11
$\begingroup$

Let $\{b_n\}_{n\geq0}$ be a sequence such that $b_nb_{n+1}=0$ and define $$a_n:=\sum_{k=0}^n(-1)^{n-k}\binom{n}{k}b_k.$$ If $\lim_{n\to\infty}a_n=0$, can we conclude that $b_n=0$ for all $n$?

More generally, if $\{b_n\}_{n\geq0}$ is a sequence with infinitely many zeros and $\lim_{n\to\infty}a_n=0$, can we still conclude that $b_n=0$ for all $n$?

Finally, what if we only assume $\{b_n\}_{n\geq0}$ contains at least ONE zero?

Till now, only the original question remains unsolved.

Remark: This question arised from the computation of the $K_0$ groups of the smooth noncommutative $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$ which come from noncommutative field theory, see $K_0$ groups of noncommutative $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$. I showed that the $K_0$ groups of original noncommutative $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$ are all $\mathbb{Z}$. Then mimicking the smooth noncommutative tori, I construct the smooth noncommutative $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$ and I want to show that the $K_0$ groups of the smooth cases are still all $\mathbb{Z}$. But this brings many new problems. First I consider a special class of the projectors of smooth noncommutative $\mathbb{R}^{2}$, and show that if this conjecture is true, then this class of projectors are 0 or 1. The other two questions I asked here are also related to the characterization of projectors of smooth noncommutative $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$.

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

6
$\begingroup$

Unfortunately the argument that I originally posted contained a gap at the end. The gap is explained at the end of the proof, where I also state 3 partial results.

Let $$f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty b_nz_n/n!,\quad g(z)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_nz^n/n!.$$ Then your relation between $a_n$ and $b_n$ means $$g(z)=e^{-z}f(z).$$ Suppose that $a_n=o(1)$, then $|g(z)|=o(e^{|z|})$. Thus both $f$ and $g$ are of exponential type, and the indicator diagram $K$ of $f$ is contained in the disk $D=\{ z:|z+1|\leq 1\}.$ This means that the Borel (=Laplace) transform $$F(z)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty b_n z^{-n-1}$$ is analytic outside of this disk $D$. Thus the power series $$F(1/z)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty b_nz^{n+1}$$ has radius of convergence at least $1/2$ and has an analytic continuation into the half-plane $\{ z:\Re z<1/2\}$. But this contradicts the Fabry Gap Theorem, since your condition that $b_nb_{n+1}=0$ implies that the density of non-zero coefficients is at most $1/2$, and Fabry's theorem says that under this condition $F(1/z)$ must have a singularity on every arc of the circle of convergence which is bigger than semi-circle.

This argument does not work when $F(1/z)$ has infinite radius of convergence.

  1. To exclude this case, one may assume that $|a_n|$ tends to zero with geometric speed, that is $|a_n|=O(\delta^n)$ for some $\delta\in(0,1)$. Then $0\not\in K$, and $F(1/z)$ is not entire.

  2. And of course, if the condition $b_nb_{n+1}=0$ is replaced by the condition that $f$ is even or odd, then the conclusion is true as well.

  3. The argument above also shows that under the stated conditions one can conclude that $b_n=O(\epsilon^n),\forall \epsilon>0$.

Thus my argument needs either a stronger assumption (1) or (2), or leads to a weaker conclusion (3).

Reference.

L. Bieberbach, Analytische Fortsetzung, Springer 1955, Chap. 2 (Chap. 1 also contains all other facts used in this argument).

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Wow, that's awesome! I have never heard of Fabry's theorem before, thank you very much for solving this problem and letting me learn new knowledge! :) $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 7, 2022 at 18:55
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, one more surprise haha :) But this method can be applied to many cases, such as $\lim_{n\to\infty}n!a_n=0$, etc. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 8, 2022 at 5:10
  • $\begingroup$ @Ren Guan: yes, but the original statement remains unproved. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 8, 2022 at 12:23
4
$\begingroup$

Perhaps it is useful to start with the final question and work backwards - the following only answers the final question, but I could well imagine the idea could be extended to the next-to-final question. In the case of the final question, the answer is, no, we can't conclude $b_k =0$ for all $k$. A counterexample can be readily constructed:

Consider $b_k $ of the form $b_k = st^k $. Then, we just have a binomial sum, $a_n = s(-1+t)^n \rightarrow 0 $ for $n\rightarrow \infty $ if $0<t<2$ (and $t\neq 1$ in order to avoid $0^0 $). Now, we can simply combine two such cases such that there is a cancellation of the coefficients for some specific $k$. Consider $$ b_k = st^k - s^{\prime } t^{\prime \, k} $$ in which case $$ a_n = s(-1+t)^n - s^{\prime } (-1+t^{\prime } )^n $$ with $a_n \rightarrow 0 $ for $n\rightarrow \infty $ as long as we respect $0<t,t^{\prime } <2$ (and $t\neq 1$, $t^{\prime } \neq 1$). Now it is simple to arrange $s,t,s^{\prime } , t^{\prime } $ such that $b_k =0 $ for some $k$. For example, if we want $b_2 =0$, we can choose $s=9$, $t=1/3$ and $s^{\prime } =4$, $t^{\prime } =1/2$, i.e., $b_k = 3^{2-k}-2^{2-k} $.

The generalization to a finite set of vanishing $b_k $ is immediate; for example, to have $b_2 =b_3 =0$, use $$ b_k = \left( 3^{2-k} - 2^{2-k} \right) - \frac{10}{3} \left( 5^{2-k} - 4^{2-k} \right) $$ It remains to be investigated whether this type of scheme can be extended to an infinite set of vanishing $b_k $ while retaining a nontrivial, finite structure of $b_k $ overall.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Oh yes, nice answer and construction! $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 6, 2022 at 17:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Using complex $t,t'$ we can have $b_n = 0$ for all $n$ in an arithmetic progression of modulus $q$ for each $q \geq 3$ (but alas not $q=2$). $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 6, 2022 at 20:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ For example, let $\beta_n = 0, 1, 1, 0, -1, -1$ according as $n$ is $0,1,2,3,4,5 \bmod 6$, and set $b_n = \beta_n / 2^n$. Then $b_n = 0$ for $3|n$, and $a_n \ll (3/4)^{n/2}$. (Here $t, t' = (1 \pm \sqrt{-3}) / 4$, so $2t$ and $2t'$ are the primitive sixth roots of unity.) $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 6, 2022 at 21:41
  • $\begingroup$ @NoamD.Elkies Ingenious counterexample! I haven’t tried this before, thank you! $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 7, 2022 at 5:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.