1
$\begingroup$

This post follows from Show that if $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_n$ converges conditionally, then $\prod_{n=1}^{\infty} (1+a_n)$ converges conditionally or diverges to 0..

There we haven't proved he following statement (particularly with my proof 2, we even seem to disprove it) that

if $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_n$ converges conditionally, and $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} {a_n}^2$ converges not, $\prod_{n=1}^{\infty} (1+a_n)$ diverges to $0$.

Any idea about ways to prove that? (Or to point out what goes wrong in my proof 2 that leads to the negation of the above statement.)

$\endgroup$
8
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Diverges to 0???? It's new to me, is there any definition of this! $\endgroup$
    – A learner
    Aug 10, 2020 at 10:15
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Subhajit Yes. An infinite product of complex numbers diverges to $0$ if the limit of the partial products is $0$. $\endgroup$
    – user239203
    Aug 10, 2020 at 10:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Subhajit When an infinite product is equal to $0$ this is usually called divergence, not convergence. If you think about it, this makes sense, since there might be examples where the product equals to $0$ because the first term is $0$, then the other terms are simply irrelevant. $\endgroup$
    – Mark
    Aug 10, 2020 at 10:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Subhajit The main reason is that you want the assertion "$\prod_n (1+a_n)$ converges if and only if $\sum_n \log (1+a_n)$ converges" to make the most sense it can. $\endgroup$
    – user239203
    Aug 10, 2020 at 10:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Charlie Chang I think ,it would help;math.stackexchange.com/questions/2712825/… $\endgroup$
    – A learner
    Aug 10, 2020 at 10:27

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

I see one problem in my proof 2 in Show that if $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_n$ converges conditionally, then $\prod_{n=1}^{\infty} (1+a_n)$ converges conditionally or diverges to 0. is since we have 'for all p, ...<$\epsilon$', then $\epsilon$ should be independent of p, but in my proof it is not!

More specifically, $\epsilon$ there depends on x only, not p, (so p depends not on $\epsilon$) so however small $\epsilon$ is, we can choose p sufficiently large, e.g. 1/$\epsilon$-1, so that $\epsilon'+\epsilon|M|(p+1)$ can't be arbitrarily small, e.g. it being larger than $|M|$.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .