Proving Theorem: "If a Sequence Converts...

  • Thread starter Thread starter JG89
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
JG89
Messages
724
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



I recently posted a question asking to prove the following theorem:

"If a sequence a_1 + a_2 + ... converges and if b_1, b_2, ... is a bounded monotonic sequence of numbers, then (a_1)(b_1) + (a_2)(b_2) + ... converges"

Here is a proof that I came across for it:

Let s_n denote the partial sums of \sum_{v=1}^n a_v, s the sum, and let \xi_n = s_n - s. Then \sum_{v=n}^m a_v b_v = \sum_{v=n}^m (\xi_v - \xi_{v-1}) b_v = \sum_{v=n}^m \xi_v(b_v - b_{v+1}) - \xi_{n-1} b_n + \xi_m b_{m+1}.

For every sufficiently large v, |\xi_v| < \epsilon, and

\sum_{v=n}^m a_v b_v < \epsilon \sum_{v=n}^m |b_v - b_{v+1}| + \epsilon |b_n| + \epsilon |b_{m+1}| < \epsilon |b_n - b_{m+1}| + \epsilon |b_n| + \epsilon |b_{m+1}|.

This is in turn less than 4B \epsilon, where B is a bound for |b_v|, and the series \sum_{v=1}^{\\infty} a_v b_v converges


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I understand the proof and everything. I was wondering though, how did the writer of the proof know to rewrite the sum as this: \sum_{v=n}^m a_v b_v = \sum_{v=n}^m (\xi_v - \xi_{v-1}) b_v = \sum_{v=n}^m \xi_v(b_v - b_{v+1}) - \xi_{n-1} b_n + \xi_m b_{m+1} ?

It just seems so random, something that I never would've thought about. If you could, could you please explain the thought processes he went through to realize he had to rewrite the sum in that form?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That formula is called "summation by parts." It is the discrete analog of integration by parts.
 
Ah, thanks! The wiki article on it isn't loading properly for whatever reason. I'll wait until tomorrow to give it another look. If I can't find what I'm looking for on the formula, I'll be back!

Thanks
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top