6
$\begingroup$

Prove that if $\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}a_k$ converges, $\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}{a_k}{x^k}$ converges uniformly on $[0, 1]$.

I already know that $\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}{a_k}{x^k}$ converges pointwise on $[0, 1]$
by either Abel's or Dirichlet's Test for pointwise convergence.
Now, can I do this proof without Dirichlet's Test for uniform convergence?
I don't want to use it because, in the text,
this question came before Dirichlet's Test for uniform convergence.

Since we don't know that $\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}a_k$ converges absolutely,
we can't say that for all $x \in [0, 1]$, $|{a_k}{x^k}| \le |a_k|$ and apply the Weiertrass M-test.

Also, since we don't know if $\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}a_k$ is an alternating series,
we can't say that that since $\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}{a_k}{x^k}$ converges pointwise,
let $\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}{a_k}{x^k} = A(x)$ and observe that for all $x \in [0, 1]$, $$|A(x) - \sum_{k=0}^{n}{a_k}{x^k}| \le |a_{n+1}|x^{n+1} \le |a_{n+1}| \rightarrow 0$$ as $n$ goes to infinity.

A clue is sufficient. I really want to think this problem through. TY!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @Arthur A series without a variable can't converge uniformly. It needs to be a series of functions for the notion to make sense. Also, the $|a_k|$ are bounded, but that only gives pointwise convergence unless I'm missing something obvious. $\endgroup$ – Zach L. Jul 13 '13 at 6:47
  • $\begingroup$ @ZachL. I'm confusing it with absolute convergence, sorry. $\endgroup$ – Arthur Jul 13 '13 at 6:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Another attempt, then. Set $A_k = \sum_{i = 0}^k a_i$ and $f_k(x) = \sum_{i = 0}^k a_ix^i$ for notational convinience. Given an $\epsilon > 0$, choose $N$ so that $|A_\infty - A_n| < \epsilon$ for all $n> N$. Such an $N$ exists by convergence of $A_\infty$. Now if we can prove that $|f_\infty(x) - f_k(x)| \leq |A_\infty - A_k|$ for all $x$ and $k$, we're done. If you write out the sum on each side, it shouldn't be too hard. $\endgroup$ – Arthur Jul 13 '13 at 7:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You could use Abel's lemma, I believe. $\endgroup$ – David Mitra Jul 13 '13 at 10:25
  • $\begingroup$ See this for a proof using Abel's lemma. $\endgroup$ – David Mitra Jul 13 '13 at 13:17
6
$\begingroup$

For $n \in \mathbb{N}$, define

$$R_n = \sum_{k = n}^{\infty} a_k$$

and $M_n = \sup \{ \lvert R_k\rvert : k \geqslant n\}$. Then $M_n$ decreases to $0$, and using $a_k = R_k - R_{k+1}$ a summation by parts yields

\begin{align} \sum_{k = m}^n a_k x^k &= \sum_{k = m}^n (R_k - R_{k+1})x^k \\ &= R_m x^{m-1} + \sum_{k = m}^n R_k(x^k - x^{k-1}) - R_{n+1}x^n \tag{$\ast$} \end{align}

for $1 \leqslant m \leqslant n$. For $0 \leqslant x \leqslant 1$, we obtain

\begin{align} \Biggl\lvert \sum_{k = m}^n a_k x^k\Biggr\rvert &\leqslant \lvert R_m\rvert + (1-x)\sum_{k = m}^n \lvert R_k\rvert x^{k-1} + \lvert R_{n+1}\rvert \\ &\leqslant \Biggl( 2 + (1-x)\sum_{k = m}^n x^{k-1}\Biggr) M_m \\ &= (2 + x^{m-1} - x^n)M_m \\ &\leqslant 3 M_m \end{align}

uniformly in $x\in [0,1]$.

If we don't restrict to $x \in [0,1]$ and allow arbitrary complex $z$ with $\lvert z\rvert < 1$, taking the absolute value of each term in $(\ast)$ yields the estimate

\begin{align} \Biggl\lvert \sum_{k = m}^n a_k z^k\Biggr\rvert &\leqslant \Biggl( 2 + \lvert 1-z\rvert \sum_{k = m}^n \lvert z\rvert^{k-1}\Biggr) M_m \\ &\leqslant \biggl( 2 + \frac{\lvert 1-z\rvert}{1-\lvert z\rvert}\biggr) M_m. \end{align}

Thus, for every $K \geqslant 1$ (and $1 \leqslant m \leqslant n$) we have

$$\Biggl\lvert \sum_{k = m}^n a_k z^k\Biggr\rvert \leqslant (2 + K)M_m$$

and hence uniform convergence on the (closed) Stolz region $S_K = \{ z : \lvert 1-z\rvert \leqslant K(1 - \lvert z\rvert)\}$. The interval $[0,1]$ is the special case $S_1$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Urgh, I started to write the same :-) You was faster +1. $\endgroup$ – vesszabo Jul 13 '13 at 12:53
  • $\begingroup$ I know that feeling. It's not too bad when I just started, but when I'm about half through, it's really annoying for a moment or two. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Jul 13 '13 at 12:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ But I don't mind it. Next time I will be faster ;-) $\endgroup$ – vesszabo Jul 13 '13 at 13:02
  • $\begingroup$ Hello All, I thought that to use the Weierstrass test, $|a_{k}(x)| \le M$ for all $x$. So either $\sum a_{k}$ converges absolutely or there is another series of positive terms that converges. $\endgroup$ – Andy Tam Jul 15 '13 at 19:55
  • $\begingroup$ @AndyTam Consider $a_k\cdot r^k$ for an $r < 1$. Then Weierstraß gives uniform convergence on $[0,\, s]$ for all $s < r$. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Jul 15 '13 at 19:57

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.