0
$\begingroup$

In the context of the theory of 1-summability and resurgence, it is customary to deal with formal series "at infinity" rather than at $0$ $$ \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_nz^{-n} $$ This is stated for example at the beginning of section 3 on https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.0356.pdf. Why is this? is there really any preference over using $t=1/z$? $$ \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_nt^{n} $$

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

The tradition probably goes back to classical results on Laplace transform: Lalace transform of a function $f$ on the positive ray is $$Lf(\zeta)=\int_0^\infty f(z)e^{-\zeta z}dz.$$ If $f$ is of exponential type on the positive ray, this is holomorphic in $\Re\zeta>a$. Now if $f$ is entire, of exponential type, you can analytically continue this Laplace transform by rotating the integration path. This defines the Laplace transform in a full neighborhood of $\infty$, and it extends holomorphically to infinity and equals to $0$ these, that is $$F(\zeta)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_nz^{-n}.$$ There is a one-to one correspondence between entire functions $f$ of exponential type, and Functions $F$ analytic at $\infty$, such that $F(\infty)=0$. (Polya's theorem). Modern summation theory is a generalization of this in some sense, and it considers divergent series $F$. They prefer to keep notation consistent with the classical theory.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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