This has been answered before, but I have another "solution" that looks suspicious.

Exercise 22 from Spivak's Calculus, Chapter 23: Suppose $\{a_n\}$ is decreasing and each $a_n \ge 0$ . Prove that if $\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n$ converges, then $\lim _{n \to \infty} na_n =0$

If I use $$na_n \lt 1+na_n \le (1+a_n)^n$$ (from the binomial expansion) then $$ \limsup_{n \to \infty} \sqrt[n]{na_n} \lt \limsup_{n \to \infty}(1+a_n)=1 $$ since $\sum a_n$ converges thus $a_n \to 0$

By the root test $\sum na_n$ is convergent and so $\lim _{n \to \infty} na_n =0$

But I haven't used that $\{a_n\}$ is decreasing


In the second displayed formula, the one with the $\limsup$, we should have $\le$, not $\lt$. And the $\limsup$ being $1$ is not useful.

Under the given hypotheses, it is not necessarily true that $\sum na_n$ converges. For example, let $a_n=\frac{1}{n^2}$ or let $a_n=\frac{1}{n\sqrt{n}}$.


We know that $A_n=\sum_{k=1}^{n}{a_k}$ is a Cauchy sequence as $\sum{a_n}$ converges. Thus, for every $\epsilon>0$, exists $n_0$ such that for $n>n_0$ it holds $\epsilon>\sum_{k=1}^{n}{a_k}-\sum_{k=1}^{n/2-1}{a_k}\geq\frac{n}{2}a_n$ and then $$\frac{n}{2}a_n<\epsilon \Rightarrow na_n <2\epsilon$$

and we get that $\lim_{n\to \infty}{na_n}=0$


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.