Switching terms in a series - theorem

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the convergence of series, specifically examining the relationship between two sequences defined in terms of each other. The original poster presents a transformation of a convergent series and questions whether the convergence is preserved under this transformation.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of rearranging terms in a convergent series and question the validity of the original poster's proof. Some express confusion about the conditions under which convergence is maintained, while others suggest considering the Cauchy Criterion as a potential approach.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights and questioning assumptions. The original poster acknowledges a mistake and seeks further clarification on the topic. There is an exploration of ideas related to the Cauchy Criterion, but no consensus has been reached yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the challenge of finding a counterexample to the theorem in question, indicating a lack of clarity on the implications of switching terms in the series. The original poster expresses difficulty in articulating their thoughts, particularly in mathematical notation.

estro
Messages
239
Reaction score
0
Suppose a_n defined in the following way:
[tex]b_{2n}=a_{2n-1}[/tex]
[tex]b_{2n-1}=a_{2n}[/tex]
I know that [tex]\sum a_n[/tex] is convergent.

This how I proved that [tex]\sum b_n[/tex] is also convergent.

[tex]S_k=\sum_{n=1}^k b_n = \sum_{n=1}^k b_{2n} + \sum_{n=1}^k b_{2n-1} = \sum_{n=1}^k a_{2n-1} + \sum_{n=1}^k a_{2n} = \sum_{n=1}^k a_n \leq M[/tex]

Am I right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So you are saying that [itex]a_1+ a_2+ a_3+ a_4+ a_5+ a_6+ ...[/itex] becomes [itex]a_2+ a_1+ a_4+ a_3+ a_6+ a_5+ ...[/itex]?

What you have proved is that the sequence of partial sums is bounded above. If those partial sums are not increasing (if the [itex]a_n[/itex] are not all non-negative) that does not prove convergence.
 
Thanks, I now understand my mistake, but I can't find contra-example for this theorem.
My intuition locks me into thinking that switching 2 closest terms won't change convergence.
How should I approach such problems?
I will try thinking about Cauchy Criterion.
 
[tex]\sum a_n \rightarrow L\ \Rightarrow\ a_n\rightarrow0\ \Rightarrow\ \forall\ n>N_1\ a_n<\epsilon/4[/tex]
[tex]\sum a_n \rightarrow L\ \Rightarrow\ \forall\ m,n>N_2 |\\ \sum_{n+1}^m a_n|\leq \epsilon/4[/tex]

So for all n>max{N_1+1,N_2+1}
[tex]|\sum_{k=n+1}^m b_k| \leq |a_n + \sum_{k=n+1}^m a_k + a_{m+1}| \leq \epsilon[/tex]

Is this idea right?
 
Last edited:
I also try to explain in words my idea as I getting hard time with latex:

Because [tex]\sum a_n[/tex] is convergent and thanks to Cauchy Criterion we know that after some n I can sum a_n as many times as I want while keep the sum small as I want.
So I took little more terms to express [tex]\sum b_n[/tex] and to meet the Cauchy Criterion again.
I hope I expressed myself clearly
 
Still not sure about this, will appreciate opinions.
Thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K