Sums of entire surjective functions












4












$begingroup$


Suppose $(f_n)_n$ is a countable family of entire, surjective functions, each $f_n:mathbb{C}tomathbb{C}$. Can one always find complex scalars $(a_n)_n$, not all zero, such that $sum_{n=1}^{infty} a_n f_n$ is entire but not-surjective? In fact, I am interested in this question under the additional assumption that $(f_n)_n$ are not polynomials.






ca.classical-analysis-and-odes cv.complex-variables







share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




user137377 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I'm not sure I understand the question. Are there some extra assumptions on the $f_n$ or on the $a_n$ ? For instance, assume that $f_1=-f_2$, then $a_1=a_2=1$, $a_n=0$, $ngeq 3$, will yield $sum a_nf_n=0$...
    $endgroup$
    – M. Dus
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @M.Dus: I suppose OP asks whether one can always find such scalaras. I also guess that the sum is supposed to be entire, not surjective and non-constant.
    $endgroup$
    – Mateusz Kwaśnicki
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Mateusz Kwasnicki: this does not help. Suppose they are all polynomials. If the linear combination is not constant is must be surjective.
    $endgroup$
    – Alexandre Eremenko
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Maybe $(f_n)$ denotes an infinite sequence of functions?
    $endgroup$
    – Nik Weaver
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @AlexandreEremenko I made some edits, I hope it is more clear now. Indeed, the question is if this is true for any such family.
    $endgroup$
    – user137377
    2 days ago
















4












$begingroup$


Suppose $(f_n)_n$ is a countable family of entire, surjective functions, each $f_n:mathbb{C}tomathbb{C}$. Can one always find complex scalars $(a_n)_n$, not all zero, such that $sum_{n=1}^{infty} a_n f_n$ is entire but not-surjective? In fact, I am interested in this question under the additional assumption that $(f_n)_n$ are not polynomials.






ca.classical-analysis-and-odes cv.complex-variables







share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




user137377 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I'm not sure I understand the question. Are there some extra assumptions on the $f_n$ or on the $a_n$ ? For instance, assume that $f_1=-f_2$, then $a_1=a_2=1$, $a_n=0$, $ngeq 3$, will yield $sum a_nf_n=0$...
    $endgroup$
    – M. Dus
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @M.Dus: I suppose OP asks whether one can always find such scalaras. I also guess that the sum is supposed to be entire, not surjective and non-constant.
    $endgroup$
    – Mateusz Kwaśnicki
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Mateusz Kwasnicki: this does not help. Suppose they are all polynomials. If the linear combination is not constant is must be surjective.
    $endgroup$
    – Alexandre Eremenko
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Maybe $(f_n)$ denotes an infinite sequence of functions?
    $endgroup$
    – Nik Weaver
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @AlexandreEremenko I made some edits, I hope it is more clear now. Indeed, the question is if this is true for any such family.
    $endgroup$
    – user137377
    2 days ago














4












4








4





$begingroup$


Suppose $(f_n)_n$ is a countable family of entire, surjective functions, each $f_n:mathbb{C}tomathbb{C}$. Can one always find complex scalars $(a_n)_n$, not all zero, such that $sum_{n=1}^{infty} a_n f_n$ is entire but not-surjective? In fact, I am interested in this question under the additional assumption that $(f_n)_n$ are not polynomials.






ca.classical-analysis-and-odes cv.complex-variables







share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




user137377 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




Suppose $(f_n)_n$ is a countable family of entire, surjective functions, each $f_n:mathbb{C}tomathbb{C}$. Can one always find complex scalars $(a_n)_n$, not all zero, such that $sum_{n=1}^{infty} a_n f_n$ is entire but not-surjective? In fact, I am interested in this question under the additional assumption that $(f_n)_n$ are not polynomials.






ca.classical-analysis-and-odes cv.complex-variables




ca.classical-analysis-and-odes cv.complex-variables






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




user137377 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




user137377 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 days ago







user137377













New contributor




user137377 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 2 days ago









user137377user137377

263




263




New contributor




user137377 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





user137377 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






user137377 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • $begingroup$
    I'm not sure I understand the question. Are there some extra assumptions on the $f_n$ or on the $a_n$ ? For instance, assume that $f_1=-f_2$, then $a_1=a_2=1$, $a_n=0$, $ngeq 3$, will yield $sum a_nf_n=0$...
    $endgroup$
    – M. Dus
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @M.Dus: I suppose OP asks whether one can always find such scalaras. I also guess that the sum is supposed to be entire, not surjective and non-constant.
    $endgroup$
    – Mateusz Kwaśnicki
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Mateusz Kwasnicki: this does not help. Suppose they are all polynomials. If the linear combination is not constant is must be surjective.
    $endgroup$
    – Alexandre Eremenko
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Maybe $(f_n)$ denotes an infinite sequence of functions?
    $endgroup$
    – Nik Weaver
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @AlexandreEremenko I made some edits, I hope it is more clear now. Indeed, the question is if this is true for any such family.
    $endgroup$
    – user137377
    2 days ago


















