2

I have an infinite summation I'm working with, but there's no 'nice' closed form for the coefficients of this sum without introducing some functionals.

But, I'm not sure if the way I've done so is necessarily correct.

The coefficients in the sum look as follows: $\frac{1}{m!} \ln^m(D_w + 1)[e^{e^w}] \rvert_{w = \ln(D_z)} [f(z)]\rvert_{z=a}$.

where $D_w, D_z$ are the derivative operators denoting $\frac{d}{dw}$, $\frac{d}{dz}$ respectively.

This makes me uneasy because I am applying the nth power of the log of the derivative operator to the function $e^{e^w}$, only to then substitute the value of $w$ for the log of another derivative operator $D_z$, and then applying that to the function $f(z)$.

Really what I'm trying to express is the following:

$\frac{\ln^m(D_w + 1)}{m!}[e^{e^w}] \rvert_{w = \ln(D_z)} [f(z)]\rvert_{z=a} = \sum_{n=m}^{\infty} s(n, m) \frac{D^n_w}{n!} [e^{e^w}] \rvert_{w = \ln(D_z)} [f(z)]\rvert_{z=a} $

$= \sum_{n=m}^{\infty} \frac{s(n, m)}{n!} e^{e^{w}} T_n(e^w) \rvert_{w = \ln(D_z)} [f(z)]\rvert_{z=a} = \sum_{n=m}^{\infty} \frac{s(n, m)}{n!} e^{D_z} T_n(D_z) [f(z)]\rvert_{z=a} $

$= \sum_{n=m}^{\infty} \frac{s(n, m)}{n!} e^{D_z} T_n(D_z) \rvert_{w = \ln(D_z)} [f(z)]\rvert_{z=a}$

$ = \sum_{n=m}^{\infty} \frac{s(n, m)}{n!} e^{D_z} \sum_{k=0}^{n} \left\{ {n \atop k} \right\} D_z^k [f(z)]\rvert_{z=a} =\sum_{n=m}^{\infty} \frac{s(n, m)}{n!} \sum_{k=0}^{n} \left\{ {n \atop k} \right\} f^{(k)}(a+1) $.

Here $s(n,m), \left\{ {n \atop k} \right\}, T_n(x), $ is the stirling number of the first kind, second kind, and touchard polynomial respectively.

I unfortunately wasn't able to find anything tractable about this sort of notation online. And so hope it's fine to post this question here. But if there are any resources someone could point me to, that would be great.

BBadman
  • 197
  • 1
  • 7
  • 5
    "Is it legal..." I'm afraid we can't give legal advice on SE... ;) – David Raveh Mar 23 '24 at 00:22
  • 1
    Haha. Well I can say for sure, for me personally, it certainly feels illegal when doing these sorts of things without a good understanding of why it works/ doesn't work. – BBadman Mar 23 '24 at 00:31
  • Pretty sure there’re no laws in the book on this topic, but then again I’m not a lawyer… (In all seriousness though, I don’t see any problem with this. $\ln^m(D_w + 1)[e^{e^w}]$ is a function in $w$. You can certainly apply it to the operator $\ln(D_z)$.) – David Gao Mar 23 '24 at 00:57
  • Though I guess a problem here might be that $\ln(D_z)$ is not completely well-defined since $D_z$ has a kernel. – David Gao Mar 23 '24 at 01:17
  • You can get displayed equations by enclosing them in double instead of single dollar signs. This is particularly relevant for legibility if you mix fractions and exponents. – joriki Mar 23 '24 at 06:02

0 Answers0