Is sin(x+y) Analytic in ℝ with y Fixed?

  • Thread starter Shoelace Thm.
  • Start date
In summary: Yes, this should work. First, use the fact that sin(x+y) is a power series and that it converges on R to get that sin(x+y) is analytic in R. Then use the fact that sin(x+y) is an analytic function to get that sin(x+y) is analytic for all x and y in R.
  • #1
Shoelace Thm.
60
0

Homework Statement


or y fixed in ℝ, show f(x)=sin(x+y) is analytic in ℝ.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


Clearly [itex] f(0 + x) = \sin(x+y) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n y^n [/itex] by the analyticity of [itex] \sin x [/itex]. Now how should I proceed?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Can someone provide some guidance?
 
  • #3
Shoelace Thm. said:
Can someone provide some guidance?

I don't know what you are looking for as a proof. In general if f(x) is analytic then f(x+c) is analytic for c a constant. Tell me why. If you don't know try expanding sin(x+y) using trig and the fact that sin(x) is analytic and cos(x) is also analytic.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Ok here is why: using the same notation as above, f is analytic in a neighborhood of 0. Now [itex] f(x) = \sin(x+y) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} (-1)^n\frac{(x+y)^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!} [/itex] by the definition of sin(x) as a power series, which converges on R because the domain of sin(x+y) is R. Thus because f can be represented as a formal power series about 0, and that formal power series converges on all of R, then f is analytic in R (this is a theorem).

Will this do?
 
  • #5
Can you check this Dick?
 
  • #6
Shoelace Thm. said:
Can you check this Dick?

Can you say what your exact definition of 'analytic' is? What you have is a not a power series expansion in x.
 
  • #7
Yes what I wrote won't suffice for that very reason. Alternatively, computing the nth degree Taylor polynomial for f about 0, the coefficients are all bounded by 1 and so the remainder term goes to 0 as [itex] n [/itex] goes to infinity. Thus f is analytic in a neighborhood of 0. Because its Taylor series converges in R ([itex] \frac{1}{\limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{c}{n!}} = \infty, |c| \le 1 [/itex] ), f is then analytic in R.

Does this work?
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Shoelace Thm. said:
Yes what I wrote won't suffice for that very reason. Alternatively, computing the nth degree Taylor polynomial for f about 0, the coefficients are all bounded by 1 and so the remainder term goes to 0 as [itex] n [/itex] goes to infinity. Thus f is analytic in a neighborhood of 0. Because its Taylor series converges in R ([itex] \frac{1}{\limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{c}{n!}} = \infty, |c| \le 1 [/itex] ), f is then analytic in R.

Does this work?

sin(x+y) is not bounded by 1 when (x+y) is a complex variable, if that's what you are thinking in your argument. Expanding in powers of (x+y) is a power series expansion around x=(-y). To get it's radius of convergence why don't you just try something simple, like a ratio test?
 
  • #9
No; y is fixed in R. By analytic, I mean 'can be represented locally as a power series.'

The nth degree polynomial for f about 0 is:

[itex] \sum_{k=0}^{n} \frac{f^{(k)}(0)}{k!} x^k = \sin y + \cos y \cdot x - \frac{ \sin y }{2} x^2 + \cdots [/itex]

Looking at the remainder term,

[itex] R_n(x) = \frac{ f^{(n+1)}(\theta) }{(n+1)!} x^{n+1} \le \frac{1}{(n+1)!} x^{n+1} \to 0 [/itex] as [itex] n \to \infty, 0 < \theta < x [/itex]

Thus in a neighborhood of 0, f is given by its taylor series about 0 and so f is analytic in neighborhood of 0. This taylor series converges in R, and so f is analytic in R.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Shoelace Thm. said:
No; y is fixed in R. By analytic, I mean 'can be represented locally as a power series.'

