Understanding the Taylor Series of e^x/(x-1)

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the Taylor series of g(x) = x/(e^x - 1) and the challenge of proving that B_0 = 1 and that the sum of coefficients satisfies ∑_{k=0}^{n} C(n+1, k) B_k = 0. Participants express difficulty in determining g^(n)(0) due to it being undefined at zero, questioning the validity of deriving series through polynomial division. Suggestions include using long division and exploring absolute convergence to handle series multiplication and division. A proposed method to prove the second query involves rewriting g(x) to facilitate series multiplication without needing explicit B_k values. The conversation highlights the complexities of series manipulation and the importance of establishing the validity of the Taylor series representation.
Shoelace Thm.
Messages
59
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let g(x) = \frac{x}{e^x - 1} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{B_n}{n!} x^n be the taylor series for g about 0. Show B_0 = 1 and \sum_{k=0}^{n} \binom{n+1}{k} B_k = 0.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


g(x) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{g^{(n)}(0)}{n!} x^n, but g^{(n)}(0) is always undefined at 0. So I don't see how any of these relations can hold.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Does anyone have any suggestions?
 
l'Hôpital? :wink:
 
Shoelace Thm. said:

Homework Statement


Let g(x) = \frac{x}{e^x - 1} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{B_n}{n!} x^n be the taylor series for g about 0. Show B_0 = 1 and \sum_{k=0}^{n} \binom{n+1}{k} B_k = 0.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


g(x) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{g^{(n)}(0)}{n!} x^n, but g^{(n)}(0) is always undefined at 0. So I don't see how any of these relations can hold.
You can get the first part pretty easily by long division of x by ex - 1 (= x + x2/2! + x3/3! + ... + xn/n! + ...).
 
That's true, but that's not very rigorous as it stands. What allows you to obtain series by dividing a polynomial by another series? Furthermore, how can you prove that the nth coefficient of the series obtained in this fashion is B_n for all n? This seems difficult to accomplish.
 
Shoelace Thm. said:
That's true, but that's not very rigorous as it stands.
Sure it is.
Shoelace Thm. said:
What allows you to obtain series by dividing a polynomial by another series?
There's not just one way to obtain a series. For example, the Maclaurin series for 1/(1 - x) is frequently obtained by long division.
Shoelace Thm. said:
Furthermore, how can you prove that the nth coefficient of the series obtained in this fashion is B_n for all n?
The coefficient of the nth term is Bn, pretty much by definition. What you need to prove is that $$\sum_{k=0}^{n} \binom{n+1}{k} B_k = 0 $$
Shoelace Thm. said:
This seems difficult to accomplish.
Well, maybe, but what I've suggested is what I would try.
 
Shoelace Thm. said:
That's true, but that's not very rigorous as it stands. What allows you to obtain series by dividing a polynomial by another series? Furthermore, how can you prove that the nth coefficient of the series obtained in this fashion is B_n for all n? This seems difficult to accomplish.
Do you know about absolute convergence and its implication for the multiplication and division of series?
 
Do you know about absolute convergence and its implication for the multiplication and division of series?

Yes, but here it is not a series being divided by a polynomial, but the other way around. I have not really encountered this before, so I suppose the complete answer to your question is no.

The coefficient of the nth term is Bn, pretty much by definition. What you need to prove is that \sum_{k=0}^{n} \binom{n+1}{k} B_k = 0

I really don't see a good way of doing this. What we are obtaining through this division is some series for which a general term for B_n is not known (and I don't think there is some simple formula, after writing out the first few terms).
 
You can think of a polynomial as a series where all but a finite number of terms vanish.
 
  • #10
Ok; do you have any suggestions for proving the second query?
 
  • #11
Start with
$$\frac{x}{e^x-1} = \frac{1}{\frac{e^x-1}{x}}.$$ Then convert the problem into one of multiplying two series. It works out pretty easily. You don't need to solve for the ##B_k##'s explicitly.
 
  • #12
Alright its simple enough. On a side note (although it is not necessary because it is given in the problem statement), if we were not given that g was given by its taylor series in a neighborhood of zero, how to prove that it is? The series manipulations require us knowing g is given by its Taylor series.
 
  • #13
Any thoughts?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K