Sequences of bounded smooth functions versus numerical sequences of their supremum norms












3












$begingroup$


Let $(f_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of smooth functions $f_n:mathbb{R}rightarrowmathbb{R}$ which are bounded together with all their derivatives $f^{(j)}_n$, $j,ninmathbb{N}$, and $(|f_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ the corresponding numerical sequence of their supremum norms: $$|f_n|_infty=sup{|f_n(t)| | tinmathbb{R}} ,quad ninmathbb{N} .$$




Question: Can we choose the $f_n$'s so that:





  1. $(|f_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has rapid decay: $(n^k|f_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $kinmathbb{N}$; and

  2. For each $jinmathbb{N}$ we have that $(|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ does not have rapid decay but instead only polynomial growth: $(n^{-k}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for some $kinmathbb{N}$?




Property 2. means that for all (positive) $jinmathbb{N}$ there are (positive) $k_+,k_-inmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k_-}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded but $(n^{k_+}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is not. By replacing $k_+,k_-$ with $max{k_+,k_-}$, one can rephrase Property 2. as follows: for all (positive) $jinmathbb{N}$ there is a (positive) $kinmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded but $(n^{k}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is not.



I am particularly interested in specific examples, but abstract (non-)existence arguments are also fine.



Edit: in view of the negative answer I have found below, the following weaker situation should prove more interesting:




Follow-up question: Can we choose the $f_n$'s so that:





  1. $(|f_n(t)|)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has rapid decay for each $tinmathbb{R}$ (i.e. we only require bounds on $(n^k|f_n(t)|)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ for each $kinmathbb{N}$ which are pointwise in $t$, and no longer uniform as before);

  2. For each $jinmathbb{N}cup{0}$ we have that $(|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has polynomial growth: $(n^{-k}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for some $kinmathbb{N}$; and

  3. For some $jinmathbb{N}cup{0}$ we have that $(|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ does not have rapid decay: $(n^k|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is unbounded for some $kinmathbb{N}$?




The answer to the follow-up question would be negative if it were somehow possible to use 2) to upgrade the pointwise bounds in 1) to uniform bounds, for if so we are be back to the original question.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    For 1), can't you just take $f_n equiv 0$ for each $n$
    $endgroup$
    – mathworker21
    Dec 19 '18 at 23:23












  • $begingroup$
    It's not difficult to come up with examples satisfying either 1) or 2). A non-zero example of 1) would be e.g. the sequence of constant functions $f_n(t)equiv 2^{-n}$, whereas an example of 2) (which must be non-zero) would be e.g. the sequence of Gaussians $f_n(t)=exp(-nt^2)$. The first example (as well as yours) violates 2), whereas the second example violates 1). The challenge is to get both 1) and 2) - it may be the case that both requirements cannot even be met simultaneously, I don't know (and would love to)...
    $endgroup$
    – Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
    Dec 20 '18 at 2:42










  • $begingroup$
    Another example of 1), which actually violates 2) in the opposite direction as the previous ones, would be $f_n(t)=2^{-n}sin(2^n t)$, whose derivatives have supremum norms which grow exponentially with $n$ from the second derivative onwards.
    $endgroup$
    – Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
    Dec 20 '18 at 2:49












  • $begingroup$
    Locally, the answer to the follow-up question is positive, as suggested in math.stackexchange.com/a/478056/52543 - take e.g. $f_n(t)=n^2 t^n(1−t)$, $tin[0,1]$. Since $f_n(0)=f_n(1)=0$ for all $n$ and $lim_{nrightarrowinfty}n^ k f_n(t)=0$ for all $tin(0,1)$, $kinmathbb{N}$, 1) holds. 2) is obvious, and the maximum of $f_n(t)$ in $[0,1]$ takes place at the only positive zero $t_n=frac{n}{n+1}$ of $f'_n(t)=n^3 t^{n−1}(1−frac{n+1}{n}t)$, with $f_n(t_n)=frac{n^2}{n+1}(1−frac{1}{n+1})^n$. Asymptotically we have $f_n(t_n)sim n/e$ for large $n$ and therefore 3) holds for $j=0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
    Dec 20 '18 at 20:25


















3












$begingroup$


Let $(f_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of smooth functions $f_n:mathbb{R}rightarrowmathbb{R}$ which are bounded together with all their derivatives $f^{(j)}_n$, $j,ninmathbb{N}$, and $(|f_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ the corresponding numerical sequence of their supremum norms: $$|f_n|_infty=sup{|f_n(t)| | tinmathbb{R}} ,quad ninmathbb{N} .$$




Question: Can we choose the $f_n$'s so that:





  1. $(|f_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has rapid decay: $(n^k|f_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $kinmathbb{N}$; and

  2. For each $jinmathbb{N}$ we have that $(|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ does not have rapid decay but instead only polynomial growth: $(n^{-k}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for some $kinmathbb{N}$?