The nth degree polynomial for f about 0 is:

[itex] \sum_{k=0}^{n} \frac{f^{(k)}(0)}{k!} x^k = \sin y + \cos y \cdot x - \frac{ \sin y }{2} x^2 + \cdots [/itex]

Looking at the remainder term,

[itex] R_n(x) = \frac{ f^{(n+1)}(\theta) }{(n+1)!} x^{n+1} \le \frac{1}{(n+1)!} x^{n+1} \to 0 [/itex] as [itex] n \to \infty, 0 < \theta < x [/itex]

Thus in a neighborhood of 0, f is given by its taylor series about 0 and so f is analytic in neighborhood of 0. This taylor series converges in R, and so f is analytic in R.

Ok. Yes, you are just talking about real analytic.
 
  • #11
How do I prove this generally though, like you we're saying in your first post?
 
  • #12
Why don't you expand sin(x+y) in terms of sinx, cosx, siny, cosy , both of which are analytic? Then you can show that the product of analytic functions is analytic; don't think should be hard; maybe a bit annoying, keeping track of a lot of things, but don't think too hard.

You can use the proof that e^z as e^(x+iy) is (complex) analytic, and e^(x+iy)=(e^x)(e^iy)

to aid in your argument.
 
  • #13
I'm looking for something more general, i.e. if f(x) is analytic, then f(x+c) is analytic.
 
  • #14
If I understood you well, the same idea would work. Expand , then you have Sin(x)Cos(c)+Cos(x)Sin(c)

Then you just have the scaled sum (by Cos(c), Sin(c) respectively) of two analytic functions, which is analytic.
 
  • #15
No I mean for a general function f (not necessarily the one I've specified).
 
  • #16
Ok here is an argument: Because f is analytic, [itex] f(c+x) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n x^n [/itex]. Then [itex] g(0+x) = f(c+x) = f(x+c) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n x^n [/itex], so g is analytic in a neighborhood of 0. Then g is analytic in (-R,R), R being the radius of convergence of the series.

Can someone confirm the validity of this argument?
 
  • #17
Well, if f is analytic in (-oo,oo) and x+c is in (-oo,oo) , then f is analytic in (-oo,oo) , i.e., x+c lies in the domain of analyticity of f.
 
  • #18
I don't quite understand what you've written; could you explain? Is what I've written correct?
 
  • #19
Yes, what you said in #4 is correct; sorry,I started reading at post #10-or-so. What I meant is something similar to what you said: f(x) is analytic for all x in R , by assumption. Then x+c is a number in R, so that f should be analytic at x+c . Imagine if the problem were different and you had g analytic in some (-a,a). Then
g would be analytic at x+c if -a<x+c<a .
 
  • #20
I meant what I wrote in #16.

Also, I think what I wrote in #4 is incorrect because of what Dick said, i.e. the power series i had written is not a power series in x.
 
  • #21
I don't see why the series has to be centered on any specific point; is that part of your conditions?

Also, I can't tell what your function g stands for.

Sorry, I will be gone for a while.

Edit:I'm back.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
i'm back for a while.
 

FAQ: Is sin(x+y) Analytic in ℝ with y Fixed?

What does it mean for a function to be "analytic"?

Being analytic means that a function can be represented by a convergent power series in a certain interval. In other words, it can be expressed as a sum of powers of x.

How do you prove that sin(x+y) is analytic in R?

To prove that sin(x+y) is analytic in R, we must show that it can be represented as a power series that converges in the entire real line. This can be done using the Maclaurin series for sin(x) and the properties of power series.

Can sin(x+y) be represented as a Taylor series?

Yes, sin(x+y) can be represented as a Taylor series, which is a special case of a power series. The Taylor series for sin(x+y) can be obtained by substituting (x+y) into the Maclaurin series for sin(x).

Why is it important for a function to be analytic?

Analytic functions have many useful properties, such as being infinitely differentiable and having a well-defined derivative at every point. This makes them valuable in mathematical analysis and applications in physics, engineering, and other fields.

Are there any other ways to prove that sin(x+y) is analytic?

Yes, there are other methods to prove that sin(x+y) is analytic in R. These include the Cauchy integral formula, Morera's theorem, and the Weierstrass M-test. However, using the properties of power series is one of the most straightforward ways to prove analyticity.

Back
Top