Here is Prob. 12, Chap. 3 in the book Principles of Mathematical Analysis by Walter Rudin, 3rd edition:

Suppose $a_n > 0$ and $\sum a_n$ converges. Put $$ r_n = \sum_{m=n}^\infty a_m.$$

Prove that $$ \frac{a_m}{r_m} + \cdots + \frac{a_n}{r_n} > 1 - \frac{r_n}{r_m}$$ if $m < n$, and deduce that $\sum \frac{a_n}{r_n}$ diverges.

Prove that $$ \frac{a_n}{\sqrt{r_n}} < 2 \left( \sqrt{r_n} - \sqrt{r_{n+1}} \right)$$ and deduce that $\sum \frac{a_n}{\sqrt{r_n}}$ converges.

My effort:

Let $s_n = a_1 + \cdots + a_n$, and let $s = \sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n$. Then $r_n = s - s_{n-1}$.

Moreover, since $s_n \to s$ as $n \to \infty$, so $r_n \to 0$.

Also as $a_n > 0$, we can conclude that $s_n < s_{n+1}$ and also that $s = \sup \left\{ \ s_n \ \colon \ n \in \mathbb{N} \ \right\}$, which implies that $r_n > 0$. [Am I right?]

If $m < n$, then $s_{m-1} < s_{n-1}$ and so $r_m > r_n > 0$. So $$ \frac{a_m}{r_m} + \cdots + \frac{a_n}{r_n} > \frac{ a_m + \cdots + a_n}{r_m} = \frac{ s_n - s_{m-1}}{r_m} = \frac{ r_m - r_{n+1} }{r_m} = 1 - \frac{ r_{n+1}}{r_m} > 1- \frac{r_n}{r_m}.$$

Fix $m \in N$. Now as $\lim_{n \to \infty} r_n = 0$, so we can find a natural number $N$ such that $n > N$ implies $r_n < \frac{r_m}{2}$. So, for any natural number $M$, we can find natural numbers $n$, $m$, such that $n > m > M$, but $$ \sum_{k=m}^n \frac{a_k}{r_k} > \frac{1}{2}.$$ So the Cauchy criterion for convergence is not satisfied by the series $\sum \frac{a_n}{r_n}$, which therefore diverges. Am I right?

Now we note that $$ 2 \left( \sqrt{ r_n} - \sqrt{r_{n+1}} \right) = \frac{ 2 \left( r_n - r_{n+1} \right)}{ \sqrt{ r_n} + \sqrt{r_{n+1}} } > \frac{ 2 \left( s- s_{n-1} - s + s_n \right)}{ 2 \sqrt{r_n}} = \frac{a_n}{\sqrt{r_n}}. $$ Am I right?

Thus, for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$, we have $$0 \leq \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{a_k}{\sqrt{r_k}} < 2 \sum_{k=1}^n \left( \sqrt{r_k} - \sqrt{r_{k+1}} \right) = 2 \left( \sqrt{r_1} - \sqrt{r_{n+1}} \right) = 2 \left( \sqrt{s} - \sqrt{ s - s_n} \right) \to 2 \sqrt{s}$$ as $n \to \infty$ and therefore $$ 0 \leq \lim_{n\to \infty} \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{a_n}{\sqrt{r_n}} \leq 2 \sqrt{s},$$ provided that this limit exists. But how do we show that this limit does exist?


The first part is correct, but you have left out a lot of details. For example, why is rn=s-sn-1? You cannot simply add and subtract, it's a limiting process. For n>m, m fixed, sn-sm-1 tends to rm. This limiting value is also equal to s-sm-1.

For the second part, use the comparison test.

  • $\begingroup$ how then would we justify $r_n = s-s_{n-1}$? Or does this relation hold at all? If it doesn't, then the whole of my argument collapses. Can you please supply the details in your answer? $\endgroup$ – Saaqib Mahmood Oct 30 '16 at 9:57
  • $\begingroup$ If you go through Rudin's chapter on sequences and series, you will see that he defines the limit of a series as the limit of a sequence. $\endgroup$ – user384095 Oct 30 '16 at 13:47
  • $\begingroup$ Suppose s<sub>n</sub> tends to s. Then s<sub>n</sub>-s<sub>m-1</sub> tends to r<sub>m</sub>, where the initial value of n>m. But since m is fixed, the limiting value is also equal to s-s<sub>m</sub>. $\endgroup$ – user384095 Oct 30 '16 at 13:57
  • $\begingroup$ I'll try to write it out for you. Suppose $s_n \to s$. Then $s_n - s_{m-1} \to r_m$, where the initial value of $n > m$. But since $m$ is fixed, the limiting value is also equal to $s-s_m$. Is this waht you wanted to write? If so, I didn't get your point. $\endgroup$ – Saaqib Mahmood Oct 30 '16 at 14:04
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, that is what I meant. The point is that you have to explicitly prove what you are claiming, especially with a series. Also, the only reason the equality holds is because the terms are all positive. If you already knew the proof to this, then my apologies. $\endgroup$ – user384095 Oct 30 '16 at 14:13

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.