MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is there any necessary and sufficient condition for function $f$ such that:

$f(x)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} f_k(x)$ for all $x \in \mathbb{R}$,where $(f_n )_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is a sequence of periodic function on $\mathbb{R}$ ??

(note that $f_n$ may not be integrable or measurable)

Besides,it is known that $ \lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} \sum_{k=1}^{n}$$f_k(x)=0$ implies $\sum_{k=1}^{n}$$f_k(x)=0$.

I wonder if it is also true that $\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}$$f_k(x)=0$ implies $\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}$$f_k(x)=0$.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Every function can be written as the pointwise sum of a sequence of periodic functions.

Given $f$. Let $f_1 = f$ on $(-2,2]$ and extend as a function of period 4. And follow the following recursive definition:

Let $ f_{k+1}(x) = f(x) - \sum_{n= 1}^k f_k(x)$ for $x\in (-2^{k+1},2^{k+1}]$ and extend as a function of period $2^{k+2}$.

Observe that if $|x| < 2^{k}$, by definition $f_j(x) = 0$ for all $j > k$. Hence the series converges for all $x$ pointwise.

Note that the above construction also gives a counterexample to your final question: just start with any $f$ not identically zero with compact support.

Of course, the construction given does not converge uniformly (quite far from it, usually). And the answer will likely be different if you impose an additional requirement that the periods of the various functions $f_k$ remain bounded.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.