# 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 $\sup\limits_{x \in \mathbb{R} }|f(x)| \geq C \cdot ||r||_\infty$.

Ichbinanonym

93

## 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.

Mathe

2.9K

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
- 597 views
- $17.00

### Related Questions

- The space of continuous functions is a normed vector space
- Need Upper Bound of an Integral
- Sequence and Series
- real analysis
- Prove that $A - B=A\cap B^c$
- True-False real analysis questions
- Prove that $\int_0^1 \left| \frac{f''(x)}{f(x)} \right| dx \geq 4$, under the given conditions on $f(x)$
- separability and completeness

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?