Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

Given an arbitrary sequence $\{\alpha_k\}_{k=0}^\infty:\alpha_k\in(0,1),\sum_{k=0}^\infty\alpha_k=\infty$.

Define $\lambda_0=1,\lambda_{k+1}=(1-\alpha_k)\lambda_k$.

How to show $\lambda_k\rightarrow0$?

share|improve this question
    
Is it not true that $\{\lambda_{k}\}$ is strictly decreasing since we always multiply by $(1-\alpha_{k})\in(0,1)$? –  Daniel Littlewood Nov 27 '12 at 21:32
1  
@DanielLittlewood: that doesn't imply that its limit is $0$. –  WimC Nov 27 '12 at 21:37
1  
It does not imply "directly" that its limit is 0, but don't you know a result about bounded decreasing sequences which could help? –  Sebastien B Nov 27 '12 at 21:40
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 5 down vote accepted

$\log(\lambda_k) = \sum_{j<k} \log(1-\alpha_j) \leq \sum_{j<k}-\alpha_j$.

share|improve this answer
    
Argh! You beat me to it. Anyhow, this is a special case of the more general result that $\prod(1+a_k)$ is absolutely convergent if and only if $\sum a_k$ is. (Here, a product is called absolutely convergent if it converges to a finite nonzero number, and the product is invariant under permutation of the indices.) The proof is built on the same basic idea, except you need to use $\log(1+a_k)=a_k+O(a_k^2)$. Otherwise, the inequality goes the right way only for negative $a_k$. –  Harald Hanche-Olsen Nov 27 '12 at 21:46
add comment

We see $\lambda_n=\prod_{i=0}^{n-1}{(1-\alpha_i)}$. Note this is a bounded monotonically decreasing sequence, so $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}{\lambda_n}$ exists. If $\lambda_n\rightarrow\gamma>0$, we get a contradiction: assume $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}{\lambda_n=\gamma}>0$. Then, by Cauchy Convergence Criterion, we see $\prod_{i=j}^k{(1-\alpha_i)}\rightarrow 1$, which implies $\sum_{i=j}^k{\alpha_i}\rightarrow 0$. However, this shows $\sum_{i=0}^\infty{\alpha_i}<\infty$ (this shows the sum is Cauchy). Therefore, the limit $\gamma\leq 0$. It is clear the limit is not less than $0$, and since the limit must exist, $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}{\lambda_n}=0$.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.