A New Perspective On The Foundations of Analysis

A New Perspective on the Foundations of Analysis

by Chappell Brown
Author: Chappell Brown
First created: June , 1993
Last revision :February, 1996
Page: 1
Revised version of a paper origninally published in Physics Essays , Sept. 1995
ABSTRACT T.E.Phipps, Jr.s new definition of discrete infinite process value is examined in the light of asymptotic analysis. The analysis suggests a more general approach to limit operations, which are conventionally used to define these values. An analogy between imaginary numbers and divergent processes is proposed, which helps to explain the current state of analysis, where many infinite processes lack numerical content due to problems created by divergence. A general method whereby any real function can be resolved into convergent and divergent parts, just as complex numbers are resolved into real and imaginary parts is described. By defining a generalized limit as the limit of the convergent part of a function, a path to a fully general formulation of limits that would finally banish divergence from analysis is described. Key Words: divergent series, summability, terminal summation, asymptotics, numerical methods, set theory.
Page: 2
Resume La nouvelle definition donnee par T.E. Phipps au traitement des valeurs discretes et infinies est examinee par la voie de lanalyse asymptotique. Cette analyse propose une methode general pour traiter les limites qui sont utilisees pour la definition des valeurs. Une similitude entre les nombres imaginaires et la divergence du processus est proposee. Cette derniere va aider a expliquer letat actuel de lanalyse on plusieur traitements manquent le contenu numerique pose par le probleme de divergence. Une method pour une complete et generale formulation des limites qui pourraient finalement faire disparaitre la divergence est decrite.
1. Introduction After more than three centuries of development, it might seem that little could be added to established methods for assigning values to infinite sums, and yet T.E.Phipps, Jr. asks us to reconsider the fundamental definition, first formalized in the early 19th century by Cauchy and Bolzano whereby the value of the expression a0 + a 1 + a 2 + (1)
Page: 3
is obtained as the limit lim {a 0 + a 1 + a 2 + n when it exists. This definition has an intuitive feel that gives it a certain validity even outside the strict realms of mathematical rigor. It is grounded in the practical observation that whenever a sequence of values approaches closer and closer to a single fixed value, the process itself contains the fixed limit as its unique, ultimate and true value. This implicit definition seems to have been assumed without any formal definition from the start. Cauchys contribution was to explicitly formulate a general definition of the limit of a function, and to make it a cornerstone of a fully axiomatic development of the calculus. The definition of the limit of an infinite sum was then derived as one special form of this limit. By now, this definition of the value of an infinite sum as the limit of partial finite sums is therefor backed both by basic intuition and the force of rigorous mathematical deduction, giving it at this point in the development of science, an aura of naturalness. Indeed, how else would one define such infinite process values? 2. Terminal Summation Phipps begins with the truism that, for any value of n, we have + an-1} (2)
V = {a 0 + a 1 + a 2 +
+ a n - 1 } + { a n + a n + 1 + a n +2 + = Sn + Rn
} (3)
A revolution in our view of infinite sums occurs when we begin to ask questions about the remainder term Rn . If in fact the sum is convergent according to the Cauchy definition, then it is clear that Rn tends to zero as n tends to infinity. We only need to shift the partial sum term to the left-hand side of the equation to see this,
Page: 4

since the partial sums are getting closer to V as n becomes large. But suppose the sum is not convergent in the standard sense. Phipps identity now begins to take us toward new results, since we have the option of exploring the asymptotic behavior, as n tends to infinity, of the well defined finite process
V - {a 0 + a 1 + a 2 +
+ an-1}
(4)
An example may serve to illustrate how an asymptotic estimation of the remainder can yield a finite value for a divergent sum. If we set an = 1/ +1) , then we have (n the harmonic series, whose partial sums slowly diverge to infinity. However, the ratio V - 1+1+1+ 1 2 3 - log (n ) 1 +n
(5)
tends to unity, no matter what value is assigned to V. This suggests that we can take -log(n) as an asymptotic estimate of Rn as n tends to infinity. We now can state that V = a0 + a1 + a2 + = lim 1 + 1 + 1 + n 1 2 3 + an-1 + + 1 - log (n ) n -1 = 0.57721 ... (6)
In this case, normally considered divergent and therefor devoid of meaningful information, we find that an asymptotic estimation of the remainder brings the process back into the realm of convergence. Because this approach to infinite summation uses an estimate of the remainder, or terminus of a sum, Phipps named it terminal summation. In fact, the first definition of this sort was applied to continued fractions (1) , which Phipps then extended to summation of series and a variety of other discrete infinite processes. In a recent series of papers, the application of the method has been applied to both convergent and divergent
Page: 5

