How to prove the following problem [closed]
$displaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty}na_{n}$ converges. Prove that:
$$
nsum_{k=n}^{infty}a_{k}to0
$$
Wish someone can provide me with some clue about this problem.
sequences-and-series
closed as off-topic by Saad, Alexander Gruber♦ Dec 4 '18 at 4:22
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Saad, Alexander Gruber
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
|
show 6 more comments
$displaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty}na_{n}$ converges. Prove that:
$$
nsum_{k=n}^{infty}a_{k}to0
$$
Wish someone can provide me with some clue about this problem.
sequences-and-series
closed as off-topic by Saad, Alexander Gruber♦ Dec 4 '18 at 4:22
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Saad, Alexander Gruber
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Is there any condition for $a_n$, such as nonnegativity or absolute convergence?
– bellcircle
Dec 3 '18 at 13:45
The statement is not true if we take $a_n = -1$ for all $n$.
– 5xum
Dec 3 '18 at 13:46
@bellcircle No no such conditions are given.
– DiaryofNewton
Dec 3 '18 at 13:48
@5xum Well if $a_n=-1$ the sequence is not convergent
– DiaryofNewton
Dec 3 '18 at 13:50
1
it does not make sense if $a_n<0$. i think there is a missing condition
– Alexis
Dec 3 '18 at 13:54
|
show 6 more comments
$displaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty}na_{n}$ converges. Prove that:
$$
nsum_{k=n}^{infty}a_{k}to0
$$
Wish someone can provide me with some clue about this problem.
sequences-and-series
$displaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty}na_{n}$ converges. Prove that:
$$
nsum_{k=n}^{infty}a_{k}to0
$$
Wish someone can provide me with some clue about this problem.
sequences-and-series
sequences-and-series
edited Dec 3 '18 at 13:55
DiaryofNewton
asked Dec 3 '18 at 13:40
DiaryofNewtonDiaryofNewton
355
355
closed as off-topic by Saad, Alexander Gruber♦ Dec 4 '18 at 4:22
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Saad, Alexander Gruber
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as off-topic by Saad, Alexander Gruber♦ Dec 4 '18 at 4:22
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Saad, Alexander Gruber
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Is there any condition for $a_n$, such as nonnegativity or absolute convergence?
– bellcircle
Dec 3 '18 at 13:45
The statement is not true if we take $a_n = -1$ for all $n$.
– 5xum
Dec 3 '18 at 13:46
@bellcircle No no such conditions are given.
– DiaryofNewton
Dec 3 '18 at 13:48
@5xum Well if $a_n=-1$ the sequence is not convergent
– DiaryofNewton
Dec 3 '18 at 13:50
1
it does not make sense if $a_n<0$. i think there is a missing condition
– Alexis
Dec 3 '18 at 13:54
|
show 6 more comments
Is there any condition for $a_n$, such as nonnegativity or absolute convergence?
– bellcircle
Dec 3 '18 at 13:45
The statement is not true if we take $a_n = -1$ for all $n$.
– 5xum
Dec 3 '18 at 13:46
@bellcircle No no such conditions are given.
– DiaryofNewton
Dec 3 '18 at 13:48
@5xum Well if $a_n=-1$ the sequence is not convergent
– DiaryofNewton
Dec 3 '18 at 13:50
1
it does not make sense if $a_n<0$. i think there is a missing condition
– Alexis
Dec 3 '18 at 13:54
Is there any condition for $a_n$, such as nonnegativity or absolute convergence?
– bellcircle
Dec 3 '18 at 13:45
Is there any condition for $a_n$, such as nonnegativity or absolute convergence?
– bellcircle
Dec 3 '18 at 13:45
The statement is not true if we take $a_n = -1$ for all $n$.
– 5xum
Dec 3 '18 at 13:46
The statement is not true if we take $a_n = -1$ for all $n$.
– 5xum
Dec 3 '18 at 13:46
@bellcircle No no such conditions are given.
– DiaryofNewton
Dec 3 '18 at 13:48
@bellcircle No no such conditions are given.
– DiaryofNewton
Dec 3 '18 at 13:48
@5xum Well if $a_n=-1$ the sequence is not convergent
– DiaryofNewton
Dec 3 '18 at 13:50
@5xum Well if $a_n=-1$ the sequence is not convergent
– DiaryofNewton
Dec 3 '18 at 13:50
1
1
it does not make sense if $a_n<0$. i think there is a missing condition
– Alexis
Dec 3 '18 at 13:54
it does not make sense if $a_n<0$. i think there is a missing condition
– Alexis
Dec 3 '18 at 13:54
|
show 6 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Nonnegativity is not required.
