The Existence of the Exponential Function: Difference between revisions

From Drorbn
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 74: Line 74:
An entirely analogous procedure tells us that the equations we must solve boil down to <math> \delta_{i0} e_j - e_{i+j} + \delta_{j0} e_i = m_{ij} </math>.
An entirely analogous procedure tells us that the equations we must solve boil down to <math> \delta_{i0} e_j - e_{i+j} + \delta_{j0} e_i = m_{ij} </math>.


By setting <math> i=j=0 </math> in this last equation we see that <math> e_0 = m_{00} </math>. Now let <math>i</math> and <math>j</math> be arbitrary ''positive'' integers. This solves for most of the coefficients: <math> e_{i+j} = -m_{ij} </math>. Any integer at least tw0 can be written as <math> i+j </math>, so this determines all of the <math> e_m </math> for <math> m \ge 2 </math>. We just need to prove that <math> e_m </math> is well defined, that is, that <math> m_{ij} </math> doesn't depend on <math> i </math> and <math> j </math> but only on their sum <math> m </math>.
By setting <math> i=j=0 </math> in this last equation we see that <math> e_0 = m_{00} </math>. Now let <math>i</math> and <math>j</math> be arbitrary ''positive'' integers. This solves for most of the coefficients: <math> e_{i+j} = -m_{ij} </math>. Any integer at least two can be written as <math> i+j </math>, so this determines all of the <math> e_m </math> for <math> m \ge 2 </math>. We just need to prove that <math> e_m </math> is well defined, that is, that <math> m_{ij} </math> doesn't depend on <math> i </math> and <math> j </math> but only on their sum.


But when <math> i </math> and <math> k </math> are strictly positive, the relation for the <math> m_{ij} </math> reads <math> m_{i+j,k} = m_{i,j+k} </math>, which show that we can "transfer" <math> j </math> from one index to the other, i.e., that <math> m_{rs} </math> depends only on <math> r+s </math> when <math> r </math> and <math> s </math> are positive.
But when <math> i </math> and <math> k </math> are strictly positive, the relation for the <math> m_{ij} </math> reads <math> m_{i+j,k} = m_{i,j+k} </math>, which show that we can "transfer" <math> j </math> from one index to the other, which is what we wanted.


It only remains to find <math> e_1 </math> but it's easy to see this is impossible: if <math> E </math> satisfies <math> d^1E = M </math>, then so does <math> E(x)+kx </math> for any <math> k </math>, so <math> e_1 </math> is abritrary. How do our coefficient equations tell us this?
It only remains to find <math> e_1 </math> but it's easy to see this is impossible: if <math> E </math> satisfies <math> d^1E = M </math>, then so does <math> E(x)+kx </math> for any <math> k </math>, so <math> e_1 </math> is abritrary. How do our coefficient equations tell us this?


Well, we can't find a single equation for <math> e_1 </math>! We've already tried taking both <math> i </math> and <math> j </math> to be zero, and also taking them both positive. We only have taking one zero and one positive left. Doing so gives two neccessary conditions for the existence of the <math> e_m </math>: <math> m_{0r} = m_{r0} = 0 </math> for <math> r>0 </math>. So no <math> e_1 </math> comes up, but we're still not done. But setting one of <math> i </math> and <math> k </math> to be zero and one positive in the realtion for the <math> m_rs </math> does the trick.
Well, we can't find a single equation for <math> e_1 </math>! We've already tried taking both <math> i </math> and <math> j </math> to be zero, and also taking them both positive. We only have taking one zero and one positive left. Doing so gives two neccessary conditions for the existence of the <math> e_m </math>: <math> m_{0r} = m_{r0} = 0 </math> for <math> r>0 </math>. So no <math> e_1 </math> comes up, but we're still not done. Fortunately setting one of <math> i </math> and <math> k </math> to be zero and one positive in the realtion for the <math> m_rs </math> does the trick.

Revision as of 23:57, 29 January 2007

Introduction

The purpose of this paperlet is to use some homological algebra in order to prove the existence of a power series (with coefficients in ) which satisfies the non-linear equation

[Main]

as well as the initial condition

[Init]
(higher order terms).