  • $begingroup$
    I'm not sure I understand the question. Are there some extra assumptions on the $f_n$ or on the $a_n$ ? For instance, assume that $f_1=-f_2$, then $a_1=a_2=1$, $a_n=0$, $ngeq 3$, will yield $sum a_nf_n=0$...
    $endgroup$
    – M. Dus
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @M.Dus: I suppose OP asks whether one can always find such scalaras. I also guess that the sum is supposed to be entire, not surjective and non-constant.
    $endgroup$
    – Mateusz Kwaśnicki
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Mateusz Kwasnicki: this does not help. Suppose they are all polynomials. If the linear combination is not constant is must be surjective.
    $endgroup$
    – Alexandre Eremenko
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Maybe $(f_n)$ denotes an infinite sequence of functions?
    $endgroup$
    – Nik Weaver
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @AlexandreEremenko I made some edits, I hope it is more clear now. Indeed, the question is if this is true for any such family.
    $endgroup$
    – user137377
    2 days ago
















$begingroup$
I'm not sure I understand the question. Are there some extra assumptions on the $f_n$ or on the $a_n$ ? For instance, assume that $f_1=-f_2$, then $a_1=a_2=1$, $a_n=0$, $ngeq 3$, will yield $sum a_nf_n=0$...
$endgroup$
– M. Dus
2 days ago




$begingroup$
I'm not sure I understand the question. Are there some extra assumptions on the $f_n$ or on the $a_n$ ? For instance, assume that $f_1=-f_2$, then $a_1=a_2=1$, $a_n=0$, $ngeq 3$, will yield $sum a_nf_n=0$...
$endgroup$
– M. Dus
2 days ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@M.Dus: I suppose OP asks whether one can always find such scalaras. I also guess that the sum is supposed to be entire, not surjective and non-constant.
$endgroup$
– Mateusz Kwaśnicki
2 days ago




$begingroup$
@M.Dus: I suppose OP asks whether one can always find such scalaras. I also guess that the sum is supposed to be entire, not surjective and non-constant.
$endgroup$
– Mateusz Kwaśnicki
2 days ago












$begingroup$
@Mateusz Kwasnicki: this does not help. Suppose they are all polynomials. If the linear combination is not constant is must be surjective.
$endgroup$
– Alexandre Eremenko
2 days ago




$begingroup$
@Mateusz Kwasnicki: this does not help. Suppose they are all polynomials. If the linear combination is not constant is must be surjective.
$endgroup$
– Alexandre Eremenko
2 days ago




1




1




$begingroup$
Maybe $(f_n)$ denotes an infinite sequence of functions?
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
2 days ago




$begingroup$
Maybe $(f_n)$ denotes an infinite sequence of functions?
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
2 days ago












$begingroup$
@AlexandreEremenko I made some edits, I hope it is more clear now. Indeed, the question is if this is true for any such family.
$endgroup$
– user137377
2 days ago




$begingroup$
@AlexandreEremenko I made some edits, I hope it is more clear now. Indeed, the question is if this is true for any such family.
$endgroup$
– user137377
2 days ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

One expects there to be no such $a_n$ in general, because the
"typical" entire functions is surjective (those that aren't are of the
special form $z mapsto c + exp g(z)$). An explicit example is
$f_n(z) = cos z/n$: any convergent linear combination $f = sum_n a_n f_n$
is of order $1$, so if $f$ is not surjective then $g$ is a polynomial
of degree at most $1$; but $f$ is even, so must be constant,
from which it soon follows that $a_n=0$ for every $n$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    3












    $begingroup$

    The answer is no. If something does not hold for polynomials, don't expect that it will hold for entire functions:-)



    For example, all non-constant functions of order less than $1/2$ are surjective.
    This follows from an old theorem of Wiman that for such function $f$ there exists
    a sequence $r_ktoinfty$ such that $min_{|z|=r_k}|f(z)|toinfty$ as $kto infty.$
    And of course linear combinations of functions of order less than $1/2$ are of order less
    than $1/2$.



