Why Is the Lower Bound of the Cauchy Product Greater Than w_{⌊n/2⌋}?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof that the Cauchy product of two absolutely convergent series, specifically \(\sum_{r=1}^{\infty} a_{r}\) and \(\sum_{r=1}^{\infty} b_{r}\), is also absolutely convergent. The key inequality established is \(w_{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor} \leq u_{n} \leq w_{n}\), where \(w_{n} = s_{n}t_{n}\) and \(u_{n} = \sum_{r=1}^{n} c_{r}\). The confusion arises in understanding why \(u_{n}\) is greater than \(w_{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor}\). The proof utilizes Mertens' Theorem and the properties of bounded sequences to demonstrate convergence.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of absolutely convergent series
  • Familiarity with Cauchy products
  • Knowledge of Mertens' Theorem
  • Basic concepts of convergence in series
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of absolutely convergent series in detail
  • Learn about Cauchy products and their convergence criteria
  • Explore Mertens' Theorem and its applications in series
  • Investigate the implications of bounded sequences in convergence proofs
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of advanced calculus, and anyone studying series convergence and analysis will benefit from this discussion.

Bleys
Messages
74
Reaction score
0
I don't understand a small part in the proof that two absolutely convergent series have absolutely convergent cauchy product.
Instead of writing the whole thing, I'll write the essentials and the step I'm having trouble with.

[tex]\sum_{r=1}^{\infty}a_{r}[/tex] and [tex]\sum_{r=1}^{\infty}b_{r}[/tex] are positive term series that are absolutely convergent. Denote their partial sums as [tex]s_{n} , t_{n}[/tex] respectively. Let [tex]w_{n}=s_{n}t_{n}[/tex] and [tex]u_{n}=\sum_{r=1}^{\n}c_{r}[/tex] where [tex]c_{n}[/tex] is the Cauchy product of [tex]a_{n}[/tex] and [tex]b_{n}[/tex]

Then [tex]w_{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}\leq u_{n}\leq w_{n}[/tex]. This is the step I don't understand. I can see why it would be smaller than [tex]w_{n}[/tex], since it's a sum containing [tex]u_{n}[/tex], but I don't see why it would be greater than [tex]w_{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}[/tex].
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mertens' Theorem

Let's consider two absolute convergent series ##A,B##, although only the absolute convergence of ##A## is needed. Let's note the partial sums ##A_n=\sum_{k=0}^n a_k\, , \,B_n=\sum_{k=0}^n b_k##.
\begin{align*}
AB&=(A-A_n)B +\sum_{k=0}^n a_kB\\
S_n&=\sum_{k=0}^n c_k = \sum_{k=0}^n \sum_{j=0}^ka_jb_{k-j}=\sum_{k=0}^n a_kB_{n-k} \\
AB-S_n&= (A-A_n)B+\sum_{k=0}^n a_k(B-B_{n-k})
\end{align*}
The first term converges to ##0## and with ##N:=\lfloor \dfrac{n}{2} \rfloor## we can write the second term
$$
\sum_{k=0}^N (B-B_{n-k}) = \underbrace{\sum_{k=0}^n a_k(B-B_{n-k})}_{=P_n}+\underbrace{\sum_{k=N+1}^n a_k(B-B_{n-k})}_{=Q_n}
$$
For ##P_n## we have
$$
|P_n| \leq \sum_{k=0}^N|a_k|\cdot |B-B_{n-k}|\leq \max_{N\leq k \leq n}|B-B_k|\cdot \sum_{k=0}^N|a_k| \longrightarrow 0
$$
because ##A## converges absolutely and ##(B-B_k)_k## is a bounded sequence converging to ##0##, i.e. there is a constant ##c## such that ##|B-B_k|<c## for all ##k\in \mathbb{N}_0\,.## Therefore we get
$$
|Q_n|\leq \sum_{k=N+1}^n |a_k|\cdot |B-B_{n-k}| \leq c \sum_{k=N+1}^n |a_k| \longrightarrow 0
$$
by the Cauchy criterion. Hence ##AB-S_n \longrightarrow 0## or ##S_n \longrightarrow AB\,.##
 

Similar threads

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