Property 2. means that for all (positive) $jinmathbb{N}$ there are (positive) $k_+,k_-inmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k_-}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded but $(n^{k_+}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is not. By replacing $k_+,k_-$ with $max{k_+,k_-}$, one can rephrase Property 2. as follows: for all (positive) $jinmathbb{N}$ there is a (positive) $kinmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded but $(n^{k}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is not.



I am particularly interested in specific examples, but abstract (non-)existence arguments are also fine.



Edit: in view of the negative answer I have found below, the following weaker situation should prove more interesting:




Follow-up question: Can we choose the $f_n$'s so that:





  1. $(|f_n(t)|)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has rapid decay for each $tinmathbb{R}$ (i.e. we only require bounds on $(n^k|f_n(t)|)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ for each $kinmathbb{N}$ which are pointwise in $t$, and no longer uniform as before);

  2. For each $jinmathbb{N}cup{0}$ we have that $(|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has polynomial growth: $(n^{-k}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for some $kinmathbb{N}$; and

  3. For some $jinmathbb{N}cup{0}$ we have that $(|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ does not have rapid decay: $(n^k|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is unbounded for some $kinmathbb{N}$?




The answer to the follow-up question would be negative if it were somehow possible to use 2) to upgrade the pointwise bounds in 1) to uniform bounds, for if so we are be back to the original question.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    For 1), can't you just take $f_n equiv 0$ for each $n$
    $endgroup$
    – mathworker21
    Dec 19 '18 at 23:23












  • $begingroup$
    It's not difficult to come up with examples satisfying either 1) or 2). A non-zero example of 1) would be e.g. the sequence of constant functions $f_n(t)equiv 2^{-n}$, whereas an example of 2) (which must be non-zero) would be e.g. the sequence of Gaussians $f_n(t)=exp(-nt^2)$. The first example (as well as yours) violates 2), whereas the second example violates 1). The challenge is to get both 1) and 2) - it may be the case that both requirements cannot even be met simultaneously, I don't know (and would love to)...
    $endgroup$
    – Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
    Dec 20 '18 at 2:42










  • $begingroup$
    Another example of 1), which actually violates 2) in the opposite direction as the previous ones, would be $f_n(t)=2^{-n}sin(2^n t)$, whose derivatives have supremum norms which grow exponentially with $n$ from the second derivative onwards.
    $endgroup$
    – Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
    Dec 20 '18 at 2:49












  • $begingroup$
    Locally, the answer to the follow-up question is positive, as suggested in math.stackexchange.com/a/478056/52543 - take e.g. $f_n(t)=n^2 t^n(1−t)$, $tin[0,1]$. Since $f_n(0)=f_n(1)=0$ for all $n$ and $lim_{nrightarrowinfty}n^ k f_n(t)=0$ for all $tin(0,1)$, $kinmathbb{N}$, 1) holds. 2) is obvious, and the maximum of $f_n(t)$ in $[0,1]$ takes place at the only positive zero $t_n=frac{n}{n+1}$ of $f'_n(t)=n^3 t^{n−1}(1−frac{n+1}{n}t)$, with $f_n(t_n)=frac{n^2}{n+1}(1−frac{1}{n+1})^n$. Asymptotically we have $f_n(t_n)sim n/e$ for large $n$ and therefore 3) holds for $j=0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
    Dec 20 '18 at 20:25
















3












3








3





$begingroup$


Let $(f_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of smooth functions $f_n:mathbb{R}rightarrowmathbb{R}$ which are bounded together with all their derivatives $f^{(j)}_n$, $j,ninmathbb{N}$, and $(|f_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ the corresponding numerical sequence of their supremum norms: $$|f_n|_infty=sup{|f_n(t)| | tinmathbb{R}} ,quad ninmathbb{N} .$$




Question: Can we choose the $f_n$'s so that:





  1. $(|f_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has rapid decay: $(n^k|f_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $kinmathbb{N}$; and

  2. For each $jinmathbb{N}$ we have that $(|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ does not have rapid decay but instead only polynomial growth: $(n^{-k}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for some $kinmathbb{N}$?




Property 2. means that for all (positive) $jinmathbb{N}$ there are (positive) $k_+,k_-inmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k_-}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded but $(n^{k_+}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is not. By replacing $k_+,k_-$ with $max{k_+,k_-}$, one can rephrase Property 2. as follows: for all (positive) $jinmathbb{N}$ there is a (positive) $kinmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded but $(n^{k}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is not.