processes (2), (3), (4). One clear victory for this summation approach, described in (3) was the direct computation of the sum 1 + 1x + 2x 2 + 6x 3 + + n !x n + (7)
conventionally divergent for all non-zero values of the variable x, at enough points to graph the function it represents. A variation of this expression was first considered by the 18-th century Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler , and other versions have cropped up in discussions of divergent series. Since there is no known method, or even a rationale for directly computing such a series, analysts invariable fall back on formal arguments. One treats the series as though it were absolutely convergent, and then derives some properties which lead to alternative means for determining its value. For example, if (7) is substituted for f in the differential equation 1 + x d xf (x ) dx = f (x ) , f (0) = 1 (8)
and then formally manipulated as if it were convergent, we will find that it identically satisfies the equation. Such formal methods have been taken to a high degree of perfection, and one now speaks in terms of formal calculi, there being a number of different routes to creating formal versions of the calculus(5) . But despite the distinction between formal and convergent series, Phipps shows that his terminal summation process actually reproduces the values of the real valued function which is a solution to this equation - an important indication that this approach to summation is on the right track. At the same time, a large and active field of mathematics has grown up around attempts to circumvent the restriction imposed by the standard definition of convergence by defining ad hoc summation methods (6),(7). In this field, called summation theory one begins with a process that converges for convergent sums, but also converges for certain classes of divergent sums. The extended method of summation agrees with the convergent limit of partial sums, when it exists, and therefor in some sense represents an extension of the notion of infinite summation. When problems of divergence crop up in other branches of mathematics, we find
Page: 6

corresponding notions that reduce the process to a finite value. Thus, in the theory of distributions, divergent integrals are summed by extracting the Hadamard Finite Part (8) . We could continue cataloguing the diverse methods that have been applied, often with much ingenuity, to repairing the divergent fissures in the edifice of modern mathematics. But to the novice, or to physicists who only wish to apply mathematics to elucidate the connections between observable quantities, such a catalogue would seem strange indeed. Since mathematics purports to be an economical system with only the minimum of hypothesis and the rest derived through the application of logic, we might wonder what lies at the root of this multiplication of individual methods, each one fabricated for a special problem. It is here that we must give credit to Phipps for enunciating a fundamental principle. He argues (9) that divergence itself is an artifact of the restricted nature of Cauchys definition. Rather than representing some inevitable barrier that any formulation of mathematics will encounter, he maintains that divergence will simply disappear when the basic formalism is modified with a stronger definition. The remainder estimation approach, which allows discrete infinite processes to converge, even when they diverge according to the accepted definition, represents a new, more robust, definition of convergence. Extending this argument, he claims, will eventually eradicate divergence from mathematics. While the method has had success in the initial steps of such a program, this represents a bold claim. The reader might well wonder why, if such a program had any chance of success, it would not have already been tried. We can look back on several centuries of brilliant work, where the best mathematical minds have searched diligently for the foundations of analysis, and add to that the profound investigations of 20th century mathematics into the logical foundations of mathematics. With this body of work at hand, it would seem that a divergence-free version of the calculus could easily be realized, if it were at all possible. But perhaps that is the crux of this issue. If one believes a task is impossible, then any set of tools and techniques, no matter how powerful, will be of no avail. The barrier is not the problem itself, but rather the belief that it cannot be solved. So the idea that there is a natural boundary between convergent and divergent processes is the point that needs to be examined, not so much as a logical proposition, but
Page: 7

