15
$\begingroup$

Let $k$ be a field. What is an explicit power series $f \in k[[t]]$ that is transcendental over $k[t]$?

I am looking for elementary example (so there should be a proof of transcendence that does not use any big machinery).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Do you want an example over any particular field or over all fields? $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Apr 14 '10 at 3:07
  • $\begingroup$ I was hoping for a list of examples that covered all fields (so it'd be nice if you could add a positive characteristic example). $\endgroup$ – jlk Apr 14 '10 at 3:34
25
$\begingroup$

If $k$ has characteristic zero, then $\displaystyle e^t = \sum_{n \ge 0} \frac{t^n}{n!}$ is certainly transcendental over $k[t]$; the proof is essentially by repeated formal differentiation of any purported algebraic relation satisfied by $e^t$.

Edit: Let me fill in a few details. Given a polynomial $P$ in $e^t$ of degree $d$ where each coefficient is a polynomial in $k[t]$ of degree at most $m$, the possible terms that appear in any formal derivative of $P$ lie in a vector space of dimension $(m+1)(d+1)$, so by taking at least $(m+1)(d+1)$ formal derivatives we obtain too many linear relationships between the terms $t^k e^{nt}$. The coefficient of $e^{dt}$ in particular eventually dominates all other coefficients.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think see your argument. If you write down some more details, then I'd be happy to accept your answer. $\endgroup$ – jlk Apr 14 '10 at 3:25
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ jlk: You should accept this answer as it stands. It is not hard to fill in the argument. $\endgroup$ – Kevin H. Lin Apr 14 '10 at 5:05
  • $\begingroup$ Only just saw this today. Love it -- so simple and obvious and lovely. $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Sep 2 '12 at 4:35
32
$\begingroup$

Eisenstein proved (actually, stated) in 1852 that if $f=\sum a_n z^n$ is an algebraic power series with rational coefficients, there exist positive integers $A$ and $B$ such that $A a_n B^n$ are integers for all $n$. In particular, as Eisenstein himself remarks, only finitely many prime numbers appear in the denominators of the coefficients of $f$. For example, $e^z$, $\log(1+z)$, etc., are transcendental.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Bienvenue à MO, Antoine. $\endgroup$ – Pete L. Clark Apr 15 '10 at 5:20
  • $\begingroup$ Can not help saying it is so beautiful $\endgroup$ – XL _At_Here_There May 1 '13 at 8:01
  • $\begingroup$ Can you give a reference for that statement? $\endgroup$ – Paracosmiste Sep 12 '15 at 16:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The original reference is Eisenstein's letter “Über eine allgemeine Eigenschaft der Reihen-Entwicklungen aller algebraischen Functionen”, to be found on p. 765—767 of his Mathematische gesammelte Werke, volume 2 (Chelsea). Other, more modern, references exist. There is for example a proof in Hindry, Silverman's Diophantine Geometry (§E.9). $\endgroup$ – ACL Sep 13 '15 at 19:29
26
$\begingroup$

How about $\sum t^{n!}$? Doesn't a "sea-of-zeroes" argument show it can't be algebraic?

$\endgroup$
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ +1: For the colorful terminology. $\endgroup$ – François G. Dorais Apr 14 '10 at 3:24
  • 14
    $\begingroup$ Well, that is classically called a lacunary series (from lacus, lake)... I guess classical authors regarded factorial-sized holes as less-than-sea-wide :) $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Apr 14 '10 at 3:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @jlk, more details: let $x$ be the series, let $n$ be a positive integer (the degree of the poynomial hypothetically satisfied by $x$), and consider $1, x, x^2, \dots, x^n$. For $r$ sufficiently large, the coefficient of $t^{r!n}$ will be one in $x^n$ but zero in the smaller powers of $x$. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Apr 14 '10 at 4:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Mariano, some seas (e.g., the Sea of Marmara) are smaller than some lakes. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Apr 14 '10 at 6:03
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ German "See" = English "lake" anyway $\endgroup$ – Gerald Edgar Apr 14 '10 at 12:57
7
$\begingroup$

