Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I wonder what differences are between the folowwing two versions of Abel's criteria for uniform convergence:

From Elementary classical analysis by Marsden and Hoffman:

Abel's Test. Let $A \subset R^n$ and $\phi_n: A \rightarrow R$ be a sequence of functions which are decreasing; that is, $\phi_{n+1}(x) \leq \phi_n(x)$ for each $x \in A$. Suppose there is a constant $M$ such that$|\phi_n(x)| \leq M$ for all $x \in A$ and all $n$. If $\displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^\infty f_n(x)$ converges uniformly on $A$, then so does $\displaystyle \sum_{n=1}^\infty \phi_n(x)f_n(x)$.

From Wikipedia:

Abel's uniform convergence test. Let $\{g_n\}$ be a uniformly bounded sequence of real-valued continuous functions on a set $E$ such that $g_{n+1}(x) \leq g_n(x)$ for all $x ∈ E$ and positive integers $n$, and let $\{f_n\}$ be a sequence of real-valued functions such that the series $\displaystyle\sum f_n(x)$ converges uniformly on $E$. Then $\displaystyle\sum f_n(x)g_n(x) $converges uniformly on $E$.

  1. Is the additional requirement of continuity for a sequence of functions in Wikipedia the only difference? If not, what else?
  2. Is this continuity unnecessary and can be ignored as in Marsden's? If yes, is Marsden's a more general version? Or do you have a different one?

Thanks and regards!

share|cite|improve this question
Doesn't Marsden specify what $f_n$ is? The assumption of continuity in Wiki's version is superfluous, as well as the assumption that $f_n$ be real-valued, they could be complex-valued as well. I see no other difference except that assumption. There are many of results of this flavor, see e.g. Dirichlet's criterion and Dedekind's criterion for two of them. – t.b. Aug 23 '11 at 16:34
@Theo: Thanks! Does Marsden? I cannot find it. – Tim Aug 23 '11 at 16:40
I'm asking. I don't know. Probably he has a universal assumption what $f$ and $f_n$ is supposed to mean. Google doesn't let me look and I never held that book in my hands. – t.b. Aug 23 '11 at 16:42

I don't think that continuity is necessary.

Fix $\varepsilon>0$. The uniform convergence of the series implies that there exists $n$ such that $$ \left|\sum_{k=n}^m f_k(x)\right|<\varepsilon \ \ \ \text{ for all } x\in A, m>n. $$ The key to the proof is "summation by parts": we have $$ \sum_{k=n}^m\phi_k(x)f_k(x)=\phi_m(x)\sum_{k=n}^mf_k(x)-\sum_{k=n}^m(\phi_{k+1}(x)-\phi_k(x))\sum_{j=n}^kf_j(x). $$ Then

\begin{align} \left|\sum_{k=n}^m\phi_k(x)f_k(x)\right|&\leq|\phi_m(x)|\,\left|\sum_{k=n}^mf_k(x)\right|+\sum_{k=n}^m\,|\phi_{k+1}(x)-\phi_k(x)|\,\left|\sum_{j=n}^kf_j(x)\right|\\ &\leq M\varepsilon + \varepsilon \sum_{k=n}^m\,\phi_{k}(x)-\phi_{k+1}(x) =M\varepsilon + \varepsilon(\phi_n(x)-\phi_{m+1}(x))\\ &<3M\varepsilon. \end{align}

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.