rather as a psychological issue. It is that belief that Phipps has questioned with his approach to finding the value of discrete infinite processes. 3. An Analogy with Imaginary Numbers The current situation has a parallel in the history of mathematics. When we reflect on a term such as an imaginary number, we begin to perceive a similar ambiguous situation, and perhaps a recurrent habit of mind in regard to mathematical entities. For centuries, mathematicians regarded symbols such as - 1 as inherently contradictory, although they recognized that meaningful results could be achieved by manipulating them. Such a symbol was viewed as having no intrinsic numerical value, but could nevertheless be manipulated in a purely formal manner to obtain valid results that could be justified independently, usually by a more complex route that had the virtue of using only acceptable real numbers. Today, the same language and methods are applied to an object such as (7), which, contrary to a similar structure such as
2 3 1+ x + x + x + 2 6 n +x + n!
(9)
considered to have a direct numerical meaning, is viewed as having only a shadowy existence as aformal structure. We are allowed to manipulate (7) as though it were on an equal status with (9) but must bear in mind that such divergent series really have no true numerical meaning, and results obtained via such a shortcut must be later justified by valid convergent processes. By directly summing both of these expressions starting with the same definition of infinite process value, Phipps denies us the critical distinction between convergent and divergent processes on which such thinking is based. It turns out that there is no logical basis for viewing some infinite processes as having a more numerically valid status than others. And the analogy here between convergent/divergent series on the one hand, and real/imaginary numbers on the other turns out to have a deeper meaning. Indeed, we will now show that general classes of functions can be set up which, in analogy to complex numbers, can be resolved into convergent (real)
Page: 8

and divergent (imaginary) parts. A convergent process will then simply be a particular case where the divergent part is zero. For the sake of argument, we will consider the more general case of functions of a continuous variable, x as x tends to infinity, from which we can derive the special case of discrete infinite processes by allowing x to take positive integer values. Before going into the particulars of such a resolution, we can gain some insight into the larger picture by assuming that we have a formal definition of convergent and divergent parts, analogs of the real and imaginary parts of a complex variable. For example, we are accustomed to writing z = x + iy where x = Re (z ) , the real part of z and y = Im (z ) , or the imaginary part of z. In a similar vein we set f = Cvt (f ) + Dvt (f ) , where Cvt (f ) represents the convergent part of f and Dvt (f ) the divergent part of the function. Rather than numerical quantities, Cvt (f ) and Dvt (f ) are specific functions associated with f and are best thought of as operators mapping any function f onto certain subclasses of the set of real valued functions. Since we would like to say that the divergent part of a convergent function is zero, it is evident that Cvt maps the real functions onto the set of convergent functions, which we will denote by C. The new element in this formalism is the operator Dvt and specifying which set of divergent functions should constitute its range lies at the heart of the issue before us. Denoting this set of functions by D, we can conceptually characterize it as those functions which are purely divergent just as the imaginary axis of numbers yi, is the set of pure imaginaries. An important difference here is the lack of a simple divergent basis quantity analogous to the pure imaginary i . Euler attempted to deal with divergent processes in just this way, by introducing an infinite quantity into analysis, which he symbolized by the letter i, and managed to derive some valid results using algebraic rules defined for it. However, this approach contains logical flaws, which were only ironed out in this century with Abraham Robinsons invention of Non-Standard Analysis. Although we do not have a simple basis quantity and consequent algebraic system for representing functions, the assumption of a resolution into two classes of functions, one convergent and the other divergent.can still be maintained as a basis for the formalism. We must make one special provision for the zero function, which we will assume
Page: 9