    Edit. To construct a counterexample with infinite sums, one can use lacunary series. Let $Lambda$ be a sequence of integers $n_k$ which grows sufficiently fast,
    for example, such that $n_k/ktoinfty$,
    and consider the class of entire functions of the form
    $$f(z)=sum_{ninLambda}c_nz^n.$$
    It is known that all such functions are surjective. And of course any linear combination of such functions, finite or infinite, belongs to the class.



    Reference: L. Sons, An analogue of a theorem of W.H.J. Fuchs on gap series,
    Proc. LMS, 1970, 21 525-539.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Didn't the OP ask about infinite sums? The exponential function is the sum of its power series, and it is not surjective, so if $f_n(z) = z^n$, the answer is yes.
      $endgroup$
      – Mateusz Kwaśnicki
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Do we really need a theorem of Wiman (or anyone else) to verify your claim that non-constant functions $f$ of order $<1$ are surjective? Doesn't this just follow from the Hadamard factorization, which implies that if $f-c$ doesn't have a zero, then $f-cequiv d$.
      $endgroup$
      – Christian Remling
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @Christian Remling: Hadamard factorization is fine of course. On my opinion, Wiman's theorem is somewhat simpler, but this is a question of opinion.
      $endgroup$
      – Alexandre Eremenko
      yesterday











    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "504"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    user137377 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f326094%2fsums-of-entire-surjective-functions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    4












    $begingroup$

    One expects there to be no such $a_n$ in general, because the
    "typical" entire functions is surjective (those that aren't are of the
    special form $z mapsto c + exp g(z)$). An explicit example is
    $f_n(z) = cos z/n$: any convergent linear combination $f = sum_n a_n f_n$
    is of order $1$, so if $f$ is not surjective then $g$ is a polynomial
    of degree at most $1$; but $f$ is even, so must be constant,
    from which it soon follows that $a_n=0$ for every $n$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      4












      $begingroup$

      One expects there to be no such $a_n$ in general, because the
      "typical" entire functions is surjective (those that aren't are of the
      special form $z mapsto c + exp g(z)$). An explicit example is
      $f_n(z) = cos z/n$: any convergent linear combination $f = sum_n a_n f_n$
      is of order $1$, so if $f$ is not surjective then $g$ is a polynomial
      of degree at most $1$; but $f$ is even, so must be constant,
      from which it soon follows that $a_n=0$ for every $n$.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        4












        4








        4





        $begingroup$

        One expects there to be no such $a_n$ in general, because the
        "typical" entire functions is surjective (those that aren't are of the
        special form $z mapsto c + exp g(z)$). An explicit example is
        $f_n(z) = cos z/n$: any convergent linear combination $f = sum_n a_n f_n$
        is of order $1$, so if $f$ is not surjective then $g$ is a polynomial
        of degree at most $1$; but $f$ is even, so must be constant,
        from which it soon follows that $a_n=0$ for every $n$.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        One expects there to be no such $a_n$ in general, because the
        "typical" entire functions is surjective (those that aren't are of the
        special form $z mapsto c + exp g(z)$). An explicit example is
        $f_n(z) = cos z/n$: any convergent linear combination $f = sum_n a_n f_n$
        is of order $1$, so if $f$ is not surjective then $g$ is a polynomial
        of degree at most $1$; but $f$ is even, so must be constant,
        from which it soon follows that $a_n=0$ for every $n$.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 2 days ago









        Noam D. ElkiesNoam D. Elkies

        56.4k11199282




        56.4k11199282























            3












            $begingroup$

            The answer is no. If something does not hold for polynomials, don't expect that it will hold for entire functions:-)



            For example, all non-constant functions of order less than $1/2$ are surjective.
            This follows from an old theorem of Wiman that for such function $f$ there exists
            a sequence $r_ktoinfty$ such that $min_{|z|=r_k}|f(z)|toinfty$ as $kto infty.$
            And of course linear combinations of functions of order less than $1/2$ are of order less
            than $1/2$.



