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.

Suppose $a_n$ is strictly decreasing and positive and $\sum_{n>1}a_n/n=\infty$, let $g:\mathbb N\to\mathbb N$ be a bijection between the positive integers, can we have $\sum_{n>1}a_n/g(n)<\infty$?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 6 down vote accepted

If $a_n$ goes to zero, choose a subsequence whose $n$th term is smaller than $1/n$.

Now, for any index that is not a power of two, pair up $1/n$ with the term of the subsequence that is smaller than $1/n$.

The sum of these terms is smaller than $\sum \frac 1 {n^2}=\pi^2/6$.

Pair up the remaining $a_n$ with the remaining $1/2^k$. This gives a series that is smaller than $\sum a_1 \frac 1 {2^n}=a_1$. (The $a_n$ are decreasing and bounded by $a_1$.)

Since everything is positive, this implies that the series converges.

share|improve this answer
1  
The idea is to form one subsequence that uses "few" $a_n$ and "many" $1/n$ so that $a_n$ is small and makes the product small, and another subsequence that uses "many" $a_n$ and "few" $1/n$ so that $1/n$ is small and makes the product small. This is the same idea as in David's answer, of course. –  Phira Nov 23 '11 at 19:10

We may assume, $a_n\searrow 0$ (otherwise, you can't do it).

Choose a subsequence $\{a_{n_k}\}$ with $a_{n_k}\le {1\over 2^k}$.

We write our new sequence: $a_1/2, a_2/4, \ldots, a_{n_1-1}/2^{n_1-1}$

The next term is $a_{n_1}/1$.

For terms after $a_{n_1}$ and before $a_{n_2}$ we continue dividing by powers of 2.

The next term is $a_{n_2}/ 3$.

In general:

Terms $a_i$ that are not a term of the subsequence are divided by $2^i$. The series formed by these terms will converge since the $a_i$ are decreasing and $\sum{1\over 2^n}$ converges

A term $a_{n_k}$ is divided by the first integer that hasn't been used to that point. The series form by these terms clearly converges, since $a_{n_k}\le 2^{-k}$ and we made the terms smaller.

Thus, the resulting series of nonnegative terms converges.

I think this works. I'd try to formalize it; but I'm sure I would just make a mess of things...

share|improve this answer
    
hum, but isn't the whole problem that the terms that are not terms of the subsequence may be very, very numerous ? it doesn't matter that you divide them by powers of 2 (say less than 2^n_k) if there are way more than 2^n_k of them... For this reason I actually think it is false (but definitely not trivial !) –  Glougloubarbaki Nov 23 '11 at 19:09
    
Those terms are bounded, and the series formed by those terms would converge since $\sum 2^{-n}$ converges. –  David Mitra Nov 23 '11 at 19:14
    
it's hard to say it precisely, but if you take $a_n = 1/(\ln(1+ \ln(1+ \ln(1+ n))))$ the number of terms before $a_n < 1/4$ is monstruous, and you'll end up with a sum of an enourmous number of terms of the size $1/4 /(\ln(1+ \ln(1+ \ln(1+ n))))$ which is not so small, and so on at every stage, so that the sum will not converge. –  Glougloubarbaki Nov 23 '11 at 19:15
1  
I am also led to a similar conclusion. If it needs to formalize, one may do like this: Suppose $a_n \downarrow 0$. Let $(x_{n})$ be an increasing sequence so that both $a_{x(k)} \leq 2^{-k}$ and $x(k) \geq 2^{k}$. Also let $(y_{n})$ be the enumeration of the set $\mathbb{N} - \{ x_n : n \in \mathbb{N} \}$ in increasing order. Then define $$g(n) = \begin{cases} x(k) & \text{if} \ n = y(k) \\ y(k) & \text{if} \ n = x(k) \end{cases}.$$ Then $$\sum_{n \geq 1} \frac{a_n}{g(n)} = \sum_{k \geq 1} \frac{a_{x(k)}}{y(k)} + \sum_{k \geq 1} \frac{a_{y(k)}}{x(k)},$$ which clearly converges. –  sos440 Nov 23 '11 at 19:18
    
ok, you're right –  Glougloubarbaki Nov 23 '11 at 19:25

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.