belongs to both convergent and divergent classes. This exception is required for consistency with the existing definition of convergence. We want to be able to say that when f is a convergent function, its divergent part Dvt (f ) is identically zero for all x even though the zero function is technically convergent. Algebraic manipulation of the formal representation of a function as a sum convergent and divergent parts yields some general identities. The reader should have no problem proving the following, which are direct consequences of the unique decomposition of a function into convergent and divergent parts: Cvt (Cvt (f ) ) = Cvt (f ) Dvt (Dvt (f ) ) = Dvt (f ) Cvt (Dvt (f )) = Dvt (Cvt (f )) = 0 These identities may seem trivially obvious, but other relationships we might expect, based on experience with complex numbers, cannot be derived without additional assumptions. For example, when two complex numbers are summed, the result is found by adding their real and imaginary parts. Now if we assume that the sum of any two members of D also belong to D, then this addition theorem also holds for our representation of real functions. This fact is immediately evident when we compare the two representations of a sum of two functions: f + g = Cvt (f ) + Cvt (g ) + Dvt (f ) + Dvt (g ) (11) f + g = Cvt (f + g ) + Dvt (f + g ) If the sum Dvt (f ) + Dvt (g ) belongs to D, then since the divergent part of f + g , Dvt (f + g ) , is unique we have the equation Dvt (f + g ) = Dvt (f ) + Dvt (g ). Reasoning along these lines, we can show that the operator Dvt is linear if and only if the set of functions D is closed under the operation of addition. Can we safely make this assumption? Operating under the most conservative program, we will refrain (10)
Page: 10

from making such general assumptions until we have tried out the theory on particular cases. There is nothing in the assumption of the unique decomposition we are proposing here that implies the linearity of the set D. But it will turn out as we explore the details of specific classes of functions, that this assumption is true for restricted subsets of real functions. The set of functions which remain bounded as x tends to infinity is one example of a subset of functions for which the operator Dvt is linear. We can summarize what we have learned about the linearity of addition with a theorem:
Theorem 1 Let L denote a linear subspace of the real functions such that the set Dvt (f ) | f L is also a linear space, then the operators Cvt and Dvt are linear when restricted to L.
We have included the operator Cvt in this theorem but at the same time it is important to realize that a subtle asymmetry subsists between these two operators. First of all, the set C of convergent functions, analogous to the real numbers, is a linear space. But this fact does not guarantee the linearity of the operator Cvt for the following reason. It is fairly elementary to show that , assuming only the unique decomposition of functions into convergent and divergent parts, that Cvt is linear if and only if Dvt is linear. Since we have proved that the linearity of Dvt depends on D being a linear space, then it follows that the linearity of Cvt also depends on the linearity of D , not C. This odd result is one example of the potential pitfalls of proceeding on a purely formal basis. But these introductory remarks do help to provide some orientation that will be valuable as we delve into the technical details of actually effecting a resolution of real valued functions.
Page: 11
4. Resolution of Functions into Divergent and Convergent Parts To explore the actual resolution of a class of functions into convergent and divergent parts, we will employ the Logarithmico-Exponential Functions or L-functions first introduced by Paul du Bois-Reymond (10) to measure the wider panorama of divergent behavior left out of Cauchys limit formulation. These functions provide one scale for measuring rates of divergence, and while they are ultimately inadequate to the full task, they certainly encompass a wide enough class of divergent functions to cover most of the cases found in analysis. According to G.H.Hardy No function has yet presented itself in analysis the laws of whose increase, in so far as they can be stated at all, cannot be stated, so to say, in logarithmico-exponential terms.(11) The L-functions are defined as those functions that result from applying the four operations of arithmetic, the extraction of roots, and the application of the exponential and logarithmic functions a finite number of times. Du Bois-Reymond also introduced the notion of asymptotic relations among real functions. For example, we write f << g if f /g tends to zero,f >> g if f /g tends to infinity and f g if f /g converges to 1. With this notation, we have the following theorem, proved by Hardy (12)
Theorem 2 Any L-function is ultimately continuous, of constant sign, and monotonic and, as x increases, tends to infinity or converges to a limit. If f and g are L-functions, then one of the relations f << g , f >> g , f cg (c constant) holds between them.
The L-functions therefor form a linearly ordered continuum of functions, with some convenient properties. Now consider the previous example of the harmonic series. Using L-functions and their relations, we can state that:
Page: 12

