How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Operations preserving coefficient majorisation
Statement
For scalar formal series in finitely many variables, and imply , , and . If and every has zero constant coefficient, then . The same statements hold componentwise for finite vectors wherever the operations are defined. For convergent series these formal operations represent the corresponding analytic operations on sufficiently small polydiscs. If a convergent series has , its reciprocal is also analytic near zero.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Finite-variable formal series , , and, for composition, with zero constant coefficients. Analytic-operation claims additionally assume the displayed series converge; the reciprocal claim assumes .
Majorisation compares absolute ordinary coefficients. (Coefficientwise majorisation).
Geometrically bounded power series differentiate termwise on smaller polydiscs. (An absolutely convergent multi-indexed power series is holomorphic and differentiates termwise).
The real geometric series sums to for . (For , , and for the series diverges).
Proof
Write , , , . For every , and . Each convolution is finite, including degree zero, proving the sum and product claims.
The coefficient of in is ; its modulus is at most , the coefficient in . Thus differentiation preserves the relation.
In degree at most , a product can contribute only when , since every factor has order at least one. There are finitely many such and finitely many decompositions of any fixed multi-index. Repeated application of step 1.1 bounds each coefficient of by the corresponding coefficient of . Adding these finitely many bounds proves the composition claim.
For convergent inner series choose a positive smaller polyradius for which the sums are strictly below the outer convergence radii. Such an exists because as all coordinates of decrease to zero. The absolute sum of the expanded substitution is bounded by . Absolute rearrangement therefore identifies the formal substitution with the actual function composition; the same argument applies to products. On still smaller polydiscs F2 identifies the formal derivatives with derivatives of the sums.
Write with and . Shrink until . F3 bounds the absolute sum of by with . The finite geometric identity gives ; the last term tends uniformly to zero on this polydisc. Hence the convergent series is exactly . This proves the reciprocal and all asserted analytic-operation claims.
Source notes
Gantumur, §1 Exercise 3, printed p. 2; §3 equations (25), (28)–(30), pp. 7–8. The convolution and substitution arguments below provide the formal details.
Depends on
Used by
- Hadamard instability despite analytic solvability Counterexample
- Analytic transport data Example
- Analytic ODE systems from majorants Lemma
- Formal recursion for solved analytic normal equations Lemma
- Geometric majorants for analytic germs Lemma
- Positive majorants dominate the Cauchy recursion Lemma
- Subtracting analytic Cauchy jets Lemma
Dependency tree · two levels
35 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Gantumur, Math 580 Lecture Notes 2: The Cauchy-Kovalevskaya Theorem (standard reference, not scraped)