Does Non-Absolutely Convergent Series Imply Convergence of Product Series?

  • Thread starter Thread starter arcadiaz04
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Convergent Proof
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves the convergence properties of series, specifically examining the relationship between non-absolutely convergent series \(\sum a_n\) and \(\sum b_n\) and the product series \(\sum a_n b_n\). The goal is to demonstrate that the convergence of \(\sum a_n b_n\) does not necessarily follow from the non-absolute convergence of the individual series.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the implications of non-absolute convergence and consider whether assuming the convergence of \(\sum a_n b_n\) leads to contradictions. Questions arise about the utility of the non-absolute convergence condition and the validity of certain inequalities involving the series.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring various interpretations of the problem. Some suggest looking for counterexamples to illustrate the relationship between the series, while others emphasize the need for clarity on what is being proven. There is a mix of approaches being considered, including proof by contradiction and the search for specific series that meet the problem's criteria.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem is situated within a section discussing convergence criteria, including the boundedness criterion and the Cauchy criterion, which may influence their reasoning and approach to the proof.

arcadiaz04
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
The problem states:
Suppose [itex]\sum a_n[/itex] and [itex]\sum b_n[/itex] are non-absolutely convergent. Show that it does not follow that the series [itex]\sum a_n b_n[/itex] is convergent.

I tried supposing that the series [itex]\sum a_n b_n[/itex] does converge, to find some contradiction. So the series satisfies the cauchy criterion and the definition of convergence. I can't break the series apart (or can I?) so this is where I get stuck.

Then I wrote the implications of the first sentence to try to come up with a statement that doesn't allow [itex]\sum a_n b_n[/itex] to be convergent. I get stuck again.

What does a series being non-absolutely convergent imply that is useful?

Is it true that [itex]\sum |a_n b_n|[/itex] < [itex]\sum |a_n|[/itex] [itex]\sum |b_n|[/itex] ? I don't know if that would help

Sorry it looks like I don't have much work done, but I've been looking at this for several days.Note: The section in which the problem is assigned talks about the boundedness criterion for convergence, the Cauchy criterion for convergence, and absolute convergence, so I was hoping to come up with a proof that uses the information from the section.

Thanks
CD
 
Physics news on Phys.org
arcadiaz04 said:
The problem states:
Suppose [itex]\sum a_n[/itex] and [itex]\sum b_n[/itex] are non-absolutely convergent. Show that it does not follow that the series [itex]\sum a_n b_n[/itex] is convergent.

I tried supposing that the series [itex]\sum a_n b_n[/itex] does converge, to find some contradiction.
Why would you do that? Do you know what you're being asked to prove?
What does a series being non-absolutely convergent imply that is useful?

Is it true that [itex]\sum |a_n b_n|[/itex] < [itex]\sum |a_n|[/itex] [itex]\sum |b_n|[/itex] ? I don't know if that would help
Yes, it's obviously true (although it should be <, not <), and no, obviously it doesn't help.
Sorry it looks like I don't have much work done, but I've been looking at this for several days.
You need to know what you're trying to prove first. Basically, you want to find an example of series [itex]\sum a_n[/itex] and [itex]\sum b_n[/itex] such that:

a) both converge
b) neither converge absolutely
c) [itex]\sum a_nb_n[/itex] doesn't converge

What types of series converge but don't converge absolutely? Ones that have some positive terms and some negative terms. Hint: take [itex]a_n = b_n[/itex]. Then once you prove [itex]\sum a_n[/itex] converges non-absolutely, you've automatically proven that [itex]\sum b_n[/itex] converges non-absolutely. Moreover, if you do this, then you get:

[tex]\sum a_nb_n = \sum a_n^2[/tex]

a sum of positive numbers. So whereas [itex]\sum a_n[/itex] is supposed to be a series that converges, but doesn't converge absolutely, hence converges only because it has negative terms "balancing out" its positive terms, the series [itex]\sum a_n^2[/itex] has no negative terms, so it's "more likely" to be divergent. What's a very common example of a divergent series?
Note: The section in which the problem is assigned talks about the boundedness criterion for convergence, the Cauchy criterion for convergence, and absolute convergence, so I was hoping to come up with a proof that uses the information from the section.
You don't need any of that information.
 
AKG's point is that assuming [itex]\sum a_n b_n[/itex] does converge would be perfectly reasonable if you were trying to prove that, under the given hypotheses, [itex]\sum a_n b_n[/itex] never converged. But that is not the case. You want to show that the statement "If [itex]\sum a_n[/itex] and [itex]\sum b_n[/itex] converge then [itex]\sum a_n b_n[/itex]" is NOT true. You want to find a counter example.
 
Have you both never heard of a proof by contradiction??

A statement can't be proven true by example.
 
arcadiaz04 said:
Have you both never heard of a proof by contradiction??

A statement can't be proven true by example.
See here.
additional characters
 
arcadiaz04 said:
Have you both never heard of a proof by contradiction??

A statement can't be proven true by example.
Did you not READ what we both said? The original problem was "Suppose [itex]\Sum a_n[/itex] and [itex]\Sum bn[/itex] are non-absolutely convergent. Show that it does not follow that the series [itex]\Sum a_nb_n[/itex] is convergent." It does NOT follow. In other words prove that it is not true. You certainly can use a counter-example to prove something is NOT true.
 
Arcadiaz, prove that a natural number N is not necessarily even.

If you cite 3 as an example that isn't even, you've shown that N is not necessarily even.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K