I am particularly interested in specific examples, but abstract (non-)existence arguments are also fine.



Edit: in view of the negative answer I have found below, the following weaker situation should prove more interesting:




Follow-up question: Can we choose the $f_n$'s so that:





  1. $(|f_n(t)|)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has rapid decay for each $tinmathbb{R}$ (i.e. we only require bounds on $(n^k|f_n(t)|)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ for each $kinmathbb{N}$ which are pointwise in $t$, and no longer uniform as before);

  2. For each $jinmathbb{N}cup{0}$ we have that $(|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has polynomial growth: $(n^{-k}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for some $kinmathbb{N}$; and

  3. For some $jinmathbb{N}cup{0}$ we have that $(|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ does not have rapid decay: $(n^k|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is unbounded for some $kinmathbb{N}$?




The answer to the follow-up question would be negative if it were somehow possible to use 2) to upgrade the pointwise bounds in 1) to uniform bounds, for if so we are be back to the original question.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Let $(f_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of smooth functions $f_n:mathbb{R}rightarrowmathbb{R}$ which are bounded together with all their derivatives $f^{(j)}_n$, $j,ninmathbb{N}$, and $(|f_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ the corresponding numerical sequence of their supremum norms: $$|f_n|_infty=sup{|f_n(t)| | tinmathbb{R}} ,quad ninmathbb{N} .$$




Question: Can we choose the $f_n$'s so that:





  1. $(|f_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has rapid decay: $(n^k|f_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $kinmathbb{N}$; and

  2. For each $jinmathbb{N}$ we have that $(|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ does not have rapid decay but instead only polynomial growth: $(n^{-k}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for some $kinmathbb{N}$?




Property 2. means that for all (positive) $jinmathbb{N}$ there are (positive) $k_+,k_-inmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k_-}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded but $(n^{k_+}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is not. By replacing $k_+,k_-$ with $max{k_+,k_-}$, one can rephrase Property 2. as follows: for all (positive) $jinmathbb{N}$ there is a (positive) $kinmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded but $(n^{k}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is not.



I am particularly interested in specific examples, but abstract (non-)existence arguments are also fine.



Edit: in view of the negative answer I have found below, the following weaker situation should prove more interesting:




Follow-up question: Can we choose the $f_n$'s so that:





  1. $(|f_n(t)|)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has rapid decay for each $tinmathbb{R}$ (i.e. we only require bounds on $(n^k|f_n(t)|)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ for each $kinmathbb{N}$ which are pointwise in $t$, and no longer uniform as before);

  2. For each $jinmathbb{N}cup{0}$ we have that $(|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has polynomial growth: $(n^{-k}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for some $kinmathbb{N}$; and

  3. For some $jinmathbb{N}cup{0}$ we have that $(|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ does not have rapid decay: $(n^k|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is unbounded for some $kinmathbb{N}$?




The answer to the follow-up question would be negative if it were somehow possible to use 2) to upgrade the pointwise bounds in 1) to uniform bounds, for if so we are be back to the original question.







real-analysis sequences-and-series smooth-functions






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 20 '18 at 18:30







Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro

















asked Dec 13 '18 at 20:52









Pedro Lauridsen RibeiroPedro Lauridsen Ribeiro

526316




526316












  • $begingroup$
    For 1), can't you just take $f_n equiv 0$ for each $n$
    $endgroup$
    – mathworker21
    Dec 19 '18 at 23:23












  • $begingroup$
    It's not difficult to come up with examples satisfying either 1) or 2). A non-zero example of 1) would be e.g. the sequence of constant functions $f_n(t)equiv 2^{-n}$, whereas an example of 2) (which must be non-zero) would be e.g. the sequence of Gaussians $f_n(t)=exp(-nt^2)$. The first example (as well as yours) violates 2), whereas the second example violates 1). The challenge is to get both 1) and 2) - it may be the case that both requirements cannot even be met simultaneously, I don't know (and would love to)...
    $endgroup$
    – Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
    Dec 20 '18 at 2:42










  • $begingroup$
    Another example of 1), which actually violates 2) in the opposite direction as the previous ones, would be $f_n(t)=2^{-n}sin(2^n t)$, whose derivatives have supremum norms which grow exponentially with $n$ from the second derivative onwards.
    $endgroup$
    – Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
    Dec 20 '18 at 2:49












