7
$\begingroup$

Let $a_1,...,a_k$ be complex numbers different from $1$. I am trying to prove that if at least one of them has a module strictly greater than $1$, say $|a_1|>1$, then the series $\displaystyle\sum\frac{a_1^n+\cdots+a_k^n}{n}$ diverges.

I have tried to prove that $\dfrac{a_1^n+\cdots+a_k^n}{n}$ doesn't converge to $0$ as it should for the series to converge, and for that I've rewritten it as:

$$ \frac{|a_1^k+\cdots+a_n^k|}{k}= \frac{|a_1|^k}{k}\Big|1+\Big(\frac{a_2}{a_1}\Big)^k +\cdots+\Big(\frac{a_n}{a_1}\Big)^k\Big| $$ I thus have to prove that the sum after the $1+\cdots,\,$ doesn't converge to $-1$, but I can't seem to do it.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Looking at my deleted answer, it is enough to prove the claim in the case where $|a_1|=\ldots = |a_n|$. But that looks quite hard... $\endgroup$ – Gabriel Romon May 17 '18 at 18:09
1
$\begingroup$

We shall show that, if at least one of $|a_1|,\ldots,|a_k|$ is larger than one, then the sequence $\displaystyle b_n=\frac{1}{n}(a_1^n+\cdots+a_k^n)$ is not bounded, and hence $\displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{1}{n}(a_1^n+\cdots+a_k^n)$ diverges.

Assume, without loss of generality that $$ |a_1|=\cdots=|a_m|=r>s=|a_{m+1}|\ge |a_{m+2}|\ge\cdots\ge|a_k|, $$ where $r>1$.

We shall use the following lemma (its proof is postponed).

Lemma. If $w_1,\ldots,w_m\in \mathbb C$, with $|w_1|=\cdots=|w_m|=1$, then the sequence $z_n=w_1^n+\cdots+w_m^n$ does not tend to zero. Hence, there exists an $\eta>0$, such that $|z_n|\ge \eta$, for infinitely many $n$'s.

So, setting $a_1=rw_1,\ldots,a_m=rw_m$, then the Lemma provides that there exists an $\eta>0$ and infinitely many $n$'s such that $$ |a_1^n+\cdots+a_m^n|=r^n|w_1^n+\cdots+w_m^n|\ge \eta r^n, $$ and hence $z_n$ is unbounded since, for infinitely many $n$'s $$ |a_1^n+\cdots+a_k^n|\ge |a_1^n+\cdots+a_m^n|-|a_{m+1}^n+\cdots+a_k^n|\ge r^n|w_1^n+\cdots+w_m^n|-(k-m)s^n \\\ge \eta r^n-(k-m)s^n=\eta r^n \left(1-\frac{k-m}{\eta}\Big(\frac{s}{r}\Big)^n\right)>\frac{\eta}{2}r^n, $$ where the last inequality holds for sufficiently large $n$, as $s/r<1$.

Proof of the Lemma. Assume that $z_n\to 0$, as $n\to\infty$. The terms $w_1,\ldots,w_k$ do not have to be different. Say that there are only $\ell$ different complex numbers is the set $\{w_1,\ldots,w_k\}$, without loss of generality the $w_1,\ldots,w_\ell$, are different from each other and they appear $j_1,\ldots,j_\ell$ times, respectively (with $j_1+\cdots+j_\ell=k$). We have $$ j_1w_1^n+\cdots+j_\ell w_\ell^n=z_n,\\ w_1 j_1w_1^n+\cdots+w_\ell j_\ell w_\ell^n=z_{n+1},\\ \cdots\\ w_1^{\ell-1} j_1w_1^n+\cdots+w_\ell^{\ell-1} j_\ell w_\ell^n=z_{n+\ell-1}. $$ The above is viewed as an $\ell\times\ell$ linear system with unknowns the $j_1 w_1^n,\ldots,j_\ell w_\ell^n$ and system-matrix $A=(w_i^{j-1})_{i,j=1,\ldots,\ell}$ is the Vandermonde matrix, which is invertible, as the $w_1,\ldots,w_\ell$ are different from each other. Hence $$ (j_1w_1^n,\ldots,j_\ell w_\ell^n)^T=A^{-1}(z_n,\ldots,z_{n+\ell-1})^T. $$ So, if $z_n\to 0$, then so does the right-hand side of the above, and hence the left-hand side of the above. But $j_i|w_i|^n=j_i\ne 0$, for all $i=1,\ldots,\ell$. Contradiction. This concludes the proof of the Lemma.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The lemma is false as stated, as the moduli could be less than $1$ in which case you get convergence to $0.$ $\endgroup$ – zhw. May 17 '18 at 20:33
  • $\begingroup$ @zhw. You are right - I corrected formulation and the proof of the lemma. $\endgroup$ – Yiorgos S. Smyrlis May 17 '18 at 20:40
4
$\begingroup$

Suppose that the series is convergent. Then the power series $$ f(z)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{a_1^k+\cdots + a_n^k}k z^k $$ is valid on $D=\{z: |z|<1\}$.

By differentiation, we have $$ f'(z)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} (a_1^k + \cdots + a_n^k)z^{k-1}$$ is valid on $D$.

Moreover the series on the right side equals $$\frac{a_1}{1-a_1z} + \cdots +\frac{a_n}{1-a_n z} $$ on $|z|<\min \{1/|a_i| : 1\leq i\leq n\}<1$ since each term is geometric series.

This function has a pole at $1/a_1$ which is inside $D$. This is a contradiction. Thus, the series must be divergent.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't it rather $f'(z)=\sum_k^\infty k(a_1^k+...+a_n^k)z^{k-1}$? Also, I believe you have to prove each series converges before separating the sum (what if one pole and another `compensate'?). $\endgroup$ – John Do May 18 '18 at 13:56
  • $\begingroup$ $k$ doesn't appear in $f'(z)$ since $f(z)$ had $k$ in the denominator. Also, the series $f'(z)$ as the sum of rational functions is originally valid on $|z|<R$ where $R$ is minimum of $1/|a_i|$. But, is also valid on $D$ due to analytic continuation. And, the poles does not compensate. $\endgroup$ – Sungjin Kim May 18 '18 at 14:00
  • $\begingroup$ The above comment is under the assumption of convergence of the series. $\endgroup$ – Sungjin Kim May 18 '18 at 14:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is a great solution! +1. However, you did not explain, in your answer, why you can pull apart the series as you did. It would be good to do that, since it's a big part of the proof. So, assuming $a_1$ has the largest modulus among the $a_m,$ each of the series $\sum a_m^kz^{k-1}$ is a geometric series converging in $\{|z|<1/|a_1|\}.$ In that smaller disc, we can pull apart the series as you did. We then see $\lim_{r\to 1^-}|f(r/|a_1|)| \infty,$ contradiction, since $f'$ was analytic in the unit disc. No need to speak of poles or analytic continuation. $\endgroup$ – zhw. May 19 '18 at 15:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JohnDo Take a look at my comment. No need for analytic continuation ... $\endgroup$ – zhw. May 19 '18 at 15:54

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.