            Edit. To construct a counterexample with infinite sums, one can use lacunary series. Let $Lambda$ be a sequence of integers $n_k$ which grows sufficiently fast,
            for example, such that $n_k/ktoinfty$,
            and consider the class of entire functions of the form
            $$f(z)=sum_{ninLambda}c_nz^n.$$
            It is known that all such functions are surjective. And of course any linear combination of such functions, finite or infinite, belongs to the class.



            Reference: L. Sons, An analogue of a theorem of W.H.J. Fuchs on gap series,
            Proc. LMS, 1970, 21 525-539.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Didn't the OP ask about infinite sums? The exponential function is the sum of its power series, and it is not surjective, so if $f_n(z) = z^n$, the answer is yes.
              $endgroup$
              – Mateusz Kwaśnicki
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Do we really need a theorem of Wiman (or anyone else) to verify your claim that non-constant functions $f$ of order $<1$ are surjective? Doesn't this just follow from the Hadamard factorization, which implies that if $f-c$ doesn't have a zero, then $f-cequiv d$.
              $endgroup$
              – Christian Remling
              yesterday










            • $begingroup$
              @Christian Remling: Hadamard factorization is fine of course. On my opinion, Wiman's theorem is somewhat simpler, but this is a question of opinion.
              $endgroup$
              – Alexandre Eremenko
              yesterday
















            3












            $begingroup$

            The answer is no. If something does not hold for polynomials, don't expect that it will hold for entire functions:-)



            For example, all non-constant functions of order less than $1/2$ are surjective.
            This follows from an old theorem of Wiman that for such function $f$ there exists
            a sequence $r_ktoinfty$ such that $min_{|z|=r_k}|f(z)|toinfty$ as $kto infty.$
            And of course linear combinations of functions of order less than $1/2$ are of order less
            than $1/2$.



            Edit. To construct a counterexample with infinite sums, one can use lacunary series. Let $Lambda$ be a sequence of integers $n_k$ which grows sufficiently fast,
            for example, such that $n_k/ktoinfty$,
            and consider the class of entire functions of the form
            $$f(z)=sum_{ninLambda}c_nz^n.$$
            It is known that all such functions are surjective. And of course any linear combination of such functions, finite or infinite, belongs to the class.



            Reference: L. Sons, An analogue of a theorem of W.H.J. Fuchs on gap series,
            Proc. LMS, 1970, 21 525-539.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Didn't the OP ask about infinite sums? The exponential function is the sum of its power series, and it is not surjective, so if $f_n(z) = z^n$, the answer is yes.
              $endgroup$
              – Mateusz Kwaśnicki
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Do we really need a theorem of Wiman (or anyone else) to verify your claim that non-constant functions $f$ of order $<1$ are surjective? Doesn't this just follow from the Hadamard factorization, which implies that if $f-c$ doesn't have a zero, then $f-cequiv d$.
              $endgroup$
              – Christian Remling
              yesterday










            • $begingroup$
              @Christian Remling: Hadamard factorization is fine of course. On my opinion, Wiman's theorem is somewhat simpler, but this is a question of opinion.
              $endgroup$
              – Alexandre Eremenko
              yesterday














            3












            3








            3





            $begingroup$

            The answer is no. If something does not hold for polynomials, don't expect that it will hold for entire functions:-)



            For example, all non-constant functions of order less than $1/2$ are surjective.
            This follows from an old theorem of Wiman that for such function $f$ there exists
            a sequence $r_ktoinfty$ such that $min_{|z|=r_k}|f(z)|toinfty$ as $kto infty.$
            And of course linear combinations of functions of order less than $1/2$ are of order less
            than $1/2$.



            Edit. To construct a counterexample with infinite sums, one can use lacunary series. Let $Lambda$ be a sequence of integers $n_k$ which grows sufficiently fast,
            for example, such that $n_k/ktoinfty$,
            and consider the class of entire functions of the form
            $$f(z)=sum_{ninLambda}c_nz^n.$$
            It is known that all such functions are surjective. And of course any linear combination of such functions, finite or infinite, belongs to the class.



            Reference: L. Sons, An analogue of a theorem of W.H.J. Fuchs on gap series,
            Proc. LMS, 1970, 21 525-539.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            The answer is no. If something does not hold for polynomials, don't expect that it will hold for entire functions:-)



            For example, all non-constant functions of order less than $1/2$ are surjective.
            This follows from an old theorem of Wiman that for such function $f$ there exists
            a sequence $r_ktoinfty$ such that $min_{|z|=r_k}|f(z)|toinfty$ as $kto infty.$
            And of course linear combinations of functions of order less than $1/2$ are of order less
            than $1/2$.



