1: \begin{abstract}

2: %------------------------------------------------

3: 

4: In cosmography, cosmokinetics, and cosmology it is quite common to encounter physical quantities expanded as a Taylor series in the cosmological redshift $z$. Perhaps the most well-known exemplar of this phenomenon is the Hubble relation between distance and redshift. 

5: However, we now have considerable high-$z$ data available, for instance we have supernova data  at least back to redshift $z\approx 1.75$. This opens up the theoretical question as to whether or not the Hubble series (or more generally any series expansion based on the $z$-redshift) actually converges for large redshift?

6: Based on a combination of mathematical and physical reasoning, we argue that the radius of convergence of any series expansion in $z$ is less than or equal to 1, and that $z$-based expansions must break down for $z>1$, corresponding to a universe less than half its current size.   

7:   

8: Furthermore, we shall argue on theoretical grounds for the utility of an

9:   improved parameterization $y=z/(1+z)$.  In terms of the $y$-redshift we again argue that the radius of convergence of any series expansion in $y$ is less than or equal to 1, so that $y$-based expansions are  likely to be good all the way back to the big bang  ($y=1$), but that $y$-based expansions must break down for $y<-1$, now corresponding to a universe more than twice its current size.   

10: 

11: \vskip 0.250cm

12: 

13: 

14: \noindent

15: Keywords:  high redshift, convergence.

16: 

17: 

18: \vskip 0.1250cm

19: \noindent

20:  arXiv:  30 July 2007; 

21: \LaTeX-ed \today.

22:   

23: %\tableofcontents

24: %------------------------------------------------

25: \end{abstract}

26: