MHB Infinite Series .... Sohrab Exercise 2.3.10 (1) .... ....

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on formulating a rigorous proof for Exercise 2.3.10 (1) from Houshang H. Sohrab's "Basic Real Analysis." The main proposition asserts that if a series converges, then the series formed by removing a finite number of terms also converges. A proof attempt is presented, demonstrating that the convergence of the original series implies the convergence of the truncated series through the properties of limits and Cauchy sequences. Participants are asked to critique the proof for correctness and completeness, with one response affirming the proof's clarity and correctness. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding convergence in the context of infinite series.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Houshang H. Sohrab's book: "Basic Real Analysis" (Second Edition).

I am focused on Chapter 2: Sequences and Series of Real Numbers ... ...

I need help In order to formulate a rigorous proof to the proposition stated in Exercise 2.3.10 (1) ... ...

Exercise 2.3.10 (1) reads as follows:
View attachment 9062I am unsure of what would constitute a formal and rigorous proof to the proposition or statement of Exercise 2.3.10 (1) ...

Here is my attempt at a formal and rigorous proof ...Assume $$\sum_{ n = 1 }^{ \infty } x_n $$ is convergent ... then $$\sum_{ n = 1 }^{ \infty } x_n $$ is Cauchy ...Thus we have the following ...... for every $$\epsilon \gt 0 \ \exists \ N \text{ such that } m_0 \geq n_0 \geq N \ \Longrightarrow \ \vert s_{ m_0 } - s_{ n_0 } \vert \lt \epsilon$$ ... ...... that is ... for every $$\epsilon \gt 0 \ \exists \ N \text{ such that } m_0 \geq n_0 \geq N \ \Longrightarrow \ \left\vert \sum_{ k = n_0 + 1 }^{ m_0 } x_n \right \vert \lt \epsilon$$ ... ...If $$n_0 \geq m$$ then we are done ...If $$n_0 \lt m_0$$ ... then take $$n_0 = m$$ and we are done ...Now assume $$\sum_{ n = m }^{ \infty } x_n $$ is convergent ... ... then ... for every $$\epsilon \gt 0 \ \exists \ N \text{ such that } m_0 \geq n_0 \geq m \geq N \ \Longrightarrow \ \left\vert \sum_{ k = n_0 + 1 }^{ m_0 } x_n \right \vert \lt \epsilon$$ ... ...Clearly the above N ensures that for $$\sum_{ n = 1 }^{ \infty } x_n $$ ...

... $$\epsilon \gt 0 \ \exists \ N \text{ such that } m_0 \geq n_0 \geq N \ \Longrightarrow \ \left\vert \sum_{ k = n_0 + 1 }^{ m_0 } x_n \right \vert \lt \epsilon$$ ... ...

... that is $$\sum_{ n = 1 }^{ \infty }x_n $$ is convergent ...

Could someone please indicate whether the above proof is correct and acceptable ,,, indeed ... have I missed the point ...

Further could someone critique the above proof pointing out errors and deficiencies ...Help will be appreciated ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • Sohrab - Exercise 2.3.10 ... .png
    Sohrab - Exercise 2.3.10 ... .png
    15.4 KB · Views: 155
Physics news on Phys.org
$\displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^\infty x_n$ is convergent​

$\displaystyle\iff\ \lim_{k\to\infty}\sum_{n=1}^k x_n$ exists and is finite

$\displaystyle\iff\ \lim_{k\to\infty}\sum_{n=m}^k x_n$ $=$ $\displaystyle\lim_{k\to\infty}\left[\left(\sum_{n=1}^k x_n\right)-\sum_{n=1}^{m-1}x_n\right]$ $=$ $\displaystyle\left[\lim_{k\to\infty}\left(\sum_{n=1}^k x_n\right)\right]-\sum_{n=1}^{m-1}x_n$ exists and is finite

$\displaystyle\iff\ \sum_{n=m}^\infty x_n$ is convergent.

In other words, adding a finite number of terms to or subtracting a finite number of terms from a convergent series results in convergent series.
 
Olinguito said:
$\displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^\infty x_n$ is convergent​

$\displaystyle\iff\ \lim_{k\to\infty}\sum_{n=1}^k x_n$ exists and is finite

$\displaystyle\iff\ \lim_{k\to\infty}\sum_{n=m}^k x_n$ $=$ $\displaystyle\lim_{k\to\infty}\left[\left(\sum_{n=1}^k x_n\right)-\sum_{n=1}^{m-1}x_n\right]$ $=$ $\displaystyle\left[\lim_{k\to\infty}\left(\sum_{n=1}^k x_n\right)\right]-\sum_{n=1}^{m-1}x_n$ exists and is finite

$\displaystyle\iff\ \sum_{n=m}^\infty x_n$ is convergent.

In other words, adding a finite number of terms to or subtracting a finite number of terms from a convergent series results in convergent series.
Thanks for the help Olinguito ... neat clear proof!

Peter
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K