3
$\begingroup$

In Discrete mathematics, rule of sum says that "If a first task can be performed in $m$ ways and another can be performed in $n$ ways and two task be independent, then whole work can accomplished in $m+n$ ways".

Now consider this statement: "If $\{A_n\}$ is a sequence of pairwise disjoint subsets of $\mathbb{N}$ and $A=\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty A_n$, then $$\sum_{k\in A} a_k = \sum_{n=1}^\infty\left(\sum_{k\in A_n}a_k\right)$$ where $a_k\ge 0,\forall k$ is hold.".

How i can proof this statement?

P.S.: Question material can be found on: "Principles of Real Analysis, Charalambos D. Aliprantis, 3rd Edition, p. 102, Exc.1".

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This holds in general only for $a_k\ge 0$. $\endgroup$
    – Berci
    Mar 5, 2014 at 21:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In fact it's not really defined without order of summation for general $a_k\in\mathbb R$. Are you sure this is not a definition of $$\sum_{k\in A}a_k$$ as some sort of short notation for RHS where the $A_n$ are finite or something? $\endgroup$ Mar 5, 2014 at 21:55
  • $\begingroup$ You are right! I edited my question. @Berci $\endgroup$
    – meysam
    Mar 5, 2014 at 22:12
  • $\begingroup$ $A_n$ is only a subset of $\mathbb{N}$. @AlfonsoFernandez $\endgroup$
    – meysam
    Mar 5, 2014 at 22:13

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

This holds in general only for $a_k\ge 0$.
(For a counterexample consider e.g. $A_k:=\{2k,\ 2k+1\}$, and $a_n:=(-1)^n$.)

Now suppose that $a_k\ge 0$. Then $\sum_{k\in A}a_k\ =\ \sup\left\{\sum_{k\in A'}a_k\,\mid\, A'\right.\,$ is finite subset of $\,\left.A\right\}$.
Using this, for any $N\in\Bbb N$, we always have $$\sum_{k\in A}a_k \ \ge\ \sum_{n=0}^N\left(\sum_{k\in A_n}a_k\right)\,,$$ as the right hand side is a finite sum of supremum of finite sums (of positive numbers). By the same reasoning, we also have $$\sum_{k\in A}a_k\ \le\ \sum_{n=0}^\infty\left(\sum_{k\in A_n}a_k\right)\,.$$

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ $\sum_{k\in A}a_k = \sup\left\{\sum_{k\in A'}a_k\mid A' \text{ is finite subset of } A \right\}$ is definition? $\endgroup$
    – meysam
    Mar 5, 2014 at 22:16
  • $\begingroup$ I think, you can take it as definition. But.. how does the book define it? $\endgroup$
    – Berci
    Mar 5, 2014 at 22:50
  • $\begingroup$ Book have not any definition for it. @Berci $\endgroup$
    – meysam
    Mar 7, 2014 at 11:10

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.