Sequences in lp spaces (Functional Analysis)

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding a sequence that converges to zero but is not contained in any lp space for 1 ≤ p < ∞. The original poster suspects that the sequence 1/ln(n+1) may serve as a solution.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to demonstrate the behavior of the sequence 1/ln(n+1) using the integration test and comparisons to the harmonic series. They express uncertainty about the convergence of the partial sums and the bounding of terms in relation to the harmonic sequence.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring various methods to analyze the sequence, including the Cauchy condensation test. There is an acknowledgment of the complexity involved in proving certain properties of the sequence, and some participants express appreciation for the insights shared.

Contextual Notes

The original poster notes difficulties with logarithmic integration and seeks assistance in proving the boundedness of a derived expression. There is an indication of a lack of consensus on the approach to take, with multiple lines of reasoning being discussed.

just.so
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
[SOLVED] Sequences in lp spaces... (Functional Analysis)

Homework Statement


Find a sequence which converges to zero but is not in any lp space where 1<=p<infinity.


Homework Equations


N/A


The Attempt at a Solution


I strongly suspect 1/ln(n+1) is a solution.

Since ln(n+1) -> infinity as n -> infinity, we have 1/ln(n+1) -> 0 as n-> infinity.

I attempted using the integration test to show that partial sums for the sequence (1/ln(n+1))^p do not converge, but integrating 1/ln(n) became a bit problematic!

Attempt two was to show that each successive term in the sequence {(1/ln(n+1))^p} is larger than each successive term in some tail of the harmonic sequence.

i.e. There exists m such that
(1/ln(2))^p >= 1/(m+0) or m >= (ln(2))^p
(1/ln(3))^p >= 1/(m+1) or m >= (ln(3))^p - 1
(1/ln(4))^p >= 1/(m+2) or m >= (ln(4))^p - 2
.
.
.
In general for such an m to exist, m >= (ln(x+2))^p - x

And therefore I need to show that this right hand side is bounded above. I suspect this is true, and with a lot of hand waving can convince myself that the "ln" part of the RHS is "stronger" than the "^p" part and thus (ln(x+2))^p will eventually "slow down enough" so as to be less than x for large enough values of x.

But my log work leaves a little to be desired and I can't even prove there is a solution to the equation (ln(x+2))^p = x.

Any help much appreciated!


Justin
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Never mind. :x
 
There is a sweet test when it comes to series with logarithm in the argument. It says if a sequence a_n is decreasing and non-negative, then the series of a_n converges if and only if the series of 2^n*a_{2^n} does.

So here,

a_n=\frac{1}{\ln(n)^p}

and so

2^na_{2^n} = \frac{2^n}{n^p\ln(2)^p}

It's called the Cauchy condensation test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_condensation_test
 
Last edited:
That IS sweet!

A gazillion thanks!

J
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K