Weierstrass M-Test and Absolutely Uniformly Convergence

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

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the convergence properties of the series defined by f(n,x) = ∑_{n=1}^{∞} {(-1)^n (1-x^2)x^n}. Participants are examining absolute convergence and uniform convergence on the interval [0,1], as well as the implications of the Weierstrass M-Test in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the application of the root/ratio test for absolute convergence and the use of the Weierstrass M-Test for uniform convergence. There are questions about the validity of using a geometric series for comparison and whether absolute uniform convergence can be inferred directly from the properties of power series.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring various approaches to the problem. Some have provided reasoning based on absolute convergence leading to uniform convergence, while others are questioning the requirements for the Weierstrass M-Test and the necessity of bounding functions across the entire interval.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of convergence at the endpoint x = 1 and the implications of fixing variables in their arguments. There is an acknowledgment of the need for rigorous justification in their reasoning, particularly regarding the choice of bounds in the context of the Weierstrass M-Test.

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
2K
  • · 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