  • $begingroup$
    Locally, the answer to the follow-up question is positive, as suggested in math.stackexchange.com/a/478056/52543 - take e.g. $f_n(t)=n^2 t^n(1−t)$, $tin[0,1]$. Since $f_n(0)=f_n(1)=0$ for all $n$ and $lim_{nrightarrowinfty}n^ k f_n(t)=0$ for all $tin(0,1)$, $kinmathbb{N}$, 1) holds. 2) is obvious, and the maximum of $f_n(t)$ in $[0,1]$ takes place at the only positive zero $t_n=frac{n}{n+1}$ of $f'_n(t)=n^3 t^{n−1}(1−frac{n+1}{n}t)$, with $f_n(t_n)=frac{n^2}{n+1}(1−frac{1}{n+1})^n$. Asymptotically we have $f_n(t_n)sim n/e$ for large $n$ and therefore 3) holds for $j=0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
    Dec 20 '18 at 20:25




















  • $begingroup$
    For 1), can't you just take $f_n equiv 0$ for each $n$
    $endgroup$
    – mathworker21
    Dec 19 '18 at 23:23












  • $begingroup$
    It's not difficult to come up with examples satisfying either 1) or 2). A non-zero example of 1) would be e.g. the sequence of constant functions $f_n(t)equiv 2^{-n}$, whereas an example of 2) (which must be non-zero) would be e.g. the sequence of Gaussians $f_n(t)=exp(-nt^2)$. The first example (as well as yours) violates 2), whereas the second example violates 1). The challenge is to get both 1) and 2) - it may be the case that both requirements cannot even be met simultaneously, I don't know (and would love to)...
    $endgroup$
    – Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
    Dec 20 '18 at 2:42










  • $begingroup$
    Another example of 1), which actually violates 2) in the opposite direction as the previous ones, would be $f_n(t)=2^{-n}sin(2^n t)$, whose derivatives have supremum norms which grow exponentially with $n$ from the second derivative onwards.
    $endgroup$
    – Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
    Dec 20 '18 at 2:49












  • $begingroup$
    Locally, the answer to the follow-up question is positive, as suggested in math.stackexchange.com/a/478056/52543 - take e.g. $f_n(t)=n^2 t^n(1−t)$, $tin[0,1]$. Since $f_n(0)=f_n(1)=0$ for all $n$ and $lim_{nrightarrowinfty}n^ k f_n(t)=0$ for all $tin(0,1)$, $kinmathbb{N}$, 1) holds. 2) is obvious, and the maximum of $f_n(t)$ in $[0,1]$ takes place at the only positive zero $t_n=frac{n}{n+1}$ of $f'_n(t)=n^3 t^{n−1}(1−frac{n+1}{n}t)$, with $f_n(t_n)=frac{n^2}{n+1}(1−frac{1}{n+1})^n$. Asymptotically we have $f_n(t_n)sim n/e$ for large $n$ and therefore 3) holds for $j=0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
    Dec 20 '18 at 20:25


















$begingroup$
For 1), can't you just take $f_n equiv 0$ for each $n$
$endgroup$
– mathworker21
Dec 19 '18 at 23:23






$begingroup$
For 1), can't you just take $f_n equiv 0$ for each $n$
$endgroup$
– mathworker21
Dec 19 '18 at 23:23














$begingroup$
It's not difficult to come up with examples satisfying either 1) or 2). A non-zero example of 1) would be e.g. the sequence of constant functions $f_n(t)equiv 2^{-n}$, whereas an example of 2) (which must be non-zero) would be e.g. the sequence of Gaussians $f_n(t)=exp(-nt^2)$. The first example (as well as yours) violates 2), whereas the second example violates 1). The challenge is to get both 1) and 2) - it may be the case that both requirements cannot even be met simultaneously, I don't know (and would love to)...
$endgroup$
– Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
Dec 20 '18 at 2:42




$begingroup$
It's not difficult to come up with examples satisfying either 1) or 2). A non-zero example of 1) would be e.g. the sequence of constant functions $f_n(t)equiv 2^{-n}$, whereas an example of 2) (which must be non-zero) would be e.g. the sequence of Gaussians $f_n(t)=exp(-nt^2)$. The first example (as well as yours) violates 2), whereas the second example violates 1). The challenge is to get both 1) and 2) - it may be the case that both requirements cannot even be met simultaneously, I don't know (and would love to)...
$endgroup$
– Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
Dec 20 '18 at 2:42












$begingroup$
Another example of 1), which actually violates 2) in the opposite direction as the previous ones, would be $f_n(t)=2^{-n}sin(2^n t)$, whose derivatives have supremum norms which grow exponentially with $n$ from the second derivative onwards.
$endgroup$
– Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
Dec 20 '18 at 2:49






$begingroup$
Another example of 1), which actually violates 2) in the opposite direction as the previous ones, would be $f_n(t)=2^{-n}sin(2^n t)$, whose derivatives have supremum norms which grow exponentially with $n$ from the second derivative onwards.
$endgroup$
– Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
Dec 20 '18 at 2:49