Coming back to the lacunary series, I would prefer the series $f(z)=\sum_{k\ge0}z^{d^k}$, where $d>1$ is an integer, because it is the classical example in Mahler's method; this function satisfies the functional equation $f(z^d)=f(z)-z$. I simply copy Ku.Nishioka's argument from her book "Mahler functions and transcendence" (Theorem 1.1.2). Assume that $f(z)$ is algebraic over $\mathbb C(z)$, hence satisfies an \emph{irreducible} equation $f(z)^n+a_{n-1}(z)f(z)^{n-1}+\dots+a_0(z)=0$ where the coefficients $a_j(z)\in\mathbb C(z)$. Substituting $z^d$ for $z$ and using $f(z^d)=f(z)-z$ we obtain $f(z)^n+(-nz+a_{n-1}(z^d))f(z)^{n-1}+\dots=0$. The left-hand sides of both polynomial relations for $f(z)$ must coincide because of the irreducibility. This in particular implies that $a_{n-1}(z)=-nz+a_{n-1}(z^d)$. Letting $a_{n-1}(z)=a(z)/b(z)$ where $a$ and $b$ are two coprime polynomials we see that $a(z)b(z^d)=-nzb(z)b(z^d)+a(z^d)b(z)$. Since $a(z^d)$ and $b(z^d)$ are coprime, $b(z^d)$ must divide $b(z)$. This is possible if only $\deg b(z)=0$, that is, $b(z)=b$ is a nonzero constant. Then $a(z)=-bnz+a(z^d)$ and comparing the degrees of both sides we see that $a(z)$ is constant as well, hence $nz=0$, a contradiction.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ IMHO, the factorial series gives a much simpler proof. All you need there is that $nN!$ can be represented as a sum of not more than $n$ factorials in just one way and the next $D$ numbers have no such representation at all if $N>n+D$, say. So the coefficient at the highest power just appears explicitly in the Taylor series of $\sum_{k=0}^n p_kf^k$ $\endgroup$ – fedja Apr 16 '10 at 14:58
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The factorial series is even simpler if you just refer to the fact that its value at $1/2$ is transcendental due to Liouville's 1844 theorem. Note that Liouville's theorem does not cover $\sum_{k\ge0}z^{d^k}$, so Mahler's example is a bit harder and gives some hints about the powerful method in transcendence number theory. It's a matter of personal taste to choose between "Liouville" and "Mahler". $\endgroup$ – Wadim Zudilin Apr 16 '10 at 23:11
  • $\begingroup$ Do you use anywhere in this argument that the base field is C? $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan May 9 '10 at 3:58
  • $\begingroup$ If a function $f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_nz^n$ with all $a_n\in\mathbb Q$ is algebraic, then it is not hard to show that an algebraic relation can be given over $\mathbb Q(z)$ rather than $\mathbb C$. Therefore the above proof also shows that the formal power series in question is transcendental not only over $\mathbb C(z)$ but over any $k(z)$ where the field $k$ containts $\mathbb Q$. $\endgroup$ – Wadim Zudilin May 9 '10 at 7:57
6
$\begingroup$
  1. For characteristic 0, http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2221
  2. For characteristic p, http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3709
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ah! I noticed only now that you also want elementary proofs. Well, I don't think the papers cited above use big machinery, but that's subjective of course. $\endgroup$ – maks Apr 14 '10 at 4:34
-3
$\begingroup$

over the rationals every power serie with integer coefficents not periodic is tracendent, over Fp a power serie is algebraic iff the secuence of coeficient is p automatic there is a article od jp allouch tracendence of formal series with it information.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ For a best example you can see that if $y(t)=\sum a_it^i$ and $f(t,y)=0$ with $f$ a polinomial in two variables you can see the set of $x$ such that $y(x)=1$ is the set of $t$ with $f(t,1)=0$ that is finite, so every y(x) with this set infinite isn´t algebraic particularly $y(t)=e^t$ $\endgroup$ – camilo Sep 1 '12 at 21:37
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Certainly $\frac1{(1-t)^2}=\sum_i(i+1)t^i$ is not transcendental over $\mathbf Q[t]$, is it?? (And you can type dollars to get math; the converse unfortunately doesn't work;-) $\endgroup$ – Marc van Leeuwen Sep 1 '12 at 21:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ this serie is trivially periodic, and dont have integer coeficent . $\endgroup$ – camilo Sep 1 '12 at 21:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your claims are dramatically wrong, or else you are using many conventional words with seriously unconventional meanings. $\endgroup$ – Vladimir Dotsenko Sep 1 '12 at 23:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @camilo: the series of Marc is not periodic and has integer coefficients. How can you claim not integer coefficients?! Are you not understanding the notation? Maybe you think his $i$ stands for the square root of minus 1, and totally misunderstood?? $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Sep 2 '12 at 4:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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