            Edit. To construct a counterexample with infinite sums, one can use lacunary series. Let $Lambda$ be a sequence of integers $n_k$ which grows sufficiently fast,
            for example, such that $n_k/ktoinfty$,
            and consider the class of entire functions of the form
            $$f(z)=sum_{ninLambda}c_nz^n.$$
            It is known that all such functions are surjective. And of course any linear combination of such functions, finite or infinite, belongs to the class.



            Reference: L. Sons, An analogue of a theorem of W.H.J. Fuchs on gap series,
            Proc. LMS, 1970, 21 525-539.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited yesterday

























            answered yesterday









            Alexandre EremenkoAlexandre Eremenko

            50.7k6140258




            50.7k6140258








            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Didn't the OP ask about infinite sums? The exponential function is the sum of its power series, and it is not surjective, so if $f_n(z) = z^n$, the answer is yes.
              $endgroup$
              – Mateusz Kwaśnicki
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Do we really need a theorem of Wiman (or anyone else) to verify your claim that non-constant functions $f$ of order $<1$ are surjective? Doesn't this just follow from the Hadamard factorization, which implies that if $f-c$ doesn't have a zero, then $f-cequiv d$.
              $endgroup$
              – Christian Remling
              yesterday










            • $begingroup$
              @Christian Remling: Hadamard factorization is fine of course. On my opinion, Wiman's theorem is somewhat simpler, but this is a question of opinion.
              $endgroup$
              – Alexandre Eremenko
              yesterday














            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Didn't the OP ask about infinite sums? The exponential function is the sum of its power series, and it is not surjective, so if $f_n(z) = z^n$, the answer is yes.
              $endgroup$
              – Mateusz Kwaśnicki
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Do we really need a theorem of Wiman (or anyone else) to verify your claim that non-constant functions $f$ of order $<1$ are surjective? Doesn't this just follow from the Hadamard factorization, which implies that if $f-c$ doesn't have a zero, then $f-cequiv d$.
              $endgroup$
              – Christian Remling
              yesterday










            • $begingroup$
              @Christian Remling: Hadamard factorization is fine of course. On my opinion, Wiman's theorem is somewhat simpler, but this is a question of opinion.
              $endgroup$
              – Alexandre Eremenko
              yesterday








            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            Didn't the OP ask about infinite sums? The exponential function is the sum of its power series, and it is not surjective, so if $f_n(z) = z^n$, the answer is yes.
            $endgroup$
            – Mateusz Kwaśnicki
            yesterday




            $begingroup$
            Didn't the OP ask about infinite sums? The exponential function is the sum of its power series, and it is not surjective, so if $f_n(z) = z^n$, the answer is yes.
            $endgroup$
            – Mateusz Kwaśnicki
            yesterday




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            Do we really need a theorem of Wiman (or anyone else) to verify your claim that non-constant functions $f$ of order $<1$ are surjective? Doesn't this just follow from the Hadamard factorization, which implies that if $f-c$ doesn't have a zero, then $f-cequiv d$.
            $endgroup$
            – Christian Remling
            yesterday




            $begingroup$
            Do we really need a theorem of Wiman (or anyone else) to verify your claim that non-constant functions $f$ of order $<1$ are surjective? Doesn't this just follow from the Hadamard factorization, which implies that if $f-c$ doesn't have a zero, then $f-cequiv d$.
            $endgroup$
            – Christian Remling
            yesterday












            $begingroup$
            @Christian Remling: Hadamard factorization is fine of course. On my opinion, Wiman's theorem is somewhat simpler, but this is a question of opinion.
            $endgroup$
            – Alexandre Eremenko
            yesterday




            $begingroup$
            @Christian Remling: Hadamard factorization is fine of course. On my opinion, Wiman's theorem is somewhat simpler, but this is a question of opinion.
            $endgroup$
            – Alexandre Eremenko
            yesterday










            user137377 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            user137377 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            user137377 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            user137377 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f326094%2fsums-of-entire-surjective-functions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            How did Captain America manage to do this?

