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.

Why multiplication of finite sums $(\sum_{i=0}^n a_i)(\sum_{i=0}^n b_i)=\sum_{i=0}^n (\sum_{j=0}^ia_jb_{i-j})$ (EDIT: This assumption was shown to be false) does not work in infinite case? I have constructed proof which shows it does but it must hase some flaw which I can not find. Here goes the proof:

By definition infinite series is just limit $\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n = \lim_{n \to \infty } \sum_{i=0}^n a_i$. So using this definition, multiplication of finite sums and distributivity of $lim$:

$$\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n\right)\left(\sum_{i=0}^\infty b_i\right) = \lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{i=0}^n a_i \cdot\lim_{n \to \infty } \sum_{i=0}^n b_i = \lim_{n \to \infty } \sum_{i=0}^n a_i \sum_{i=0}^n b_i $$ $$= \lim_{n \to \infty } \sum_{i=0}^n \sum_{j=0}^ia_jb_{i-j} = \sum_{i=0}^\infty \sum_{j=0}^ia_jb_{i-j}$$

share|improve this question
    
AFAIK it works for absolutely convergent (and that can be even relaxed a bit by not requiring all of them to be). –  user2345215 Mar 9 at 14:23
    
@user2345215 I know. Requirement is that at least one of the sum must be absolutely convergent. –  Trismegistos Mar 9 at 18:40
add comment

3 Answers 3

up vote 4 down vote accepted

This is certainly not true:

$$\left(\sum_{i=0}^n a_i\right)\left(\sum_{i=0}^nb_i\right) = \sum_{i=0}^n \sum_{j=0}^i a_jb_{i-j}$$

So it's not clear why you'd expect the limit as $n\to\infty$ is the same. If definitely requires a much more careful argument.

The actual equality is:

$$\left(\sum_{i=0}^n a_i\right)\left(\sum_{i=0}^nb_i\right) = \sum_{i=0}^n \sum_{j=0}^i a_jb_{i-j} + \sum_{i=0}^n\sum_{j=i}^n a_jb_{n+i-j}$$

You need that error term to approach zero, which is not at all obvious.

share|improve this answer
    
Wikipedia article (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_product#Series) suggested that $\left(\sum_{i=0}^n a_i\right)\left(\sum_{i=0}^nb_i\right) = \sum_{i=0}^n \sum_{j=0}^i a_jb_{i-j}$ for finite sums as well as formal power series. –  Trismegistos Mar 9 at 15:21
1  
Just work it out yourself - the right hand side does not have $a_nb_n$ in it. And nowhere does the Wikipedia article say what you think it says. Rather, for finite sums, you just treat it as an infinite sum where $a_k=0$ when $k>n$. You still need terms where $i+j>n$. @Trismegistos –  Thomas Andrews Mar 9 at 15:27
add comment

Just try with two terms. So, you have $$(\sum_{i=0}^1 a_i)(\sum_{i=0}^1 b_i)=a_0 b_0+a_1 b_0+a_0 b_1+a_1 b_1$$ $$\sum_{i=0}^1 \sum_{j=0}^1 a_jb_{i-j}=a_0 b_0+a_1 b_0+a_0 b_1$$

share|improve this answer
add comment

As @Claude has stated for the simpler cases here is it for 4 elements in $a$ and in $b$. The correct sum is the sum over all elements of the ("outer"(?)) product $C$ of the two vectors $$ A^T \cdot B=C= \small \begin{array} {r|rrrr} & b_0 & b_1 & b_2 & b_3 \\ \hline a_0 & a_0b_0 & a_0b_1 & a_0b_2 & a_0b_3 \\ a_1 & a_1b_0 & a_1b_1 & a_1b_2 & a_1b_3 \\ a_2 & a_2b_0 & a_2b_1 & a_2b_2 & a_2b_3 \\ a_3 & a_3b_0 & a_3b_1 & a_3b_2 & a_3b_3 \end{array} $$ But your second expression which refers to the antidiagonals sums only the antidiagonals up to (and including) $a_3b_0 ... a_0 b_3$ but not the remaining antidiagonals.

For the infinite cases this can only be correct if the sum of the whole remaining lower triangle beyond $$ C^*= \small \begin{array} {r|rrrr} & b_0 & b_1 & b_2 & b_3 \\ \hline a_0& & & & \\ a_1 & & & & a_1b_3 \\ a_2& & & a_2b_2 & a_2b_3 \\ a_3& & a_3b_1 & a_3b_2 & a_3b_3 \end{array} $$ would be neglectable (converges to zero). But notice that its size expands also without bound when n tends to infinity...

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.