$begingroup$
Locally, the answer to the follow-up question is positive, as suggested in math.stackexchange.com/a/478056/52543 - take e.g. $f_n(t)=n^2 t^n(1−t)$, $tin[0,1]$. Since $f_n(0)=f_n(1)=0$ for all $n$ and $lim_{nrightarrowinfty}n^ k f_n(t)=0$ for all $tin(0,1)$, $kinmathbb{N}$, 1) holds. 2) is obvious, and the maximum of $f_n(t)$ in $[0,1]$ takes place at the only positive zero $t_n=frac{n}{n+1}$ of $f'_n(t)=n^3 t^{n−1}(1−frac{n+1}{n}t)$, with $f_n(t_n)=frac{n^2}{n+1}(1−frac{1}{n+1})^n$. Asymptotically we have $f_n(t_n)sim n/e$ for large $n$ and therefore 3) holds for $j=0$.
$endgroup$
– Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
Dec 20 '18 at 20:25






$begingroup$
Locally, the answer to the follow-up question is positive, as suggested in math.stackexchange.com/a/478056/52543 - take e.g. $f_n(t)=n^2 t^n(1−t)$, $tin[0,1]$. Since $f_n(0)=f_n(1)=0$ for all $n$ and $lim_{nrightarrowinfty}n^ k f_n(t)=0$ for all $tin(0,1)$, $kinmathbb{N}$, 1) holds. 2) is obvious, and the maximum of $f_n(t)$ in $[0,1]$ takes place at the only positive zero $t_n=frac{n}{n+1}$ of $f'_n(t)=n^3 t^{n−1}(1−frac{n+1}{n}t)$, with $f_n(t_n)=frac{n^2}{n+1}(1−frac{1}{n+1})^n$. Asymptotically we have $f_n(t_n)sim n/e$ for large $n$ and therefore 3) holds for $j=0$.
$endgroup$
– Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
Dec 20 '18 at 20:25












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

It turns out there is no such sequence, due to the following special case of the Gagliardo-Nirenberg interpolation inequality: given any smooth function $f$ on $mathbb{R}$ which is bounded together with all its derivatives, then for all $j,minmathbb{N}$ with $j<m$ there is a constant $C=C_{j,m}>0$ such that $$|f^{(j)}|_inftyleq C|f^{(m)}|^{frac{j}{m}}_infty|f|^{1-frac{j}{m}}_infty .$$ This bound also has a local version: given any $finmathscr{C}^infty(I)$, $I=[a,b]$ with $a<binmathbb{R}$ and $j,m$ as above, there are constants $C_1=C_{1,j,k}>0$, $C_2=C_{2,j,k}>0$ such that $$|f^{(j)}|_{infty,I}leq C_1|f^{(m)}|^{frac{j}{m}}_{infty,I}|f|^{1-frac{j}{m}}_{infty,I}+C_2|f|_{infty,I} ,$$ where $|f|_{infty,I}=sup{|f(t)| | tin I}$.



Suppose we are given $(f_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ such that $(|f_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has rapid decay and $(|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has polynomial growth, that is:





  • $(n^k|f|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $kinmathbb{N}$;

  • For all $jinmathbb{N}$ there is a $kinmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded.


The first condition is just 1), whereas the second condition is weaker than 2) in that we do not forbid $(|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ to have rapid decay. We will show now that the latter in fact must happen under these two conditions. Given $j<minmathbb{N}$ and $k'inmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k'}|f^{(m)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded, it follows from the first GN inequality that for all $n,kinmathbb{N}$ we have $$n^k|f^{(j)}_n|_inftyleq C (n^{-k'}|f^{(m)}_n|_infty)^{frac{j}{m}}(n^{frac{mk+jk'}{m-j}}|f_n|_infty)^{1-frac{j}{m}}$$
and therefore $(n^k|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $kinmathbb{N}$. Since $j<minmathbb{N}$ were arbitrary, we conclude that
$(n^k|f^{(j)}|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $j,kinmathbb{N}$, as asserted.