            Image
            2 How does Captain America lift Thor's hammer? In Avengers: Age of Ultron , he is not worthy but how he is worthy in this film. plot-explanation marvel-cinematic-universe avengers-age-of-ultron avengers-endgame share | improve this question edited 19 mins ago A J ♦ 42.7k 16 229 246 asked 39 mins ago Andi AR Andi AR 325 1 4 14
            Read more

            迪纳利

            Image
            迪纳利峰 位于迪纳利国家公园和保留区的迪纳利峰（旧名麦金利峰） 最高点 海拔 20,237英尺（6,168米）   NGVD 29 . [1] [2] 相對高度 20,073英尺（6,118米） 列表 各洲最高峰列表 特独立山峰 各国最高点列表 美国最高点  排名第一 [3] 坐标 63°04′10″N 151°00′27″W  /  63.06944°N 151.00750°W  / 63.06944; -151.00750  ( Mount McKinley ) 坐标： 63°04′10″N 151°00′27″W  /  63.06944°N 151.00750°W  / 63.06944; -151.00750  ( Mount McKinley )   地理 位置   美國阿拉斯加州迪纳利自治市镇 迪纳利国家公园和保留区 山脈 阿拉斯加山脉 攀山 首次登頂 （ 英语 ： First ascent ） 1913年6月7日 哈德逊·史塔克 哈里·卡斯坦斯 沃尔特·哈珀 罗伯特·塔特姆 最簡路線 西坡路线（攀登冰川/雪） 迪纳利 （北阿萨巴斯卡语支、 英语： Denali ， / d ᵻ ˈ n ɑː l i / ，直译“高山”），1917年至2015年官方名称为 麦金利山 （另译作 麦金利峰 ， 英语： Mount McKinley ），位于阿拉斯加州东南部、阿拉斯加山脉中段，海拔6194米，是北美洲最高峰，也是美国的最高峰。它的俄语名称是 Большая Гора ， 罗马化：Bolshaya Gora ，意思是“大山”。 迪纳利山地区拥有变幻莫测的高山风、典型的北极植被以及野生动植物。这里大部分地区终年积雪，山间经常浓雾不断，雾气在皑皑白雪中缭绕弥漫时，几百米之外的景物便不可见。夏季，迪纳利山的青青山坡上鲜花盛开，紫色的杜鹃和精巧的铃状石南花随处可见。迪纳利山还是世界登山爱好者的汇集之地。每年5月到7月有数百人登山，只有一半不到的人能登顶成功。一次登山约花3个星期。 2015年8月31日，美國政府宣佈將山名由“麦金利山”改回原名“迪纳利山”。美國內政部發表聲
            Read more

            南乌拉尔铁路局

            Image
            南乌拉尔铁路局 Южно-Уральская железная дорога 成立 1934年1月4日 国家   蘇聯（1934年—1991年）   俄羅斯（1991年—） 总部 车里雅宾斯克 隶属 俄罗斯铁路股份公司 路局代码 80 铁路里程 4,934.9公里 奖项 网址 http://yuzd.rzd.ru/ 查 论 编 南乌拉尔铁路局 （俄语： Южно-Уральская железная дорога ， 羅馬化： Yuzhno-Uralskaya zheleznaya doroga ，简称 ЮУЖД ）是俄罗斯铁路股份公司属下的铁路管理局之一，总部位于车里雅宾斯克，负责管辖俄罗斯联邦乌拉尔南部地区的铁路系统，范围包括奥伦堡州、车里雅宾斯克州、库尔干州的大部分铁路，以及萨马拉州、斯维尔德洛夫斯克州、巴什科尔托斯坦共和国的少部分铁路，并有部分铁路延伸至或穿过哈萨克斯坦境内。南乌拉尔铁路局的营业里程为4,934.9公里，与伏尔加铁路局、古比雪夫铁路局、斯维尔德洛夫斯克铁路局、西西伯利亚铁路局相邻，并与南方的哈萨克斯坦铁路连接。 外部链接 （俄文） Южно-Уральская железная дорога — филиал ОАО РЖД （俄文） 南乌拉尔铁路局管辖路线图（一） （俄文） 南乌拉尔铁路局管辖路线图（二） 查 论 编 俄罗斯铁路（集团）股份公司 十月铁路局 · 莫斯科铁路局 · 北高加索铁路局 · 高尔基铁路局 · 古比雪夫铁路局 · 北方铁路局 · 伏尔加铁路局 · 东南铁路局 · 斯维尔德洛夫斯克铁路局 · 南乌拉尔铁路局 · 西西伯利亚铁路局 · 克拉斯诺亚尔斯克铁路局 · 东西伯利亚铁路局 · 后贝加尔铁路局 · 远东铁路局 · 加里宁格勒铁路局 This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here
            Read more