The Student Room Group
No there is no need to explicitly use it in the proof.

*the proof that the derivitive of the complex series;

anxn \displaystyle \sum a_nx^n is nanxn1 \displaystyle \displaystyle \sum na_nx^{n-1} when x is within the radius of convergence of the original series [both the derivitive and series will have same radius of convergence).
Reply 2
DeanK22
No there is no need to explicitly use it in the proof.

*the proof that the derivitive of the complex series;

anxn \displaystyle \sum a_nx^n is nanxn1 \displaystyle \displaystyle \sum na_nx^{n-1} when x is within the radius of convergence of the original series [both the derivitive and series will have same radius of convergence).

Well actually I'm trying to prove product rule in unconventional circumstances (I'm working with operators in quantum mechanics). So if term by term differentiation in the first power series never ends then I'll never get to differentiating the second power series so the product rule fails which is very bad for me :wink:
Well it clearly exists - if you except that you can add infinitely many terms of the series you are essentially doing infinitely many operations here so I don't see how you can question that you get in trouble when performing the operation of finding the derivative of infinitely many terms of the series.

Latest