It is clear that a local version of this result must also hold: if $(f_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is a sequence of smooth functions on $I=[a,b]$, $a<binmathbb{R}$ such that $(|f_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has rapid decay and $(|f^{(j)}_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has polynomial growth, that is:





  • $(n^k|f|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $kinmathbb{N}$;

  • For all $jinmathbb{N}$ there is a $kinmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k}|f^{(j)}_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded,


then $(|f^{(j)}_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ must also have rapid decay for all $jinmathbb{N}$, for given $j<minmathbb{N}$ and $k'inmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k'}|f^{(m)}_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded, it follows from the second GN inequality that for all $n,kinmathbb{N}$ we have $$n^k|f^{(j)}_n|_{infty,I}leq C_1 (n^{-k'}|f^{(m)}_n|_{infty,I})^{frac{j}{m}}(n^{frac{mk+jk'}{m-j}}|f_n|_{infty,I})^{1-frac{j}{m}}+C_2 n^k|f_n|_{infty,I}$$ and therefore $(n^k|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $j,kinmathbb{N}$, as before.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3038557%2fsequences-of-bounded-smooth-functions-versus-numerical-sequences-of-their-suprem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    0












    $begingroup$

    It turns out there is no such sequence, due to the following special case of the Gagliardo-Nirenberg interpolation inequality: given any smooth function $f$ on $mathbb{R}$ which is bounded together with all its derivatives, then for all $j,minmathbb{N}$ with $j<m$ there is a constant $C=C_{j,m}>0$ such that $$|f^{(j)}|_inftyleq C|f^{(m)}|^{frac{j}{m}}_infty|f|^{1-frac{j}{m}}_infty .$$ This bound also has a local version: given any $finmathscr{C}^infty(I)$, $I=[a,b]$ with $a<binmathbb{R}$ and $j,m$ as above, there are constants $C_1=C_{1,j,k}>0$, $C_2=C_{2,j,k}>0$ such that $$|f^{(j)}|_{infty,I}leq C_1|f^{(m)}|^{frac{j}{m}}_{infty,I}|f|^{1-frac{j}{m}}_{infty,I}+C_2|f|_{infty,I} ,$$ where $|f|_{infty,I}=sup{|f(t)| | tin I}$.



    Suppose we are given $(f_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ such that $(|f_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has rapid decay and $(|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has polynomial growth, that is:





    • $(n^k|f|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $kinmathbb{N}$;

    • For all $jinmathbb{N}$ there is a $kinmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded.


    The first condition is just 1), whereas the second condition is weaker than 2) in that we do not forbid $(|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ to have rapid decay. We will show now that the latter in fact must happen under these two conditions. Given $j<minmathbb{N}$ and $k'inmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k'}|f^{(m)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded, it follows from the first GN inequality that for all $n,kinmathbb{N}$ we have $$n^k|f^{(j)}_n|_inftyleq C (n^{-k'}|f^{(m)}_n|_infty)^{frac{j}{m}}(n^{frac{mk+jk'}{m-j}}|f_n|_infty)^{1-frac{j}{m}}$$
    and therefore $(n^k|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $kinmathbb{N}$. Since $j<minmathbb{N}$ were arbitrary, we conclude that
    $(n^k|f^{(j)}|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $j,kinmathbb{N}$, as asserted.



    It is clear that a local version of this result must also hold: if $(f_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is a sequence of smooth functions on $I=[a,b]$, $a<binmathbb{R}$ such that $(|f_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has rapid decay and $(|f^{(j)}_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has polynomial growth, that is:





    • $(n^k|f|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $kinmathbb{N}$;

    • For all $jinmathbb{N}$ there is a $kinmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k}|f^{(j)}_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded,


    then $(|f^{(j)}_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ must also have rapid decay for all $jinmathbb{N}$, for given $j<minmathbb{N}$ and $k'inmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k'}|f^{(m)}_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded, it follows from the second GN inequality that for all $n,kinmathbb{N}$ we have $$n^k|f^{(j)}_n|_{infty,I}leq C_1 (n^{-k'}|f^{(m)}_n|_{infty,I})^{frac{j}{m}}(n^{frac{mk+jk'}{m-j}}|f_n|_{infty,I})^{1-frac{j}{m}}+C_2 n^k|f_n|_{infty,I}$$ and therefore $(n^k|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $j,kinmathbb{N}$, as before.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      It turns out there is no such sequence, due to the following special case of the Gagliardo-Nirenberg interpolation inequality: given any smooth function $f$ on $mathbb{R}$ which is bounded together with all its derivatives, then for all $j,minmathbb{N}$ with $j<m$ there is a constant $C=C_{j,m}>0$ such that $$|f^{(j)}|_inftyleq C|f^{(m)}|^{frac{j}{m}}_infty|f|^{1-frac{j}{m}}_infty .$$ This bound also has a local version: given any $finmathscr{C}^infty(I)$, $I=[a,b]$ with $a<binmathbb{R}$ and $j,m$ as above, there are constants $C_1=C_{1,j,k}>0$, $C_2=C_{2,j,k}>0$ such that $$|f^{(j)}|_{infty,I}leq C_1|f^{(m)}|^{frac{j}{m}}_{infty,I}|f|^{1-frac{j}{m}}_{infty,I}+C_2|f|_{infty,I} ,$$ where $|f|_{infty,I}=sup{|f(t)| | tin I}$.



