If $\sum{a_n}$ converges does that imply that $\sum{\frac{a_n}{n}}$ converges? I know if $\sum{a_n}$ converges absolutely then $\sum{\frac{a_n}{n}}$ converges since $0\le \frac{|a_n|}{n} \le |a_n| $ for all $n$ so it converges absolutely by the basic comparison test and therefore converges. However, I cannot prove the convergence of $\sum \frac{a_n}{n}$ if $\sum{a_n}$ converges but not absolutely even though I suspect it to be true. Can you give me a proof or a counterexample for this?
 A: The problem can be handled by a summation by parts. Define $s_N:=\sum_{j=1}^N a_j$. Then for $M<N$,
\begin{align}
\sum_{j=M}^N\frac{a_j}j&=\sum_{j=M}^N\frac{s_j-s_{j-1}}j\\
&=\sum_{k=M}^N\frac{s_k}k-\sum_{k=M-1}^{N-1}\frac{s_k}{k+1}\\
&=\frac{S_N}N-\frac{s_{M-1}}M+\sum_{k=M}^{N-1}\frac{s_k}{k(k+1)},
\end{align}
which yields the bound 
$$\left|\sum_{j=M}^N\frac{a_j}j\right|\leqslant \sup_k|s_k|\left(\frac 1M+\frac 1N+\sum_{k\geqslant M}\left(\frac 1k-\frac 1{k+1}\right)\right)\\
\\=\sup_k|s_k|\left(\frac 2M+\frac 1N\right).$$
This proves that the sequence $\left(\sum_{j=1}^Na_j/j\right)_{N\geqslant 1}$ is Cauchy, hence the convergence of the series $\sum_{j\geqslant 1}a_j/j$.
A: You might want to consider Dirichlet's test.
A: Yes;
A theorem found in "Baby'' Rudin's book: If $\sum a_{n}$} converges and $\lbrace{ b_{n} \rbrace}$ monotonic and bounded then $\sum a_{n}b_{n}$ converges. See:
Prob. 8, Chap. 3 in Baby Rudin: If $\sum a_n$ converges and $\left\{b_n\right\}$ is monotonic and bounded, then $\sum a_n b_n$ converges.
Here, we take $b_{n} = \frac{1}{n}.$
A: Obviously, this conclusion is correct.
In mathematical analysis, the Abel discriminant of the series of real terms is described as follows.

If $a_n$ is monotonous and $\sum b_n$ converges, $\sum b_na_n$ converges.