f (n ) = 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 3 1 log (n ) n -1
(12)
which tells us something useful about this series, that it increases at the same rate as the logarithm, even though we do not have a simple closed form expression for the series. If we regard the L-functions as a kind of linear scale for measuring rates of divergence (or convergence) then we can obtain much more information about this series. In fact, this particular series was studied by Euler himself in this light and has become a standard textbook example of asymptotic analysis (13). Thus, we have a succession of statements: f (n ) - log (n ) = 0.57721 f (n ) - log (n ) - -1 2n f (n ) - log (n ) - + 1 -1 2n 12n 2 which can be prolonged indefinitely. This successive analysis reveals that the standard definition of a convergent process is just one stop on a scale of rates of increase, and when we look at the bigger picture, the distinction may not be that important. At any rate, we can consider the possibility of analyzing a divergent function on a scale of specially selected L-functions as a means of isolating divergent and convergent parts, as x tends to infinity. Constructing a suitable scale is somewhat problematic, due to the complexity of the L-functions with regard to the relations << , >>, and . Indeed, Cauchys original limit definition was plagued by the complexities of the real number system, the full ramifications of which were not appreciated at the time. In fact, without a full investigation of the logical foundations of the number concept itself, a task which occupied some of the best minds of the 19-th century, Cauchys limit operation was invalid. We are up against a similar problem here - the Lfunctions, and real functions in general, are even more complex than the real numbers. Nevertheless, we can set up some scales of functions which are roughly analogous to rational numbers, and allow us to obtain many practical results. (13)
Page: 13
For example, we can form a set of functions, B, by iterating the logarithm and exponential functions. First we define the iterated logarithm k by setting k + 1(x ) = log { k (x )} and then define B as the set of compound functions of the form c exp {c m k m (x )exp {c m -1 k m -1(x ) exp {c 0 k 0(x )}
(14)
where c and the c i are non-zero real numbers. Since this form is compatible with the operations used to construct the L-functions as a whole, it defines a subset of linearly ordered functions. Specifically f , g B either f << g or g << f . Now if h is some function such that h f , f B we will write this as an operation, denoted by the letter : (h ) = f . We will also use to define another operator, , by setting [f ] = f - [f ] . Since log(x ) and x c where c is any real number belong to the set B we can now write the previous analysis of the harmonic series in the form f (n ) - log (n ) = 0.57721 f (n ) - log (n ) - -1 2n becomes (f ) (15)
becomes 2 (f ) -1 2n
-1 f (n ) - log (n ) - + 1 -1 becomes 3(f ) 2 2n 12n 12n 2 Thus, the operator acts to reduce the degree of divergence of a function. In fact it is quite easy to prove that in general (f ) << f . Now, consider the subset of the Lfunctions, F , for which n (f ) converges to zero for some positive integer n, which we will refer to as finitely reducible with respect to the scale B . This set includes all functions which converge to a limit as x tends to infinity, since (f ) always converges to zero when f itself is convergent. Due to the monotonic nature of the L-functions used to define the scale B we know that for any member of F , there is some positive integer m such that
Page: 14

m (f ) converges as x tends to infinity. Thus for finitely reducible functions we have a resolution into two parts, a divergent part given by (f ) + ( (f )) + ( 2(f )) + and a convergent part given by m (f ) . 5. The Generalized Limit Now that we have a means of separating at least one class of divergent functions into divergent and convergent parts, we can introduce a generalized limit operation by defining the limit of any f in F simply as the limit of its convergent part. Since this new limit operation depends on the set B which we used to effect a separation into convergent and divergent parts, we will write lim {f (x )} (B ) = l x (17) + ( m -1(f )) (16)
Such a generalized limit is a true extension of the standard limit defined by Cauchy, since the convergent part of a convergent function is just the function itself. The abstract train of thought that has lead us to this new limit operation may seem obscure. One might well ask if this generalized limit really makes any sense in terms of the new values it introduces into analysis. Perhaps it is highly artificial , producing results that would be of little practical use. And its rather abstruse form may make it difficult to apply in practice as a problem solving tool. Of course, there is no way to answer such legitimate concerns within the realm of logic. But we can present some specific results based on the generalized limit that may help the reader answer some of these questions. Taking initially the case of discrete infinite processes, where the variable x takes positive integer values , we can obtain the following results
Page: 15

n
1 = nlim 1 (B ) = r r r =1 r =1
(18)
r =1
r = lim r (B ) = - 0.2078865 n r =1
n
(19)
1 1 u + r = nlim u + r r =1 r =1
(B ) = -
' (u ) (u )
(20)
log (r ) = nlim log (r ) r =1 r =1 2 r = nlim 2 r =0 r =0