      Suppose we are given $(f_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ such that $(|f_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has rapid decay and $(|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has polynomial growth, that is:





      • $(n^k|f|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $kinmathbb{N}$;

      • For all $jinmathbb{N}$ there is a $kinmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded.


      The first condition is just 1), whereas the second condition is weaker than 2) in that we do not forbid $(|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ to have rapid decay. We will show now that the latter in fact must happen under these two conditions. Given $j<minmathbb{N}$ and $k'inmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k'}|f^{(m)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded, it follows from the first GN inequality that for all $n,kinmathbb{N}$ we have $$n^k|f^{(j)}_n|_inftyleq C (n^{-k'}|f^{(m)}_n|_infty)^{frac{j}{m}}(n^{frac{mk+jk'}{m-j}}|f_n|_infty)^{1-frac{j}{m}}$$
      and therefore $(n^k|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $kinmathbb{N}$. Since $j<minmathbb{N}$ were arbitrary, we conclude that
      $(n^k|f^{(j)}|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $j,kinmathbb{N}$, as asserted.



      It is clear that a local version of this result must also hold: if $(f_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is a sequence of smooth functions on $I=[a,b]$, $a<binmathbb{R}$ such that $(|f_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has rapid decay and $(|f^{(j)}_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has polynomial growth, that is:





      • $(n^k|f|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $kinmathbb{N}$;

      • For all $jinmathbb{N}$ there is a $kinmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k}|f^{(j)}_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded,


      then $(|f^{(j)}_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ must also have rapid decay for all $jinmathbb{N}$, for given $j<minmathbb{N}$ and $k'inmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k'}|f^{(m)}_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded, it follows from the second GN inequality that for all $n,kinmathbb{N}$ we have $$n^k|f^{(j)}_n|_{infty,I}leq C_1 (n^{-k'}|f^{(m)}_n|_{infty,I})^{frac{j}{m}}(n^{frac{mk+jk'}{m-j}}|f_n|_{infty,I})^{1-frac{j}{m}}+C_2 n^k|f_n|_{infty,I}$$ and therefore $(n^k|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $j,kinmathbb{N}$, as before.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        It turns out there is no such sequence, due to the following special case of the Gagliardo-Nirenberg interpolation inequality: given any smooth function $f$ on $mathbb{R}$ which is bounded together with all its derivatives, then for all $j,minmathbb{N}$ with $j<m$ there is a constant $C=C_{j,m}>0$ such that $$|f^{(j)}|_inftyleq C|f^{(m)}|^{frac{j}{m}}_infty|f|^{1-frac{j}{m}}_infty .$$ This bound also has a local version: given any $finmathscr{C}^infty(I)$, $I=[a,b]$ with $a<binmathbb{R}$ and $j,m$ as above, there are constants $C_1=C_{1,j,k}>0$, $C_2=C_{2,j,k}>0$ such that $$|f^{(j)}|_{infty,I}leq C_1|f^{(m)}|^{frac{j}{m}}_{infty,I}|f|^{1-frac{j}{m}}_{infty,I}+C_2|f|_{infty,I} ,$$ where $|f|_{infty,I}=sup{|f(t)| | tin I}$.



        Suppose we are given $(f_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ such that $(|f_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has rapid decay and $(|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has polynomial growth, that is:





        • $(n^k|f|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $kinmathbb{N}$;

        • For all $jinmathbb{N}$ there is a $kinmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded.


        The first condition is just 1), whereas the second condition is weaker than 2) in that we do not forbid $(|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ to have rapid decay. We will show now that the latter in fact must happen under these two conditions. Given $j<minmathbb{N}$ and $k'inmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k'}|f^{(m)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded, it follows from the first GN inequality that for all $n,kinmathbb{N}$ we have $$n^k|f^{(j)}_n|_inftyleq C (n^{-k'}|f^{(m)}_n|_infty)^{frac{j}{m}}(n^{frac{mk+jk'}{m-j}}|f_n|_infty)^{1-frac{j}{m}}$$
        and therefore $(n^k|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $kinmathbb{N}$. Since $j<minmathbb{N}$ were arbitrary, we conclude that
        $(n^k|f^{(j)}|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $j,kinmathbb{N}$, as asserted.



