The function
f(x)={e−1xx>00x≤0
is a smooth function which grows, at 0, slower than any function of the form xn.
My question is, does there exist a sequence of functions (fn), infinitely differentiable at 0 and with fn(0)=0 and fn(x)≠0 when x≠0 for all n, with the following property?
For any function f infinitely differentiable at 0 where f(0)=0 and f(x)≠0 when x≠0 there exists a natural number N such that for all n≥N, we have lim.
Or is there no such sequence of functions, i.e. for any sequence of functions does there exist a function which grows more slowly than all the functions in the sequence?
Answer
There is no such C^\infty function. To prove this, let f_n satisfy the conditions you specify. WLOG, we can assume all f_n>0 on \mathbb R\setminus \{0\}. If that is not true, go to the functions f_n^2. We will construct an even f\in C^\infty(\mathbb R), positive on \mathbb R\setminus \{0\} and strictly increasing on [0,\infty), such that for every n,
\tag 1\lim_{x\to 0} \frac{f_n(x)}{f(x)}=\infty.
For any g\in C^l(\mathbb R), define
\|g\|_l = \sum_{j=0}^{l}\sup_{\mathbb R} |D^jg|.
If g_k\in C^\infty(\mathbb R), k = 1,2,\dots, and \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \|g_k\|_l <\infty for each l, then \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} g_k \in C^\infty(\mathbb R). Furthermore, for each l,
D^l\left(\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} g_k\right ) = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} D^lg_k.
Choose a sequence a_1>a_2 > \cdots \to 0. For each k, set E_k=\{x:a_{k+1}\le |x|\le a_k\} and define m_k to be the smallest of the numbers
\min_{E_k} f_1,\min_{E_k} f_2,\dots,\min_{E_k} f_k.
Now choose a positive sequence c_k\to 0 such that c_km_k strictly decreases to 0.
For each k we can choose g_k\in C^\infty(\mathbb R) with g_k>0 on (a_{k+1},a_k) and g_k=0 elsewhere. By multiplying by small enough positive constants we can also require
\|g_k\|_k < 1/2^k \text { and } \int_{a_{k+1}}^{a_k} g_k < c_km_k - c_{k+1}m_{k+1}.
We then define
g = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}g_k.
This g\in C^\infty(\mathbb R).
Finally we get to define f (almost): Define
f(x) = \int_0^x g,\,\, x\in \mathbb R.
Then f\in C^\infty(\mathbb R) and f is strictly increasing on [0,\infty). Fix n. Claim: If x\in [a_{k+1},a_k] and k\ge n, then
\tag 2\frac{f_n(x)}{f(x)} \ge \frac{1}{c_k}.
Since c_k\to 0^+, (2) proves (1), at least as x\to 0^+. To prove (2), note f(x)\le f(a_k). Now
f(a_k) = \int_0^{a_k} g =\sum_{j=k}^{\infty}\int_{a_{j+1}}^{a_j} g_j < \sum_{j=k}^{\infty}(c_jm_j - c_{j+1}m_{j+1}) = c_km_k.
So
\frac{f_n(x)}{f(x)}\ge \frac{f_n(x)}{f(a_k)} > \frac{m_k}{c_km_k}=\frac{1}{c_k},
proving (2).
We're done except for a minor detail. This f=0 on (-\infty,0]. All we need to do is redefine f for x\le 0 by setting f(x)=f(-x). Because all D^lf(0)=0 for the original f, the redefined f\in C^\infty(\mathbb R ). Since the m_k took into account the behavior of the f_n to the left of 0, we have our counterexample as claimed.
No comments:
Post a Comment