n -1 r
(B ) = 1 log (2 ) 2
(21)
(B ) = -1
(22)
Many similar examples could be added to this list. If we compare (20) to a standard convergent series for the logarithmic derivative of the gamma function, namely: - +
r =1
1 - 1 r u -r
'(u ) (u )
(23)
we find that the generalized limit approach has simplified the formula. The series (20), although simpler and more direct than (23) is unfortunately regarded as having no numerical meaning. Or in the case of (22), which, like the divergent series (7) is regarded as having at best a purely formal meaning, we find that it represents a convergent process with a numerically sound value. Let us derive a value for this series in both ways. First, if we set V = 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + (24)
Page: 16
and then multiply through by 2, pretending that the series is absolutely convergent , we find that 2V = 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + =V -1 (25)
From which we deduce that V = -1. On the other hand, set f (n ) = 1 + 2 + 4 + + 2n-1 (26)
We can show that lim {f (n )} (B ) = -1 . Starting with the identity n 1+ 2+ 4+ + 2n-1=2n - 1 (27)
we see that f can be measured with a standard member of B (f (n )) = 2n = exp {(log 2)n } and we can therefore obtain a value for : (f ) = f - (f ) = 2n - 1 - 2n = -1 Since this is a constant, f is finitely reducible and converges in our more general sense to the value obtained by formal manipulation of the series. In practice, it is not necessary to reproduce the full argument based on and operations. If it is possible to find a linear combination of functions from the set (B) that, when subtracted from a divergent function turns it into a convergent process, then we know that we have a generalized limit. This means that we can work with finitely reducible processes almost as though they were convergent in the usual sense. That will allow us to tap the considerable body of techniques that have been devised over the past two centuries to manipulate limit operations. This technique also means that we can often reformulate known results to derive (29) (28)
Page: 17

generalized limits. For example, consider a standard asymptotic result used in the derivation of Sterlings approximation to the factorial: log (r ) = (n + 1)log (n ) - n + log 2 + on 2 r =1
(30)
where on tends to zero as n tends to infinity. Since the divergent terms on the right are members of (B) , this equation can be rewritten as lim log (r ) n r =1
n n
(B ) =
= lim log (r ) - (n + 1)log (n ) + n 2 n r =1
= log 2
(31)
Thus finite reducibility simply means that the divergent process can be rewritten as a conventional limit. We can also treat many of the functions of classical analysis by introducing additional parameters into the functions of the set B. This can be accomplished by allowing the constants in (14) to depend on these additional parameters. With this convention, we can obtain results such as (u ) = lim r 1u (B ) n r =1 1 = lim u r (B ) 1 - u n r =0
n -1 n
(33)
(34)
While familiar in form, it is important to realize that these statements hold for all real values of u. With the conventional limit operator, convergence breaks down for u < 1 in the zeta function series, and for |u| > 1 in the series for 1/(1-u) .
Page: 18

6. The Most General Framework We have so far demonstrated our thesis, that divergent processes can be resolved into unique divergent and convergent parts, on a restricted class of functions. Indeed, there are L-functions which are not equivalent, in the asymptotic sense, to any member of (B ) and even if we had a complete basis set for the L-functions, there are still many additional functions left out. For example, sin(x) is not asymptotically equivalent to any L-function because it is bounded and oscillates indefinitely. And, if we look more closely at (7), we will find that it is not finitely reducible either. Borrowing from Phipps analysis of this series we know that 1 + 1x + 2x 2 + 6x 3 + + (n -1)!x n -1 (34)
is represented by an asymptotic series of the form n !x n c 1(x ) n !x n c 2(x ) n !x n c 3(x ) + + + n n2 n3 (35)
The variable x actually represents a parameter, which we consider to be a fixed quantity as the active variable n tends to infinity, and the functions c i (x ) are defined by recusion on the index j. This expression is complicated by the factorial function, which we here take to be the discrete version of the gamma function. The gamma function is not a member of B, but even if it were, we would still have a situation where the process is not reducible in a finite number of steps to a convergent function. For any positive integer m we would have m 1 + 1x + 2x 2 + 6x 3 + + (n -1)!x n -1 n !x n c m (x ) nm (36)
which will not tend to zero as n tends to infinity no matter how large m . Thus we appear to be at an impasse and we might conclude that, while gains can be made in generalizing limits to patch some of the damage done by divergence in specific cases, Phipps contention that divergence can be eradicated from analysis overstates the case. But this problem, along with the problem of the incompleteness
Page: 19

