Sign up ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $a_n>0$,$\sum a_n$ is convergent,$na_n$ is monotone, Prove: $$\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}na_n\ln(n)=0$$

I try to prove $a_n=o(n\ln(n))$, but it doesn't work.

share|cite|improve this question
Let $b_n = n a_n \ln n,$ and $b_{n+1} = (n+1) a_{n+1} \ln (n+1).$ What is the relationship between $b_{n+1}$ and $b_{n}$? – user2468 Apr 21 '12 at 0:09
@J.D. I confess having no idea about the way your comment could help the OP. – Did Apr 22 '12 at 11:48
@Didier I guess I was thinking out loud about how the sequence is decreasing.. but you're right; it is not really a helpful comment! – user2468 Apr 22 '12 at 15:12
@J.D. Nothing ensures that the sequence $(b_n)$ is nonincreasing (in case this is what you had in mind). – Did Apr 22 '12 at 15:19

3 Answers 3

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Since $(na_n)$ is positive and monotone, $(na_n)$ is nonincreasing and converges to zero hence $na_n=\sum\limits_{k\geqslant n}c_k$ for a nonnegative summable sequence $(c_k)$.

Since $\sum\limits_na_n$ converges, $\sum\limits_kc_kx_k$ converges, with $x_k=\log k$. Furthermore, $na_n\log n=\sum\limits_{k}c_kx_k(n)$ with $x_k(n)=[n\leqslant k]\log n$. Hence $x_k(n)\leqslant x_k$ and $x_k(n)\to0$ when $n\to\infty$. By dominated convergence, $na_n\log n\to0$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you for answering some many questions of mine. Maybe I need to think for a rather long time before I post the question. – 89085731 Apr 22 '12 at 10:51
I'm stuck as to why $\sum a_k$ converges implies $\sum c_kx_k$ converges. Would you care to elaborate a bit? – Vim Jun 26 at 14:19
@Vim $$\sum_na_n=\sum_n\frac1n\sum_{k\geqslant n}c_k=\sum_kc_k\sum_{n\leqslant k}\frac1n\sim\ldots$$ – Did Jun 26 at 17:10
@Did thank u so much. – Vim Jun 26 at 17:17

Lemma: If $\sum b_n $ converges and $b_n>0$ is monotone, then $n b_n \to 0 .$

Proof: By the Cauchy Condensation test we have $\sum 2^n b_{2^n} $ converges as well, so $2^n b_{2^n}\to 0.$ For $2^n < k < 2^{n+1} $ we have $k b_k \leq 2^{n+1} b_{2^n} \to 0.$ Thus $n b_n \to 0.$

By the Cauchy Condensation test $\sum 2^n a_{2^n} $ converges, the lemma shows $ 2^n a_{2^n} \to 0$ and we are given that this occurs monotonically.

Thus applying our lemma to $\sum 2^n a_{2^n} $ gives us that $ n 2^n a_{2^n} \to 0.$ Now for $2^n < k < 2^{n+1} $ we have $$ \log_2 k\cdot k a_k \leq (n+1) 2^{n+1} a_{2^n} \to 0.$$

Thus $$ \lim_{n\to\infty} n a_n \log n = 0.$$

share|cite|improve this answer
Your second application of the Cauchy condensation test is illicit since one does not assume that $(a_n)$ is monotone. – Did Apr 22 '12 at 10:37
@Didier We are given $(na_n)$ is monotone, and if it were increasing then $\sum a_n$ wouldn't converge so it must be decreasing. So $ (n+1)a_{n+1} \leq n a_n. $ Dividing through by $n$ gives $ \frac{n+1}{n} a_{n+1} \leq a_n .$ Clearly $ a_{n+1} \leq \frac{n+1}{n} a_{n+1} $ so we have $ a_{n+1} \leq a_n $ as well. – Ragib Zaman Apr 22 '12 at 10:47
You are right. Sorry about the trouble. – Did Apr 22 '12 at 10:51

I think this one is also a nice answer:

Lets prove that $\lim\sup n a_n \log n = 0$. For this, we note that, by the basic estimates on the partial harmonic sums,

$$ \limsup n a_n \log n = \limsup n a_n \sum_{k=k_0}^n \frac{1}{k} $$

For all $k_0 \ge 0$. As $\sum a_n < + \infty$, we must have that, from the hypothesis, $na_n$ is decreasing to zero. But then $a_n/k \le a_k/n$ for $k\le n$. Using this on the $\limsup$ above, we see that

$$ \limsup n a_n \log n \le \limsup \sum_{k=k_0}^n a_k = \sum_{k=k_0}^{\infty} a_k $$

As $k_0$ was arbitrary, and as the sum converges, we conclude the desired result.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.