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.

I have a conjecture regarding series convergence that feels like it would be a useful tool to me if I could prove it, but I have been unable to prove or disprove it.

Let $\sum a_n$ be a series of nonnegative terms. Define $\lambda(N)$ to be the number of terms of the series that are greater than $1/N$.

Conjecture: If $\lambda(N)=O(N^\alpha)$, with $0<\alpha<1$, then $\sum a_n$ converges.

The conjecture is based on the fact that this is true for series of the form $\sum 1/n^k$, $k$ constant (let $\alpha = 1/k$), and my intuition that the hypothesis of the conjecture is enough to make $\sum a_n$ "sufficiently similar to or bounded by" such a series.

Can you offer a counterexample or point me toward an idea for a proof?

(I tried to bound $\Delta\lambda(N) = \lambda(N+1)-\lambda(N)$ from the assumption $\lambda(N)=O(N^\alpha)$, since possibly excluding a finite number of terms, the series sum is bounded above by $\sum \Delta\lambda(N)/N$; but I couldn't see how to do this.)

share|improve this question

3 Answers 3

up vote 10 down vote accepted

Let $M>0$ be such that $\lambda(N)<M\cdot N^\alpha$ for all $N$. Summation by parts yields

$\begin{align*} \sum_{N=1}^{n-1}\frac{1}{N}(\lambda(N+1)-\lambda(N)) &=\frac{\lambda(n)}{n}-\lambda(1)+\sum_{N=1}^{n-1}\lambda(N+1)\left(\frac{1}{N}-\frac{1}{N+1}\right)\\ &\leq\frac{\lambda(n)}{n}+\sum_{N=1}^{n-1}\frac{\lambda(2N)}{N^2}\\ &\leq\frac{M}{n^{1-\alpha}}+M\cdot2^\alpha\sum_{N=1}^{n-1}\frac{1}{N^{2-\alpha}} \end{align*}$

for all $n$, so $$\sum_{N=1}^\infty\frac{1}{N}(\lambda(N+1)-\lambda(N))\leq M\cdot2^\alpha\sum_{N=1}^\infty\frac{1}{N^{2-\alpha}}<\infty.$$

And as you mentioned, $\sum a_n\leq c+\sum \Delta\lambda(N)/N$ for some constant $c$ corresponding to the finite number of terms larger than $1$.

share|improve this answer
    
I suppose the unstated point is that $\sum a_n$ can be bounded by that first sum? –  Gerry Myerson Aug 4 '11 at 6:14
    
Gerry, thanks, now I've stated it. –  Jonas Meyer Aug 4 '11 at 6:17

This is summation by blocks in disguise.

For every $k\ge0$, the sum of the terms $a_n$ such that $2^{-(k+1)}\le a_n\le 2^{-k}$ is at most the number of terms times a common upper bounds of these, hence at most $\lambda(2^{k+1})$ times $2^{-k}$. It happens that the number $\lambda(1)$ of terms $a_n$ such that $a_n\ge1$ is finite (1), hence it suffices to consider the sum of the terms $a_n$ such that $a_n\le1$. This sum is at most $$ \sum_{k=0}^{+\infty}\sum_na_n\cdot[2^{-(k+1)}\le a_n\le 2^{-k}]\le\sum_{k=0}^{+\infty}\lambda(2^{k+1})2^{-k}. $$ Now, if $\lambda(N)\le c\cdot N^a$ for every $N$ large enough, then $\lambda(2^{k+1})\le c\cdot2^{a(k+1)}$ for every $k$ large enough and the last series above is controlled by the series $$ \displaystyle2^ac\cdot\sum_k2^{-(1-a)k}, $$ which converges since the hypothesis that $a<1$ implies that $2^{-(1-a)}<1$.

