Weierstrass M-Test and Absolutely Uniformly Convergence

  • Thread starter Thread starter end3r7
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Convergence
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of the Weierstrass M-Test to demonstrate absolute and uniform convergence of the series defined by f(n,x) = ∑_{n=1}^{∞} (-1)^n (1-x^2)x^n on the interval [0,1]. The user confirms that the series is absolutely convergent on [0,1] and uniformly convergent on [0,1) ∪ {1}. They assert that the Weierstrass M-Test can be utilized to establish absolute uniform convergence, which implies uniform convergence of the series itself. The user seeks validation of their proof and understanding of the convergence properties involved.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of series convergence tests, specifically the Weierstrass M-Test.
  • Familiarity with concepts of absolute and uniform convergence in real analysis.
  • Knowledge of power series and their convergence properties.
  • Basic understanding of the ratio and root tests for series convergence.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Weierstrass M-Test in detail to understand its application in proving uniform convergence.
  • Learn about absolute convergence and its implications for uniform convergence in series.
  • Explore the properties of power series, particularly their behavior at endpoints of their interval of convergence.
  • Review rigorous proofs involving convergence tests to strengthen mathematical argumentation skills.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying real analysis, as well as educators and researchers interested in series convergence and the application of convergence tests in mathematical proofs.

end3r7
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
I'm posting this again because the other was plagued with errors in the first post. My fault and I apologize. I'll do a better job this time, I hope.

Homework Statement


Let f(n,x) = <br /> \sum\limits_{n = 1}^{\inf } {( - 1)^n (1-x^{2})x^{n}} <br />
a) Test for absolutely convergence on [0,1]
b) Test for uniformly convergence on [0,1]
c) Is <br /> \sum\limits_{n = 1}^{\inf } {|f(n,x)|} <br /> uniformly convergent on [0,1]?



Homework Equations


N/A


The Attempt at a Solution


Alright, a) is simple actually, a simple application of the root/ratio test will do, but here comes the catch.

I know that b) is true, since a power series is uniformly convergent inside its radius of convergence and the endpoint in this case is trivial. It just seems, however, that with a comparison with a geometric series, I can use the Weierstrass M-Test to prove all 3 at once.

For any 'x' in [0,1), I can choose an a such that 0 <= x <= a <1 by the density of R. Therefore
<br /> |\sum\limits_{n = 1}^{\inf } {f(n,x)} | &lt;= \sum\limits_{n = 1}^{\inf } {|f(n,x)|} &lt; \sum\limits_{n = 1}^{\inf } {(a)^n} = \frac{a}{1-a}<br />
and for x = 1 and any a > 0
<br /> |\sum\limits_{n = 1}^{\inf } {|f(n,x)|} | &lt;= \sum\limits_{n = 1}^{\inf } {|f(n,x)|} = 0 &lt; \sum\limits_{n = 1}^{\inf } {(a)^n} = \frac{a}{1-a}

I have just chosen the function to be uniformally cauchy on [0,1) U {1} (have I?) by a basic comparison test with a series which is uniformly cauchy on (0,1) and by considering the end point separately.
But it also seems that the Weierstrass M-Test gives me "Absolutely Uniformly Convergence" (that is, the absolute value of the function is also uniformly convergent) for free. Am I right? Is that always going to hold true, or is this a property of power series?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Alternatively, could I also just make a few arguments reasoning from (a).

I know the series is absolutely convergent on [0,1]. So its absolute value will be uniformly convergent inside its radius of convergence. I proceed to test the endpoint x = 1, which turns it into a series of zeros. So I have just shown its absolute value to be uniformly convergent on [0,1) U {1}.
If the absolute value is uniformly convergent, than the series itself must be uniformly convergent.

Is this an acceptable way to proceed?
 
Please, I don't like constantly bumping my threads, but I'm really struggling to understand this concept. =/
 
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Weierstrass M-test tests for uniform convergence by essentially testing for absolute uniform convergence...
 
Thank you many times for replying.

Okay, so is my proof mathematically sound?

I also have a quick follow up though regarding the order/flow of the argument.

In my argument, I essentially "fix" my 'x' and choose my 'a'. But it's also true that between 'a' and 1, I can find an 'x'. Now, I'm certain I can write a more rigorous argument showing that the limit of 'a' is 1, but I'm wondering if that's an overkill, since my whole purpose in bringing in the Weierstrass M Test was to simplify things (as well as solve them, since it's the only method I know).
 
Well, I believe that to use the Weierstrass M-test you have to find a bound that works for all x on whatever set you're testing convergence in, not just a given x in the set. That is, your bound a is allowed to be a function of n, but it cannot be a function of x.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K