# A lower bound for an exponential series

Let $\gamma >0$ and $r=(r_n)_{n \in \mathbb{Z} } \in \ell^\infty(\mathbb{Z})$ (a bounded and real-valued sequence), where $r_n \geq 0 \ \forall \ n \in \mathbb{Z}$. Consider the function $f(x)=\sum\limits_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} r_n \exp \left (-2 \gamma \left (x- \frac{n}{2} \right)^2\right)$ for $x \in \mathbb{R}$.

Prove that there exists a constant $C>0$ such that $\sup\limits_{x \in \mathbb{R} }|f(x)| \geq C \cdot ||r||_\infty$.

## Answer

**Answers can be viewed only if**

- The questioner was satisfied and accepted the answer, or
- The answer was disputed, but the judge evaluated it as 100% correct.

The answer is accepted.

Join Matchmaticians Affiliate Marketing
Program to earn up to 50% commission on every question your affiliated users ask or answer.

- answered
- 354 views
- $17.00

### Related Questions

- [Precalculus] Sequences and series questions.
- Why does $ \sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty } 2^{2n} \times \frac{(n!)^2}{n(2n+1)(2n)!} =2 $ ?
- How do I compare categorical data with multiple uneven populations?
- A lower bound on infinite sum of exponential functions (corrected version)
- Prove the following limits of a sequence of sets?
- Real Analysis
- real analysis
- Prove the uniqueness of a sequence using a norm inequality.

The statement doesn't make much sense. You are taking the supremum is the left had side over all x \in R and they say for all x \in R. Did you mean having just f(x) without supremum in the left hand side of what you wish to prove?

yes my bad, I corrected it. thanks

I still think "sup" should be replaced by "inf" for the problem to make sense.

Proving the statement with "sup" is trivially easy.

For inf it is equally trivial.

would it be equally trivial if I didn't require each r_n to be non-negative?