Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
Thank you Jeff, that's very interesting. So one could conjecture that $\sum_{n=1}^\infty n \frac{a_n}{(1+a_n)^2} =\infty$ is a necessary and sufficient condition for the sequence $f_n$ as you defined to span $L^2[0,\infty)$. The that $a_n$ is constant is the most famous one, with the Laguerre functions used to solve the Hydrogen atom. So you gave a very nice proof of the completeness of the Lagueree functions.
@Will: It is not claimed that these function themselves are solutions of a differential equation, but rather that they were used in a variational approximation scheme to approximate eigenvalues of a Schroedinger operator with some potential. I think you are right that the sought-for eigenfunctions were to vanish at the origin, but as far as the question of density in $L^2[0,\infty)$ is concerned, the condition of vanishing at the origin has no meaning since $L^2$ function are only defined almost-everywhere.
Thank you. The connection with complex analysis is very interesting, and I am indeed interested in a general approach to such problems, not only in the specific question.
The above argument would seem to imply, for example, that the sequence $x,x^2,x^3,...$ does not span $L^2[0,1]$ (since all these functions vanish at $0$) - but in fact it does, by simple arguments. The problem is, as pointed out by Philipp, the implication from $L^2$ to pointwise convergence.
Thanks coudy. I tried implementing your suggestion (on MAPLE). The distance from $e^{-x}$ to $F_n$ do seem to decrease very slowly with $n$: for $n=10$ it is $0.209$, for $n=40$ it is $0.201$ (I can't do much higher $n$ because the determinant computation takes a long time). So this at least suggests that $e^{-x}$ is not in the span.
@Andrey: In conversation with a physicist, I was told that someone had used such a sequence for numerically approximating eigenfunctions of a radial Schroedinger operator, and obtained bad results. The explanation offered was that it does not form a basis. I therefore wonder how to show this (if its true).