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

Suppose I have a series $\sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} f_{n}(x)$ which converges absolutely to a function $f(x)$. Does the series converge uniformly to $f(x)$? I want to say this follows from Dini's Theorem, but I can't seem to see how.

share|cite|improve this question
Try $f_n(x):=x^n(1-x)$ on $\left[0,1\right]$ (if I understand the question correctly). – Davide Giraudo Oct 26 '11 at 17:09
You can also try $f_n = \frac{x}{n^2}$ on $R$. – N. S. Oct 26 '11 at 17:31
up vote 6 down vote accepted

There are easy counterexamples to the statement, which others have already supplied.

But let me say what mistake I think you're making. Dini's Theorem has a lot of fine print: in particular, it requires the pointwise limit function to be continuous. You can see that this hypothesis is not met in the above counterexamples. Conversely, if each $f_n$ and also $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} |f_n(x)|$ were continuous, then indeed you could apply Dini's Theorem to see that the convergence of $\sum_n |f_n(x)|$ is uniform, from which it follows that the convergence of $\sum_n f_n(x)$ is uniform, say via the Cauchy criterion.

You have my sympathies for forgetting this hypothesis of Dini's Test. I still have a set of lecture notes up on my webpage where I state Dini's Test incorrectly (I can't find the tex file to change it!), and when I mentioned it in a second course more recently, I made my way through the statement and the proof (!) without making explicit the need for continuity of the limit function. Finally I got it right: see for instance $\S III.1.4$ of these notes.

share|cite|improve this answer
+1, if only for the phrase a lot of fine print. – Did Oct 29 '11 at 10:32

The example given by Davide Giraudo works well. Indeed for $x \neq 1$ we have $$\sum_{n=0}^\infty x^n(1-x) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty x^n - \sum_{n=1}^\infty x^{n} = 1,$$ but for $x = 1$ the series is $0$. If the convergence was uniform, the resulting function would be continuous, which it isn't.

There is however a result called Weierstrass M-test. It says that if each of the functions $f_n$ is bounded, i.e. $\sup_{x \in [0,1]} |f_n(x)| \le M_n$ for some constant $M_n > 0$, and if $\sum_{n=0}^\infty M_n < \infty$, then the convergence is uniform. (Here I have taken $[0,1]$ as the domain of the functions. You may replace this by any set.)

share|cite|improve this answer
This example is neither absolutely nor uniformly convergent. I say that it is not absolutely convergent coz this series has 1 as convergence on (0,1] while 0 on point 0 which means it is divergent on [0,1]. – Bear and bunny Dec 19 '14 at 15:57

In view of the reference to Dini one might ask, what if all $f_n$ and $f$ are continuous functions on a compact set $K$? Thus if all $f_n \ge 0$, Dini would say the convergence is uniform on $K$. But without that hypothesis it's not true. Consider $K=[0,1]$ where
$f_{2n-1}$ is the piecewise-linear interpolation of $f_{2n-1}(0) = 0$, $f_{2n-1}(1/(2n)) = 1$, $f_{2n-1}(1/n) = 0$, $f_{2n-1}(1) = 0$, while $f_{2n}(x) = - f_{2n-1}(x)$. Then $\sum_{n=1}^\infty f_n(x)$ converges absolutely to $f(x) = 0$ but the odd partial sums have maximum value 1.

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.