of the L-functions can be solved - we only need to generalize our formalism. The limit is stated in terms of the behavior of specific functions, but it can also be viewed as a statement about membership in sets of functions. The statement that lim f (x ) = l is equivalent to saying that x f g |o O , g (x ) = l + o (x ) (37)
where O represents the set of functions which tend to zero as x tends to infinity, and l stands for the function which is equal to the constant value l for all x . If we adopt the convention that an operation between sets of functions denotes the set obtained by performing the operation between all pairs of elements ( i.e. S +T = u | u = s + t , s S and t T ) then (37) can be written more succinctly as: f l + O . The relations << and can also be expressed in this form: f << g if and only if f g O f g if and only if f g {1 + O } (38) (39)
If we denote the set of all functions which are equivalent to f under the relation by [f ] and the set of functions for which f << g by ,< f > then we have [f ] = f {1 +O } and <f > = f O . And the operations and can be generalized beyond the specific subset of Lfunctions defined by (14) We simply choose a representative member from each distinct equivalence class of function and define (f ) as the representative member of f s equivalence class. This process is universal, so we are no longer limited by a specially constructed class of L-functions. As before the operator is defined by setting (f ) = f - (f ) Using this notation we can decompose the equivalence class of any function f as follows:
Page: 20

[ f ] = [ (f ) ] = (f ) { 1 + O } = (f ) + < (f ) > and since f [f ] this shows that f (f ) + < (f ) > We also have the membership relation f (f ) + [f - (f )] = (f ) + [ (f - (f ))] = (f ) + (f - (f )) + < (f - (f )) > If we continue this process to n + 1 steps, we obtain: f (f ) + ( (f )) + ( 2(f )) + + ( n (f )) + < ( n (f )) > = (f ) + ( (f )) + ( 2(f )) + + ( n -1(f )) + [ ( n (f )) ] = (f ) + ( (f )) + ( 2(f )) + + ( n -1(f )) + [ n (f ) ] which is the set version of f = (f ) + ( (f )) + ( 2(f )) + + ( n -1(f )) + n (f ) (44) (43) (42) (41) (40)
Now suppose that n -1(f ) diverges but n (f ) converges, then the set version, equation (43) expresses the fact that f can be resolved into a divergent part, the finite sum
Page: 21

(f ) + ( (f )) + ( 2(f )) + ( 3(f )) + + ( n -1(f )) (45)
and a convergent part which is here an equivalence class of functions, all of which must converge to the same limit. Thus, f can be characterized by two descending sequences (f ) >> ( (f )) >> ( 2(f )) >> and < (f ) > < ( (f )) > < ( 2(f )) > < ( n (f )) > (47) >> ( n (f )) >> (46)
Both sequences are defined in terms of the operators and which can only iterate a finite number of times. But the second representation is not limited to finite operations because we can take the intersection of an infinite number of sets and obtain a well defined set. Consider the following analogy with real numbers: suppose that x 0 > x 1 > x 2 > , x n > 0 is a decreasing sequence of real numbers and define the set S as S =
0 [0 , xn ) n =
(48)
where [ 0, a) represents the set of numbers less than a and greater than or equal to 0. We can prove that S is also an interval of this type,which means that there is some number l such that S = [0 , l) and, in fact, l is the limit of the sequence. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that n (f ) diverges for all positive integers n, but when we form the intersection
S =
0 < n (f ) ) > n =
(49)
we find that S is a set of the form < g> where g is a convergent function. In analogy
Page: 22

