I'm learning about Fourier series, specifically Cesàro summable sequences and series, and need help with the following problem:

Show that if the series $\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} a_k$ is Cesàro summable and $n a_n \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$, then the series converges.

The definition that is given for Cesàro summable series is as follows:

Cesàro summable series. A series $\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} a_k$ is called Cesàro summable if the sequence of partial sum $S_n$ is Cesàro convergent, i.e. if $${S_0 + S_1 + \ldots + S_n \over n + 1}$$ converges as $n \to \infty$.

I'm sorry for the lack of effort on my part but I have no idea how to prove the above statement.

  • $\begingroup$ Should $\{na_n\}$ be bounded, not tending to infinity? $\endgroup$ – J.G May 30 '16 at 15:07
  • $\begingroup$ @user293121 Yes, obviously. Thanks for noticing me. $\endgroup$ – glpsx May 30 '16 at 15:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You mean notifying, right? Unless you thought no one acknowledges your existence, in which case, :( $\endgroup$ – Akiva Weinberger May 30 '16 at 16:11
  • $\begingroup$ @AkivaWeinberger Right! I meant notifying, so put on a happy face! :) $\endgroup$ – glpsx May 30 '16 at 21:45

Yesterday I said that this was Tauber's Theorem, the original tauberian theorem. It's not; Tauber's Theorem is the analogous result for Abel summability. This is Someone's Theorem. I'm going to give a proof of ST organized in what I feel is the "right" manner, deriving convergence from a sort of "maximal inequality"; then as a bonus we will see that one can prove Tauber's Theorem in the same manner, using estimates that are a little more intricate, although still straightforward.

First, your notation seems a little curious, since you start the summation at $k=1$ but include $s_0$. I'm going to start at $k=1$ as you do, but instead consider the averages $$\sigma_n=\frac{s_1+\dots+s_n}{n}.$$

Someone's Theorem is immediate from the following:

Theorem If $na_n\to0$ then $s_n-\sigma_n\to0$.

For any sequence $a=(a_1,\dots)$ define $$Ma=\sup_n|na_n|.$$

The theorem follows from the following "maximal inequality":

Lemma $|s_n-\sigma_n|\le Ma$ for every $n$.

Proof: First note that $$\sigma_n=\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{n-k+1}{n}a_k.$$ (Simply count the number of times each $a_k$ appears in $\sigma_n$.) Hence $$s_n-\sigma_n=\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{k-1}{n}a_k.$$Since $|k-1|\le k$ this shows that $$|s_n-\sigma_n|\le Ma\sum_{k=1}^n\frac1n=Ma.$$ QED.

Now to prove the theorem. Suppose $na_n\to0$. Let $\epsilon>0$. Choose $N$ so $|na_n|<\epsilon$ for all $n>N$, and define $$a_n'=\begin{cases} a_n,&(1\le n\le N), \\0,&(n>N) \end{cases}$$and $$a_n''=a_n-a_n'.$$In what one hopes is transparent notation, it is clear that $$s_n'-\sigma_n'\to0$$and $$Ma''\le\epsilon.$$So $$\limsup|s_n-\sigma_n|\le\limsup|s_n'-\sigma_n'|+\sup|s_n''-\sigma_n''| \le Ma''\le\epsilon.$$Hence $\limsup|s_n-\sigma_n|=0$. QED.

Bonus: Tauber's Theorem

Say $$f(r)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty a_kr^k\quad(0<r<1)$$and $s_n=\sum_{k=0}^na_k$.

Tauber's Theorem If $na_n\to0$ and $\lim_{r\to1}f(r)=s$ then $\sum_{k=0}^\infty a_k=s$.

As with Someone's Theorem, this follows from the somewhat stronger result

Theorem If $na_n\to0$ then $s_n-f(1-1/n)\to0$.

And that follows by an argument as above if we can show that $$\left|s_n-f\left(1-\frac1n\right)\right|\le cMa.$$To begin, it's clear that $$\left|s_n-f\left(1-\frac1n\right)\right|\le Ma\sum_{k=1}^n\frac1k\left(1-\left(1-\frac1n\right)^k\right) +Ma\sum_{k=n+1}^\infty\frac1k\left(1-\frac1n\right)^k,$$so we need only show that both sums on the right are bounded (independent of $n$).

There exist $\alpha$ and $\beta$ with $$0<\alpha<\left(1-\frac1n\right)^n<\beta<1\quad(n\ge2).$$So $$ \sum_{k=1}^n\frac1k\left(1-\left(1-\frac1n\right)^k\right)\le \sum_{k=1}^n\frac1k\left(1-\alpha^{k/n}\right)\le \int_0^n\left(1-\alpha^{t/n}\right)\frac{dt}{t} =\int_0^1\left(1-\alpha^{t}\right)\frac{dt}{t}$$ and similarly $$\sum_{k=n+1}^\infty\frac1k\left(1-\frac1n\right)^k \le \sum_{k=n+1}^\infty\frac1k\beta^{k/n} \le\int_n^\infty\beta^{t/n}\frac{dt}{t} =\int_1^\infty\beta^t\frac{dt}{t}.$$

| cite | improve this answer | |

This is an exercise in Rudin's Principle of Mathematical Analysis (Exercise 3.14(d) page 80).

If $\{s_n\}$ is a complex sequence, define its arithmetic means $\sigma_n$ by $$ \sigma_{n}=\frac{s_{0}+s_{1}+\cdots+s_{n}}{n+1} \quad(n=0,1,2, \ldots) $$ Put $a_n = s_n-s_{n-1}$, for $n\ge 1$. Assume that $\lim (na_n)=0$ and that $\sigma_n$ converges. Then $\{s_n\}$ converges.

This is an easy consequence of Exercise 3.14(a), which asks the readers to show that standard convergence implies Cesaro convergence.

Proof. Observe that $$ \begin{aligned} s_{n}-\sigma_{n} &=s_{n}-\frac{s_{0}+s_{1}+\cdots+s_{n}}{n+1} \\ &=\left(a_{0}+a_{1}+\cdots+a_{n-1}+a_{n}\right)- \frac{(n+1) a_{0}+n a_{1}+\cdots+2 a_{n-1}+a_{n}}{n+1} \\ &=\frac{a_{1}+2 a_{2}+\cdots+(n-1) a_{n-1}+n a_{n}}{n+1} \end{aligned}\;, $$ which is a Cesaro mean of the sequence $\{na_n\}$. But it is assumed that $\lim (na_n)=0$. Thus, we have $\lim (\sigma_n-s_n)=0$ since standard convergence implies Cesaro convergence.

Note: One can derive the conclusion from a weaker hypothesis: Assume that the sequence $\{na_n\}$ is bounded. Then if $\lim \sigma_n = \sigma$, one has $\lim s_n = \sigma$. (This is the follow-up exercise 3.14(e) in Rudin.)

| cite | improve this answer | |

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.