1
$\begingroup$

This originates from the problem $\#3.8$ of Rudin, the problem is as followed:

If $ \sum a_{n} $ converges and if ${b_{n}}$ is monotonic and bounded, prove $\sum a_{n}b_{n}$converges.

I know that if we remove the assumption that $b_{n}$ is monotonic, then the conclusion won't hold. That is, if we have $ \sum a_{n} $ converges and ${b_{n}}$ bounded, we can not reach the conclusion that $\sum a_{n}b_{n}$converges. I think of a counter example as $a_{n}=\frac{(-1)^{n}}{n}$ and $b_{n}=(-1)^{n}$,then $ \sum a_{n} $ converges and ${b_{n}}$ bounded, however, $\sum a_{n}b_{n}$ diverges.

Then my question is, however, I read of a proof the problem without using the assumption that $b_{n}$ is monotonic, and hardly can I find where is wrong in the proof. So can anyone tell my what is wrong in the following proof? Thanks in advance guys!

Exercise $\mathbf{3.8}$

We're told that $\{b_n\}$ is bounded. Let $\alpha$ be the upper bound of $\{|b_n|\}$. We're also told that $\sum a_n$ converges: so for any arbitrarily small $\epsilon$, we can find an integer $N$ such that $$\left|\,\sum_{k=m}^n a_k\right|\le\dfrac{\epsilon}{\alpha}\,\,\text{for all $n,m$ such that $n\ge m\ge N$}$$ which is algebraically equivalent to $$\left|\,\sum_{k=m}^n a_k\alpha\right|\le \epsilon\,\,\text{for all $n,m$ such that $n\ge m\ge N$}$$ which since $|b_k|\le \alpha$ for every $k$, means that $$\left|\,\sum_{k=m}^n a_k b_k\right|\le\left|\,\sum_{k=m}^n a_k \alpha\right|\le\epsilon\,\,\text{for all $n,m$ such that $n\ge m\ge N$}$$ By theorem $3.22$, this is sufficient to prove that $\sum a_n b_n$ converges.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The last inequality is wrong. Just use your example. $\endgroup$ – user99914 Dec 6 '13 at 9:06
  • $\begingroup$ But the OP's counterexample doesn't fit the hypotheses, because $b_n$ is not monotonic. $\endgroup$ – TonyK Dec 6 '13 at 9:07
  • $\begingroup$ Where does the proof use the fact that $b_n$ is monotone? $\endgroup$ – Lost Dec 6 '13 at 9:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Lost Thanks Lost, my question is that the proof doesnt use the hypothese that $b_{n}$ is monotonic and it seems to give a specious proof, and at first I did not find where is wrong. $\endgroup$ – Brain Zhang Dec 6 '13 at 9:15
4
$\begingroup$

The last inequality is wrong. Just take $n=m+1$ and $a_n = -a_m$. Then $|\sum_{k=m}^na_k \alpha| = 0$, but it certainly doesn't follow that $|\sum_{k=m}^na_kb_k| = 0$ for all possible choices of $b_m, b_n$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ A bit of correction there - I don't believe this is Rudin's work, but rather someone else's proof that the OP was reading. $\endgroup$ – Lost Dec 6 '13 at 9:11
  • $\begingroup$ The proof isnt Rudin's work, its someone else's work! $\endgroup$ – Brain Zhang Dec 6 '13 at 9:13
  • $\begingroup$ OK, thanks. I've edited my answer now. $\endgroup$ – TonyK Dec 6 '13 at 9:14
  • $\begingroup$ @TonyK Thanks, Tony! very helpful! $\endgroup$ – Brain Zhang Dec 6 '13 at 9:18
-1
$\begingroup$

The first inequality is wrong. It assumes that $\sum a_n$ converges absolutely, when the sum was only stated to converge.

$\endgroup$

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.