(1) The proof is simple: $\lambda(1)\le\lambda(N)$ for every $N\ge1$ and the hypothesis that $\lambda(N)=O(N^a)$ implies that $\lambda(N)$ is finite for $N$ large enough.

share|improve this answer
    
+1 wish I could accept both answers! I was thinking that the assumption that $\lambda(N) = O(N^\alpha)$ rules out the possibility of $\lambda(N)$ ever being infinite. I want this because I want the conjecture to include this case: if $\lambda(N)$ is ever infinite, then it is certainly not $O(N^\alpha)$ for $\alpha \leq 1$, and sure enough the series diverges. –  Ben Blum-Smith Aug 4 '11 at 12:55
    
This is both right and wrong... In general, the hypothesis that two sequences $(a_N)$ and $(b_N)$ are such that $a_N=O(b_N)$ concerns only their asymptotics, in the sense that, for every fixed finite $n$, if one modifies some or every $a_N$ and $b_N$ for $N\le n$ one does not change the conclusion. But in your case, the sequence $(\lambda(N))$ is nondecreasing hence if $\lambda(n)$ was infinite for a given $n$, then $\lambda(N)$ would be infinite for every $N\ge n$ as well and the hypothesis $\lambda(N)=O(N^a)$ would not hold. (I missed that fact in my answer, so I will modify it.) –  Did Aug 4 '11 at 13:22

Another way of thinking about it:

Let $f(n):=a_n$ and extend $\lambda(N)$ to $\mathbb R$ by defining $\lambda(t)=\#\{n:f(n)>1/t\}$ (here $\#$ means cardinality). Define $F_f(t)=\lambda(1/t)=\#\{n:f(n)>t\}$; if we think of the set of positive integers as a measure space, with the counting measure, then the function $F_f(t)$ is the distribution function of $f$, and $$ \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}f(n)=\int_0^{\infty}F_f(t)\,\mathrm dt. $$ Your hypothesis is that $F_f(1/N)=O(N^{\alpha})$. In particular, there are only finitely many values of $f$ that are $>1$, and $f$ is bounded.

Since $\lceil t^{-1}\rceil^{-1}\leq t<2\lceil t^{-1}\rceil^{-1}$ for $t\leq 1$, we can convert the bound on $F_f(1/N)$ to a bound on $F_f(t)$: $$F_f(t)\leq F_f(\lceil t^{-1}\rceil^{-1})\leq C\lceil t^{-1}\rceil^{\alpha}\leq C2^{\alpha} t^{-\alpha}\qquad(0<t\leq1),$$ for some constant $C$. That is to say, $F_f(t)=O(t^{-\alpha})$. (This is the same as saying that $f$ is in weak $\ell^{\alpha}$.) Now we can just approximate the integral above: If $M$ is a bound for $f$, then $$ \int_0^{\infty}F_f(t)\,\mathrm dt = \int_0^MF_f(t)\,\mathrm dt \leq C'\int_0^1t^{-\alpha}\,\mathrm dt + C'MF_f(1) <\infty, $$ since $0<\alpha<1$.

In fact, your observation can be generalized: Let $L^{p,\infty}(\mu)$ denote weak $L^p(\mu)$, the space of all functions $f:(X,\mu)\to\mathbb C$ satisfying $$ \|f\|_{p,w}:=\sup_{t>0}\,\,{t\,\mu(\{x:|f(x)|>t\})^{1/p}}<\infty. $$ If $f\in L^{p,\infty}(\mu)\cap L^{q,\infty}(\mu)$, where $0<p<q\leq\infty$, then $f\in L^r(\mu)$ for all $r\in (p,q)$. (See Grafakos, Classical Fourier Analysis, pp. 8-9 for a more precise result; also, Terry Tao's blog has some interesting information in connection with this topic in general.)

To apply this generalization to your specific case, you can take $p=\alpha$, $q=\infty$ (because $\{a_n\}$ is bounded), and $r=1$ to conclude that $\{a_n\}\in \ell^1$.

(I wanted to say something about this yesterday, but I couldn't think of the appropriate generalization. Being new to the subject, I also wanted to check with a professor of mine to ensure that the above analogy was apt. Please let me know if there are errors.)

share|improve this answer
    
+1 I'm too new to measure theory to be able to check your details but thank you for taking the time to approach the question from this point of view. –  Ben Blum-Smith Oct 3 '11 at 23:23

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.