Cauchy sequences and absolutely convergent series

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the equivalence of Cauchy sequences and absolutely convergent series in a normed space, specifically addressing the implication (b) ⇒ (a). The user successfully demonstrated (a) ⇒ (b) by showing that an absolutely convergent series leads to a Cauchy sequence. The challenge lies in proving that a Cauchy sequence implies the existence of an absolutely convergent series. The user concludes that correcting the notation in their proof is crucial for establishing the desired result.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of normed spaces in functional analysis
  • Familiarity with Cauchy sequences and their properties
  • Knowledge of absolutely convergent series and their implications
  • Proficiency in mathematical notation and proof techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Cauchy sequences in normed spaces
  • Explore the relationship between absolute convergence and convergence of series
  • Review proof techniques in functional analysis, focusing on sequences and series
  • Examine examples of normed spaces to apply these concepts practically
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying functional analysis, researchers in mathematical analysis, and educators looking to deepen their understanding of convergence concepts in normed spaces.

Fredrik
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
10,876
Reaction score
423

Homework Statement



I want to prove that if X is a normed space, the following statements are equivalent.

(a) Every Cauchy sequence in X is convergent.
(b) Every absolutely convergent series in X is convergent.

I'm having difficulties with the implication (b) ⇒ (a).

Homework Equations



Only some standard definitions.

The Attempt at a Solution



I have no problems with the implication (a) ⇒ (b). I'm including the proof only because it can perhaps provide some inspiration for the proof of the converse.

(a) ⇒(b): Let ##\sum_{k=1}^\infty x_k## be an arbitrary absolutely convergent series in X. For each ##n\in\mathbb Z^+##, define ##s_n=\sum_{k=1}^n x_k## and ##t_n=\sum_{k=1}^n \|x_k\|##. The desired result follows from
$$\|s_n-s_m\|=\left\|\sum_{k=m+1}^n x_k\right\| \leq\sum_{k=m+1}^n\|x_k\| =|t_n-t_m|.$$ The argument is simple: ##(t_n)## is convergent and therefore Cauchy. This and the inequality above together imply that ##(s_n)## is Cauchy. Now (a) implies that ##(s_n)## is convergent.

Here's the part I'm struggling with:

(b) ⇒ (a): Let ##(s_n)## be an arbitrary Cauchy sequence in X. I'm using the notation ##s_n## rather than ##x_n## because I'm going to define a sequence ##(x_n)## such that ##(s_n)## is its sequence of partial sums. We define ##x_1=s_1## and for each ##n\geq 2##, ##x_n=s_n-s_{n-1}##. We have
$$\sum_{k=1}^n x_k =(s_n-s_{n-1})+(s_{n-1}-s_{n-2})+\cdots+(s_2-s_1)+s_1 =s_n.$$ If we can show that ##\sum_{k=1}^\infty x_k## is absolutely convergent, we're done. Unfortunately that doesn't look possible. I think we have to continue something like this: For each ##k\in\mathbb Z^+##, let ##n_k## be a positive integer such that
$$i,j\geq n_k\ \Rightarrow\ \|s_i-s_j\|<2^{-k}.$$ Let ##k\in\mathbb Z^+## be arbitrary. Define ##m_k=n_k+1##. We have
$$\|x_{m_k}\|=\|s_{m_k}-s_{m_k-1}\|=\|s_{n_k+1}-s_{n_k}\|<2^{-k}.$$ Does this help at all? It tells us that ##\sum_{k=1}^\infty x_{m_k}## is absolutely convergent, and therefore convergent. But how does knowing that ##\sum_{k=1}^\infty x_{m_k}## is convergent help us? It means that the sequence ##\big(\sum_{k=1}^p x_{m_k}\big)_{p=1}^\infty## is convergent, but this isn't a subsequence of ##(s_n)##. ##(s_{m_p})_{p=1}^\infty## is a subsequence of ##(s_n)##, but I don't see why it would be convergent.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There's a proof here:

https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~thomases/201A_F10_hw3_sol.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks. I understand it now. I need to write ##\|s_{n_{k+1}}-s_{n_k}\|<2^{-k}## instead of ##\|s_{n_k+1}-s_{n_k}\|<2^{-k}##. I tried that earlier, but somehow I convinced myself that if I do this, the sum fails to telescope.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K