1
$\begingroup$

As stated in this question If $\sum a_n$ converges then $\liminf na_n=0$, the proof in the title can be proven if it can be shown that there is a subsequence of $na_n$ that converges to 0. I was curious if anyone can provide a witness for this statement. The answer given in the linked question is a contradiction argument.

Edit: The sequence $a_n$ is positive. I already know that this is true and understand the non-constructive proof for it, but I was wondering if anyone could provide a proof that involves actually constructing a subsequence of $na_n$ that converges to 0.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ By "witness" you mean an example? $\endgroup$ – evaristegd Jul 21 '19 at 7:12
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe not a specific example, but an algorithm for producing such a sequence would suffice $\endgroup$ – Aphyd Jul 21 '19 at 7:16
  • $\begingroup$ @DonAntonio You only need positive. For if $\liminf_n a_n=\alpha>0$, then $\sum_n a_n\ge c+\frac\alpha2\sum_n\frac1n=\infty$. $\endgroup$ – Gae. S. Jul 21 '19 at 7:26
  • $\begingroup$ If the series converges, its terms must decrease to $0$. But you do need absolute convergence to be sure this is true, as the alternating harmonic series demonstrates. $\endgroup$ – Robert Shore Jul 21 '19 at 7:27
  • $\begingroup$ Perhaps my edit will clarify the answer I am looking for. $\endgroup$ – Aphyd Jul 21 '19 at 7:36
0
$\begingroup$

Note that $$\inf_{n+1 \leq p \leq 2n}\,pa_p \leq 2n\inf_{n+1 \leq p \leq 2n}\,a_p \leq 2\sum_{p=n+1}^{2n}{a_p}.$$

As a consequence, $$\inf_{k \geq n+1}\,ka_k \leq 2\sum_{k > n}{a_k},$$ which proves the conclusion.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.