Analysis Proof (simple, but )

  • Thread starter Thread starter futurebird
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Analysis Proof
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

This discussion revolves around a proof related to series convergence, specifically addressing the convergence of the series \(\sum b_n a_n\) given that \(\sum a_n\) converges and that the sequence \(\{b_n\}\) is monotonic and bounded. The problem is sourced from Rudin's analysis textbook.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to establish the convergence of \(\sum b_n a_n\) by leveraging the properties of the sequence \(\{b_n\}\). Some participants question the validity of assuming \(\{b_n\}\) converges and suggest considering different cases for monotonicity. Others provide counterexamples to illustrate potential pitfalls in the reasoning.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants exploring various interpretations of the problem. Some guidance has been offered regarding the need to consider both increasing and decreasing cases for \(\{b_n\}\). There is a recognition of the importance of the monotonicity condition in the proof.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the original problem does not require the convergence of \(\{b_n\}\) but rather its monotonicity and boundedness. There is an emphasis on ensuring that assumptions are correctly applied in the proof.

futurebird
Messages
270
Reaction score
0
Analysis Proof (simple, but urgent!)

Homework Statement



This is an exercise from Rudin Chapter 3.

#8. If [tex]\sum a_{n}[/tex] converges, and if {bn} is monotonic and bounded, prove that [tex]\sum b_{n} a_{n}[/tex] converges.

Homework Equations



THEOREM: Suppose {sn} is monotonic. Then {sn} converges <==> {sn} is bounded.

The Attempt at a Solution



{bn} converges. bn --> b
So, for any [tex]\epsilon > 0 \exists N[/tex] such that n > N implies [tex]|b - b_{n}| < \epsilon[/tex]

Let M = b if b > bN
Let M = [tex]\epsilon + b[/tex] if b <= bN

Now, [tex]\sum M a_{n} = M \sum a_{n}[/tex] for M constant. And [tex]\sum M a_{n}[/tex] converges to Ma. So, [tex]\sum b_{n} a_{n}[/tex] converges.


-----

Am I on the right track with this? I need to turn this in soon and any help would be GREAT!
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Maybe one of the mathematicians here will have more to say about this, but it strikes me that there are two cases to consider, since the proposition only says {b_n} is monotonic and bounded.

What you've treated is the case where {b_n} is monotonically increasing, so since b_n never gets bigger than a constant M, and the sum of M·a_n will converge, so will the sum of b_n · a_n .

You may also need to look at the case where {b_n} is monotonically decreasing. The basic argument is similar, but one other remark will need to be included...
 
I didn't fully understand what you were doing, but it looks like that you are trying to use the knowledge that the sequence [tex]b_n[/tex] is converging. You should not try to prove this claim:

"Suppose that the series [tex]\sum_n a_n[/tex] converges, and that the sequence [tex]b_n[/tex] converges. Then the series [tex]\sum_n b_n a_n[/tex] converges."

That is not right: Set

[tex] a_n = \frac{(-1)^n}{\sqrt{n}}[/tex]

[tex] b_{2n+1} = 0,\quad b_{2n}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}.[/tex]

for a counter example.

Sorry, I don't know how to do that exercise, and cannot give more advice now, but I know that you must use the knowledge that [tex]b_n[/tex] is monotonic and bounded for something more than the convergence of [tex]b_n[/tex].
 


Thank you! That was helpful, I think I have a better proof now!
 


jostpuur said:
[tex] b_{2n+1} = 0,\quad b_{2n}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}.[/tex]

Isn't [tex]b_{n}[/tex] supposed to be monotonic for this proposition?
 


That was a counter example, I think. Showing that bn being monotonic matters.
 


#8. If [tex]\sum a_{n}[/tex] converges, and if {bn} is monotonic and bounded, prove that [tex]\sum b_{n} a_{n}[/tex] converges.
Consider two cases where b is a monotonely increasing sequence and monotonely decreasing.

Then you can use the Theorem 3.42 in Rudin's book to show that series [tex]\sum_n a_n \left(b_{n}-b\right)[/tex] converges, then [tex]\sum_n a_n b_n[/tex] converges, where b is the limit of the sequence [tex]b_{n}[/tex]

Hint:[tex]\lim_{n \to \infty} \left(b_{n}-b\right) =0[/tex]
 
Last edited:


futurebird said:
That was a counter example, I think. Showing that bn being monotonic matters.

Right, sorry... On re-reading the entire thread, the context of some of the posts is clearer to me. I see the theorem jostpuur was remarking on. I was focused on the boundedness and thought that was what you were using in your argument. The theorem is not required for the proof.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K