. So singularities are dense on the boundary of the unit circle for $f(y)$, which corresponds to singularities being dense on the imaginary axis for the $2\pi i$ periodic version of f(z). These singularities are large for $\pi i$ and $\pi i/2$ but they get fairly tame quickly. Here are the first 20 terms of the Taylor series for f(y).

f(y)= 1/2 - (1/2)*(-1)^n
+y^ 1* -1
+y^ 2*  3/2
+y^ 3* -7/6
+y^ 4*  13/24
+y^ 5* -121/120
+y^ 6*  1201/720
+y^ 7* -5041/5040
+y^ 8*  18481/40320
+y^ 9* -423361/362880
+y^10*  5473441/3628800
+y^11* -39916801/39916800
+y^12*  338627521/479001600
+y^13* -6227020801/6227020800
+y^14*  130784734081/87178291200
+y^15* -1536517382401/1307674368000
+y^16*  9589093113601/20922789888000
+y^17* -355687428096001/355687428096000
+y^18*  10679532671808001/6402373705728000
+y^19* -121645100408832001/121645100408832000
+y^20*  1338095434054579201/2432902008176640000+...

One could arbitrarily define f(z) as the average of the even and odd cases, which would make $f(z=-\infty)=1/2$. In that case, $f(0)=\frac{1}{2e}$. Here are my conjectures about the function for real(z)>0, some of which I will attempt to prove in a later post.

  • for $\Re(z)>0$ the limiting value for f(z) is only defined iff $\Im(z)=2n\pi i$
  • for $\Im(z)=0$ and $\Re(z)>0$, f(z) is infinitely differentiable. But f(z) does not converge to its Taylor series. At the real axis for real(z)>0, it has a radius of convergence of zero, and is nowhere analytic.
  • for z=0, f(z) converges to $\frac{1}{2e}$, and has the same taylor series for both the nowhere analytic function, and the boundary of the analytic function, provided one defines the function as the average of the two analytic functions.

Plot of f(z) at the real axis:

Plot of f(z) at the real axis

Plot of f(z) at real(z)=-0.1, from imag(z)=0 to imag(z)=2Pi, showing the influence of nearby singularities, at $\pi i$, $\frac{\pi i}{2}$, $\frac{3\pi i}{2}$. Red is real and green is imaginary.

enter image description here

Sheldon L
  • 4,599
  • 1
  • 18
  • 33