Recently I found (somewhere on math.se) a nice proof for $\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{n}{2^n} = 2$ and thought “oh, that‘s surprising, as also $\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{2^n} = 2$ and it ‘feels like’ the first series should be greater than the later one.” However the surprise did not last very long, as I noticed the first summand of the first series is zero. So basically one has $\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{n}{2^n} = 2 > 1 = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{2^n}$, which is less surprising.

So I asked myself whether there exists a series $\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n$ with

  • $\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n = \sum_{n=1}^\infty n a_n$
  • $a_n \gt 0$ for $n \in \mathbb{N}$ (ie. no $0 = 0$ tricks)
  • both series converge (ie. no $\infty = \infty$ tricks)

I tried $a_n = \frac{1}{n!}$, but then $\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n = e-1 \lt e = \sum_{n=1}^\infty n a_n$ (interestingly, the difference is $1$ again!) and then I failed to find an example (or a proof that this is impossible).

Does such a series exist?

  • 7
    $\begingroup$ No, you have $$\sum_{n = 1}^\infty (n-1)a_n > 0.$$ $\endgroup$ Aug 7 '15 at 11:26

Suppose such a series exists. Then $$0 \le \sum_{n \ge 1} (n-1)a_n = \sum_{n \ge 1} na_n - \sum_{n \ge 1} a_n =0$$ so all terms of the sequence are $0$. A contradiction.

The problem is that you cannot make confusion with $\sum_{n \ge 1} na_n$ and $\sum_{n \ge 0} na_n$ because the second one has the first term equal to $0$, while the second no.

In general, under the hypothesis that $0<a_n$ and both sums are convergent, $$\sum_{n \ge 0} na_n = \sum_{n \ge 0} a_n$$ can be rewritten as $$a_1 + 2a_2 + 3a_3 + \dots = a_0 + a_1 + a_2 + a_3 + \dots$$ which is equivalent to $$a_2 + 2a_3 + \dots = a_0$$ which is the case when you have $a_n=2^{-n}$.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the fast answer. The proof turned out to be rather easy indeed. :) $\endgroup$
    – Keba
    Aug 7 '15 at 11:37
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Just a minor correction: $$0 \le \sum_{n \ge 1} (n-1)a_n = \sum_{n \ge 1} na_n - \sum_{n \ge 1} a_n =0$$ implies that all terms of the sequence, EXCEPT $a_1$, are $0$. Any way it is a contradiction. $\endgroup$
    – Ramiro
    Aug 7 '15 at 12:04
  • $\begingroup$ This assumes that the series is a positive series? $\endgroup$
    – Belgi
    Aug 7 '15 at 12:45
  • $\begingroup$ @Belgi: Yes, $a_n \gt 0$ is a requirement in the question $\endgroup$
    – Keba
    Aug 7 '15 at 18:07

Assum that $f(x)= \sum_{n \geq 0} a_n x^n$ and $f'(x)-f(x)-f(0)=0$ is true for $x\in[0,R]$ that $R$ is a Radius of convergence of $f(x)$. it is clearly that $R\geq1$ because $f(1)= \sum_{n \geq 0} a_n$. solution of this ODE is our series.

$f(x)= \sum_{n \geq 0} a_n x^n, \quad f(1)= \sum_{n \geq 0} a_n , \quad f(0)=a_0,$

$f'(x)= \sum_{n \geq 1} na_n x^{n-1}, \quad f'(1)= \sum_{n \geq 1} na_n ,$

$\sum_{n \geq 1} na_n-\sum_{n \geq 0} a_n-a_0=f'(1)-f(1)-f(0)=0,$

Assume that $x\in[0,R]$:

$ \sum_{n \geq 1} na_n x^{n-1}-\sum_{n \geq 0} a_n x^n-f(0)=f'(x)-f(x)-f(0)=0$


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.