Understanding Proof for "If a Sequence Converges" Theorem

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter JG89
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding a proof related to a theorem concerning the convergence of series, specifically focusing on the application of Abel's partial summation formula. Participants explore the reasoning behind a particular rewriting of a sum in the proof and the historical context of the theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the reasoning behind the specific rewriting of the sum in the proof, expressing that it seems random and asking for clarification on the thought process involved.
  • Another participant identifies the theorem as related to Abel's test for convergence and explains that the formula used is a standard result known as Abel's partial summation formula, suggesting that the theorem likely emerged after the formula was discovered.
  • A participant provides a detailed breakdown of the steps involved in the proof, explaining how the definition of \xi_n leads to the first step and how to manipulate the sums to achieve the desired result.
  • A similar explanation is reiterated by another participant, confirming the steps and providing additional clarity on the index switching in the summation process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the validity of the steps in the proof and the historical context of the theorem, but there is no consensus on the initial thought process behind the rewriting of the sum, as it remains a point of inquiry for the original poster.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of the proof and the reliance on established mathematical results, but it does not resolve the initial question regarding the reasoning behind the specific rewriting of the sum.

JG89
Messages
724
Reaction score
1
In my calculus textbook there is a 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"


Proof:

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

-------------------------------

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
Hi JG89,

This is probably not the answer you were looking for. What you are describing is usually referred as Abel's test for convergence of the series in the form $\sum a_n b_n$. The formula used in the proof is called Abel's partial summation formula. Every text that I've seen proves this theorem using this formula. It is a standard result that was discovered by Abel, probably by doing some other mathematics and uncovering this formula in the process. He was probably not trying to proof this theorem, since it didn't exist before him, or at least wasn't stated in these terms. This theorem probably followed the discovery of the formula, not the other way around.
 
Hi JG89
With the definition of \xi_n you can write \xi_n - \xi_{n-1} = s_n - s - (s_{n-1} - s) = s_n - s_{n-1} = \sum_{v=1}^n a_v - \sum_{v=1}^{n-1} a_v = a_n.
This gives the first step.
Now you can write the sum of the second step as follows:
\sum_{v=n}^m (\xi_v - \xi_{v-1})b_v = \sum_{v=n}^m \xi_vb_v - \sum_{v=n}^m \xi_{v-1}b_v = \sum_{v=n}^m \xi_v b_v - \sum_{k=n-1}^{m-1} \xi_k b_{k+1} = \sum_{v=n}^m \xi_v b_v- \sum_{k=n}^m \xi_kb_{k+1} - \xi_{n-1}b_n + \xi_mb_{m+1}.
If you switch again to index v in the second sum you get the result. To do the second step in the above equation you set k=v-1, and then substitute every v in the sum.
 
thofer said:
Hi JG89
With the definition of \xi_n you can write \xi_n - \xi_{n-1} = s_n - s - (s_{n-1} - s) = s_n - s_{n-1} = \sum_{v=1}^n a_v - \sum_{v=1}^{n-1} a_v = a_n.
This gives the first step.
Now you can write the sum of the second step as follows:
\sum_{v=n}^m (\xi_v - \xi_{v-1})b_v = \sum_{v=n}^m \xi_vb_v - \sum_{v=n}^m \xi_{v-1}b_v = \sum_{v=n}^m \xi_v b_v - \sum_{k=n-1}^{m-1} \xi_k b_{k+1} = \sum_{v=n}^m \xi_v b_v- \sum_{k=n}^m \xi_kb_{k+1} - \xi_{n-1}b_n + \xi_mb_{m+1}.
If you switch again to index v in the second sum you get the result. To do the second step in the above equation you set k=v-1, and then substitute every v in the sum.

Beautiful.

Thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K