The Continuous Function That Must Be Zero
Let be a continuous function satisfying
Must ?
Now suppose instead we only know
(i.e., we are missing the case). Must ?
For the second condition, either prove or find an explicit nonzero counterexample.
Answer: Orthogonality to Monomials: Missing n=0
Key Idea / Intuition
For the first part, the Weierstrass Approximation Theorem says polynomials are dense in , so if is orthogonal to every polynomial, it must be orthogonal to itself — forcing . For the second part, the subtlety is that we're missing the constant term. A function can vanish against all monomials without being zero, provided its "net area" compensates. The function for appropriate won't work directly, but against for gives , so that fails too. The real key: for the second condition, is still forced, because together with the missing constant is enough — specifically, the linear span of is dense in , but by a continuity trick we can still conclude .
Formal Proof / Solution
Part 1: All
If for all , then by linearity, for every polynomial .
By the Weierstrass Approximation Theorem, there exist polynomials uniformly on . Then:
Since is continuous and , we conclude .
Part 2: All only
Claim: is still forced.
Proof. The hypothesis gives for all .
Step 1. By linearity, for every polynomial with zero constant term, i.e., .
Step 2. Consider the function where is the "missing" piece. We don't directly control , but we can use a different trick.
Better approach. Apply the substitution or use the fact that spans polynomials vanishing at .
Polynomials span a space that is dense in
by Weierstrass (approximate any with by polynomials, then subtract the constant term — but the constant term is , so the approximating polynomials can be taken to vanish at 0 by subtracting a small correction).
So we can find polynomials (no constant term) with uniformly... but wait, this would require .
We do not know . So we must be more careful.
Correct Argument. We know:
This means is orthogonal to in .
Now take : .
By the same Weierstrass argument applied to : the function satisfies for all , i.e., for all .
By Part 1, on .
Since for all and on , we get for all . By continuity of , also .
Therefore .
Summary
| Condition | Conclusion | |-----------|-----------| | for | via Weierstrass directly | | for | via the trick , reducing to Part 1 |
The elegant trick: multiplying by shifts the index, turning "missing " into "having all " for the product .