        It is clear that a local version of this result must also hold: if $(f_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is a sequence of smooth functions on $I=[a,b]$, $a<binmathbb{R}$ such that $(|f_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has rapid decay and $(|f^{(j)}_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has polynomial growth, that is:





        • $(n^k|f|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $kinmathbb{N}$;

        • For all $jinmathbb{N}$ there is a $kinmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k}|f^{(j)}_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded,


        then $(|f^{(j)}_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ must also have rapid decay for all $jinmathbb{N}$, for given $j<minmathbb{N}$ and $k'inmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k'}|f^{(m)}_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded, it follows from the second GN inequality that for all $n,kinmathbb{N}$ we have $$n^k|f^{(j)}_n|_{infty,I}leq C_1 (n^{-k'}|f^{(m)}_n|_{infty,I})^{frac{j}{m}}(n^{frac{mk+jk'}{m-j}}|f_n|_{infty,I})^{1-frac{j}{m}}+C_2 n^k|f_n|_{infty,I}$$ and therefore $(n^k|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $j,kinmathbb{N}$, as before.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        It turns out there is no such sequence, due to the following special case of the Gagliardo-Nirenberg interpolation inequality: given any smooth function $f$ on $mathbb{R}$ which is bounded together with all its derivatives, then for all $j,minmathbb{N}$ with $j<m$ there is a constant $C=C_{j,m}>0$ such that $$|f^{(j)}|_inftyleq C|f^{(m)}|^{frac{j}{m}}_infty|f|^{1-frac{j}{m}}_infty .$$ This bound also has a local version: given any $finmathscr{C}^infty(I)$, $I=[a,b]$ with $a<binmathbb{R}$ and $j,m$ as above, there are constants $C_1=C_{1,j,k}>0$, $C_2=C_{2,j,k}>0$ such that $$|f^{(j)}|_{infty,I}leq C_1|f^{(m)}|^{frac{j}{m}}_{infty,I}|f|^{1-frac{j}{m}}_{infty,I}+C_2|f|_{infty,I} ,$$ where $|f|_{infty,I}=sup{|f(t)| | tin I}$.



        Suppose we are given $(f_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ such that $(|f_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has rapid decay and $(|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has polynomial growth, that is:





        • $(n^k|f|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $kinmathbb{N}$;

        • For all $jinmathbb{N}$ there is a $kinmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k}|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded.


        The first condition is just 1), whereas the second condition is weaker than 2) in that we do not forbid $(|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ to have rapid decay. We will show now that the latter in fact must happen under these two conditions. Given $j<minmathbb{N}$ and $k'inmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k'}|f^{(m)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded, it follows from the first GN inequality that for all $n,kinmathbb{N}$ we have $$n^k|f^{(j)}_n|_inftyleq C (n^{-k'}|f^{(m)}_n|_infty)^{frac{j}{m}}(n^{frac{mk+jk'}{m-j}}|f_n|_infty)^{1-frac{j}{m}}$$
        and therefore $(n^k|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $kinmathbb{N}$. Since $j<minmathbb{N}$ were arbitrary, we conclude that
        $(n^k|f^{(j)}|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $j,kinmathbb{N}$, as asserted.



        It is clear that a local version of this result must also hold: if $(f_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is a sequence of smooth functions on $I=[a,b]$, $a<binmathbb{R}$ such that $(|f_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has rapid decay and $(|f^{(j)}_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ has polynomial growth, that is:





        • $(n^k|f|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $kinmathbb{N}$;

        • For all $jinmathbb{N}$ there is a $kinmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k}|f^{(j)}_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded,


        then $(|f^{(j)}_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ must also have rapid decay for all $jinmathbb{N}$, for given $j<minmathbb{N}$ and $k'inmathbb{N}$ such that $(n^{-k'}|f^{(m)}_n|_{infty,I})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded, it follows from the second GN inequality that for all $n,kinmathbb{N}$ we have $$n^k|f^{(j)}_n|_{infty,I}leq C_1 (n^{-k'}|f^{(m)}_n|_{infty,I})^{frac{j}{m}}(n^{frac{mk+jk'}{m-j}}|f_n|_{infty,I})^{1-frac{j}{m}}+C_2 n^k|f_n|_{infty,I}$$ and therefore $(n^k|f^{(j)}_n|_infty)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is bounded for all $j,kinmathbb{N}$, as before.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Dec 20 '18 at 17:46

























        answered Dec 20 '18 at 16:20









        Pedro Lauridsen RibeiroPedro Lauridsen Ribeiro

        526316




        526316






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3038557%2fsequences-of-bounded-smooth-functions-versus-numerical-sequences-of-their-suprem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Aardman Animations

            Are they similar matrix

            “minimization” problem in Euclidean space related to orthonormal basis