Alternative proofs of the existence of are of course available, including the explicit formula . Thus the value of this paperlet is not in the result it proves but rather in the allegorical story it tells: that there is a technique to solve functional equations such as [Main] using homology. There are plenty of other examples for the use of that technique, in which the equation replacing [Main] isn't as easy. Thus the exponential function seems to be the easiest illustration of a general principle and as such it is worthy of documenting.

Thus below we will pretend not to know the exponential function and/or its relationship with the differential equation .

The Scheme

We aim to construct and solve [Main] inductively, degree by degree. Equation [Init] gives in degrees 0 and 1, and the given formula for indeed solves [Main] in degrees 0 and 1. So booting the induction is no problem. Now assume we've found a degree 7 polynomial which solves [Main] up to and including degree 7, but at this stage of the construction, it may well fail to solve [Main] in degree 8. Thus modulo degrees 9 and up, we have

[M]
,

where is the "mistake for ", a certain homogeneous polynomial of degree 8 in the variables and .

Our hope is to "fix" the mistake by replacing with , where is a degree 8 "correction", a homogeneous polynomial of degree 8 in (well, in this simple case, just a multiple of ).

*1 The terms containing no 's make a copy of the left hand side of [M]. The terms linear in are , and . Note that since the constant term of is 1 and since we only care about degree 8, the last two terms can be replaced by and , respectively. Finally, we don't even need to look at terms higher than linear in , for these have degree 16 or more, high in the stratosphere.

So we substitute into (a version of [Main]), expand, and consider only the low degree terms - those below and including degree 8:*1

.

We define a "differential" by , and the above equation becomes

.
*2 It is worth noting that in some a priori sense the existence of an exponential function, a solution of , is quite unlikely. For must be an element of the relatively small space of power series in one variable, but the equation it is required to satisfy lives in the much bigger space . Thus in some sense we have more equations than unknowns and a solution is unlikely. How fortunate we are!

To continue with our inductive construction we need to have that . Hence the existence of the exponential function hinges upon our ability to find an for which . In other words, we must show that is in the image of . This appears hopeless unless we learn more about , for the domain space of is much smaller than its target space and thus cannot be surjective, and if was in any sense "random", we simply wouldn't be able to find our correction term .*2

As we shall see momentarily by "finding syzygies", and fit within the 0th and 1st chain groups of a rather short complex

,

whose first differential was already written and whose second differential is given by for any . We shall further see that for "our" , we have . Therefore in order to show that is in the image of , it suffices to show that the kernel of is equal to the image of , or simply that .

Finding a Syzygy

So what kind of relations can we get for ? Well, it measures how close is to turning sums into products, so we can look for preservation of properties that both addition and multiplication have. For example, they're both commutative, so we should have , and indeed this is obvious from the definition. Now let's try associativity, that is, let's compute associating first as and then as . In the first way we get

In the second we get

.

Comparing these two we get an interesting relation for : . Since we'll only use to find the next highest term, we can be sloppy about all but the first term of . This means that in the relation we just found we can replace by its constant term, namely 1. Upon rearranging, we get the relation promised for : .

Computing the Homology

Now let's prove that for our (piece of) chain complex. That is, letting be such that , we'll prove that for some we have .

Write the two power series as and , where the are the unknowns we wish to solve for.

The coefficient of in is

Here, is a Kronecker delta: 1 if and 0 otherwise. Since , this coefficient should be zero. Multiplying by (and noting that, for example, the first term doesn't need an since the delta is only nonzero when ) we get:

.

An entirely analogous procedure tells us that the equations we must solve boil down to .

By setting in this last equation we see that . Now let and be arbitrary positive integers. This solves for most of the coefficients: . Any integer at least two can be written as , so this determines all of the for . We just need to prove that is well defined, that is, that doesn't depend on and but only on their sum.

But when and are strictly positive, the relation for the reads , which show that we can "transfer" from one index to the other, which is what we wanted.

It only remains to find but it's easy to see this is impossible: if satisfies , then so does for any , so is abritrary. How do our coefficient equations tell us this?

Well, we can't find a single equation for ! We've already tried taking both and to be zero, and also taking them both positive. We only have taking one zero and one positive left. Doing so gives two neccessary conditions for the existence of the : for . So no comes up, but we're still not done. Fortunately setting one of and to be zero and one positive in the realtion for the does the trick.