with the finite case, we can regard the equivalence class [g] as representing the convergent part of the function f , leading to the generalized limit definition lim { f (x ) } (B ) = lim g (x ) x x (50)
Another advantage of set theory is the possibility of continuing this process further. Suppose that g turns out to be divergent. We can still continue taking finite iterations n (g ) until we arrive at a convergent function or else form a second infinite intersection
S (2)
0 < n (g ) ) > n =
(51)
and so on. All of this can be neatly summarized in a definition using transfinite ordinal numbers:
Definition 1 (Transfinite Reductions) Let denote an ordinal number. The operator (f ) is defined as follows (1) 0 (f ) = (f ) If has an immediate predecessor then (2) (f ) = ' (f ) - ( ' (f )) and if has no immediate predecessor then (3) (f ) = supremum of
< (f ) > <
Page: 23
By using ordinal numbers, we can give the resolution of a function into convergent and divergent parts the widest possible latitude. Of course all of this is dependent on how we choose a representative function from each equivalence class, and at this point we do not have any general theorems on how that choice will affect the definition of a generalized limit. But this approach does assure us that, however that choice is made, the resulting theory has a logical basis and that is the primary objective of this first attempt at eradicating divergence from analysis. We should also mention at this point that this formalism leaves out an important class of functions: those that are bounded but not convergent. In fact it is easy to show that for all choices of basis functions (f ) converges to zero when f is bounded, so that the reduction operation does not distinguish between convergent functions and divergent , but bounded, functions. Thus in the most general case we may only find that (f ) is bounded as x tends to infinity. Interestingly, it is possible to prove that for any choice of basis functions, all bounded functions are finitely reducible. This fact results from the fundamental theorem that every vector space has a basis. Since the set of all bounded functions is closed under the sum of two functions and the product of a function and a constant, it is a vector space. The essential new step here is to construct a vector space based on the behavior of functions as x tends to infinity. From that we can deduce that any bounded function is a finite linear combination of bounded basis functions. If we include the function f (x) = 1 in the basis set, then its coefficient can be taken as the limit of a bounded function. The problem of extracting a limit from bounded divergent functions is a distinct problem that needs to be studied in the context of oscillatory operations such as Fourier Transforms and Fourier Series, for which there is a large body of results. This type of problem does not arise with L-functions because they are ultimately monotonic, and a bounded monotonic function always converges to a limit. We will conclude by defining what we mean by a resolution of any L-function into divergent and convergent parts. While not complete, this definition represents a big step in the direction we want to travel, toward a complete and divergence free calculus.
Page: 24
Definition 2 Suppose that f is an L-function, and a choice operator that assigns an asymptotically unique representative to every L-function. If for some ordinal number , (f ) is convergent while (f ) is unbounded when < , then c (x ) = (f ) is the convergent part of f and d (x ) = f (x ) - c (x ) is the divergent part of f.
References (1) T.E.Phipps, Jr. , Naval Ordnance Technical Report NOLTR 71-36 , 1 March 1971 (2) Idem , Phys. Essays 6 , No. 1 , 135 (1993) (3) Idem , Phys. Essays 6 , No. 3 , 440 (1993) (4) Idem , Phys. Essays 6 , No. 4 , 588 (1993) (5) D.E.Loeb, G-C Rota , Advances in Math. 75, No.1-118 , (1989) (6) G.H. Hardy, Divergent Series , (Oxford, 1949) (7) C.N. Moore, Summable Series and Convergence Factors, (Dover, NY, 1966) (8) R. Estrada, R.P. Kanwal, Asymptotic Analysis, a Distributional Approach , P.53 (Birkhauser,Boston, 1994)
Page: 25

(9) T.E.Phipps, Jr. , Heretical Verities: Mathematical Themes in Physical Description (Classic Non-Fiction Library,Urbana Il.,1987) , Chap. 12 (10) G.H.Hardy, Orders of Infinity, (Hafner, NY, 1971) (11) Ibid, 35 (12) Ibid, 18 (13) K. Knopp, Theory and Application of Infinite Series , (Dover, NY, 1940), P.527
Page: 26

A New Perspective On The Foundations of Analysis

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

A New Perspective On The Foundations of Analysis

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

A New Perspective on the Foundations of Analysis