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.

I would like to revisit this question, which can be equivalently stated as:

Proposition. Let $(a_n)$ be a sequence of real (or complex) numbers such that $\sum a_n b_n$ converges for every $(b_n) \in \ell^2$. Then $(a_n) \in \ell^2$.

The proof given here by Bruno Stonek is the only one I know, which applies the uniform boundedness principle to the linear functionals $(b_n) \mapsto \sum_{n=1}^m a_n b_n$ in $(\ell^2)^*$. But I am inclined to agree with GEdgar's comment on Davide Giraudo's answer that this approach, though slick, is "far too advanced".

One could write the contrapositive as:

Let $(a_n)$ be a sequence of real numbers which is not $\ell^2$. Then there exists $(b_n) \in \ell^2$ such that $\sum a_n b_n$ diverges.

A natural way to try to prove that statement would be to explicitly construct such a $(b_n)$, by somehow manipulating $(a_n)$. Our current proof is far from constructive in that sense, since the uniform boundedness principle essentially just says that the set of such $(b_n)$ is comeager in the Hilbert space $\ell^2$, and then uses Baire to assert it is nonempty.

So my question:

Can anyone think of a way to explicitly construct $(b_n)$? Or alternatively, is there some reason to think that such a construction might be impossible?

For instance, as a wild guess, perhaps one could show that any map sending each $(a_n) \notin \ell^2$ to an appropriate $(b_n)$ would have to be nonmeasurable in some sense.

share|cite|improve this question
Actually, I just noticed Theo Buehler's reference to Sokal's simple proof of the uniform boundedness principle ( I think following Sokal might yield a construction; I'll look at it later. – Nate Eldredge Aug 19 '11 at 21:33

1 Answer 1

up vote 17 down vote accepted

One can construct explicitly such a sequence $(b_n)$ and this is probably explained in several books of examples and counterexamples in Analysis. Here we go.

Assume without loss of generality that $a_1\ne0$ and, for every $n\geqslant1$, let $$A_n=\sum\limits_{k=1}^na_k^2,\qquad b_n=\dfrac{a_n}{A_n}. $$ The result the OP is interested in is a consequence of the two claims below.

Claim 1: For every $(a_n)$, the sequence $(b_n)$ is in $\ell^2$.

Claim 2: For every $(a_n)$ not in $\ell^2$, the sequence $(a_nb_n)$ is not in $\ell^1$.

To prove claim 1, note that, for every $n\geqslant2$, $a_n^2=A_n-A_{n-1}$ hence $$ b_n^2=\frac{A_n-A_{n-1}}{A_n^2}\leqslant\frac{A_n-A_{n-1}}{A_nA_{n-1}}=\frac1{A_{n-1}}-\frac1{A_n}, $$ hence the series $\sum\limits_nb_n^2$ converges (and its sum is at most $2/a_1^2$). (This step does not use the hypothesis that the sequence $(a_n^2)$ is not summable hence that $A_n\to+\infty$).

To prove claim 2, note that, for every $N$ and every $2\leqslant k\leqslant N$, $$ a_kb_k=\frac{a_k^2}{A_k}\geqslant\frac{a_k^2}{A_N}=\frac{A_k-A_{k-1}}{A_N}. $$ Since the sequence $(a_n^2)$ is not summable, $A_N\to+\infty$ when $N\to\infty$. Hence, for every given $n\geqslant1$, there exists some $N\geqslant n$ such that $A_N\geqslant2A_n$. For every such $N$, $$ \sum\limits_{k=n+1}^Na_kb_k\geqslant\frac{A_N-A_{n}}{A_N}\geqslant\frac12. $$ This proves that $\sum\limits_{k=n+1}^Na_kb_k$ does not converge to zero when $n$ and $N\to\infty$. Hence, the series $\sum\limits_ka_kb_k$ diverges.

share|cite|improve this answer
Great! That's just what I was looking for. – Nate Eldredge Aug 20 '11 at 13:25
@Theo: Thanks for the correction. (Damn'd, this one will be difficult to get rid of, mentally...) – Did Aug 21 '11 at 11:24
No problem. I can imagine the difficulty. I can understand how this happens to French people, but Germans succumb to this slip, too, which I find harder to understand. By the way, you're swearing a lot, lately... :) – t.b. Aug 21 '11 at 11:42

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.