Suppose the series $sum k a_k$ converges and
$$lim_{n to infty} S_n = lim_{n to infty} sum_{k=1}^n k a_k = S$$
Summing by parts we get
$$n sum_{k=n}^m a_k = n sum_{k=n}^m ka_k frac{1}{k} = n left[frac{S_m}{m} - frac{S_{n-1}}{n} + sum_{k=n}^mS_kleft(frac{1}{k} - frac{1}{k+1} right)right]$$
The last sum on the RHS converges as $m to infty$ since the summand is $mathcal{O}(k^{-2})$. Taking the limit of both sides as $m to infty$ and noting that $S_m/m to 0$ we get
$$n sum_{k=n}^infty a_k = - S_{n-1} + nsum_{k=n}^infty S_kleft(frac{1}{k} - frac{1}{k+1} right)$$
For any $epsilon> 0$ and all sufficiently large $n$ we have for $k geqslant n$,
$$S- epsilon leqslant S_k leqslant S + epsilon,$$
and
$$-S_{n-1} +n (S- epsilon)sum_{k=n}^infty left(frac{1}{k} - frac{1}{k+1} right) leqslant nsum_{k=n}^infty a_k leqslant -S_{n-1} +n (S+ epsilon)sum_{k=n}^infty left(frac{1}{k} - frac{1}{k+1} right) $$
Noting the telescoping sum converging to $1/n$, it follows that
$$-S_{n-1} + S - epsilon leqslant nsum_{k=n}^infty a_k leqslant -S_{n-1} + S+ epsilon,$$
whence,
$$-epsilon leqslant liminf_{n to infty},, nsum_{k=n}^infty a_kleqslant limsup_{n to infty},,nsum_{k=n}^infty a_k leqslant epsilon$$
Since $epsilon$ can be arbitrarily close to $0$ we must have
$$lim_{n to infty} n sum_{k=n}^infty a_k = 0$$
Wow thanks, I think that's right
– DiaryofNewton
Dec 4 '18 at 0:38
@DiaryofNewton: You're welcome. This is a nice question as it illustrates a combination of several useful techniques.
– RRL
Dec 4 '18 at 4:49
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Nonnegativity is not required.
Suppose the series $sum k a_k$ converges and
$$lim_{n to infty} S_n = lim_{n to infty} sum_{k=1}^n k a_k = S$$
Summing by parts we get
$$n sum_{k=n}^m a_k = n sum_{k=n}^m ka_k frac{1}{k} = n left[frac{S_m}{m} - frac{S_{n-1}}{n} + sum_{k=n}^mS_kleft(frac{1}{k} - frac{1}{k+1} right)right]$$
The last sum on the RHS converges as $m to infty$ since the summand is $mathcal{O}(k^{-2})$. Taking the limit of both sides as $m to infty$ and noting that $S_m/m to 0$ we get
$$n sum_{k=n}^infty a_k = - S_{n-1} + nsum_{k=n}^infty S_kleft(frac{1}{k} - frac{1}{k+1} right)$$
For any $epsilon> 0$ and all sufficiently large $n$ we have for $k geqslant n$,
$$S- epsilon leqslant S_k leqslant S + epsilon,$$
and
$$-S_{n-1} +n (S- epsilon)sum_{k=n}^infty left(frac{1}{k} - frac{1}{k+1} right) leqslant nsum_{k=n}^infty a_k leqslant -S_{n-1} +n (S+ epsilon)sum_{k=n}^infty left(frac{1}{k} - frac{1}{k+1} right) $$
Noting the telescoping sum converging to $1/n$, it follows that
$$-S_{n-1} + S - epsilon leqslant nsum_{k=n}^infty a_k leqslant -S_{n-1} + S+ epsilon,$$
whence,
$$-epsilon leqslant liminf_{n to infty},, nsum_{k=n}^infty a_kleqslant limsup_{n to infty},,nsum_{k=n}^infty a_k leqslant epsilon$$
Since $epsilon$ can be arbitrarily close to $0$ we must have
$$lim_{n to infty} n sum_{k=n}^infty a_k = 0$$
Wow thanks, I think that's right
– DiaryofNewton
Dec 4 '18 at 0:38
@DiaryofNewton: You're welcome. This is a nice question as it illustrates a combination of several useful techniques.
– RRL
Dec 4 '18 at 4:49
add a comment |
Nonnegativity is not required.
Suppose the series $sum k a_k$ converges and
$$lim_{n to infty} S_n = lim_{n to infty} sum_{k=1}^n k a_k = S$$
Summing by parts we get
$$n sum_{k=n}^m a_k = n sum_{k=n}^m ka_k frac{1}{k} = n left[frac{S_m}{m} - frac{S_{n-1}}{n} + sum_{k=n}^mS_kleft(frac{1}{k} - frac{1}{k+1} right)right]$$
The last sum on the RHS converges as $m to infty$ since the summand is $mathcal{O}(k^{-2})$. Taking the limit of both sides as $m to infty$ and noting that $S_m/m to 0$ we get
$$n sum_{k=n}^infty a_k = - S_{n-1} + nsum_{k=n}^infty S_kleft(frac{1}{k} - frac{1}{k+1} right)$$
For any $epsilon> 0$ and all sufficiently large $n$ we have for $k geqslant n$,
$$S- epsilon leqslant S_k leqslant S + epsilon,$$
and
$$-S_{n-1} +n (S- epsilon)sum_{k=n}^infty left(frac{1}{k} - frac{1}{k+1} right) leqslant nsum_{k=n}^infty a_k leqslant -S_{n-1} +n (S+ epsilon)sum_{k=n}^infty left(frac{1}{k} - frac{1}{k+1} right) $$
Noting the telescoping sum converging to $1/n$, it follows that
$$-S_{n-1} + S - epsilon leqslant nsum_{k=n}^infty a_k leqslant -S_{n-1} + S+ epsilon,$$
whence,
$$-epsilon leqslant liminf_{n to infty},, nsum_{k=n}^infty a_kleqslant limsup_{n to infty},,nsum_{k=n}^infty a_k leqslant epsilon$$
Since $epsilon$ can be arbitrarily close to $0$ we must have
$$lim_{n to infty} n sum_{k=n}^infty a_k = 0$$
Wow thanks, I think that's right
– DiaryofNewton
Dec 4 '18 at 0:38
@DiaryofNewton: You're welcome. This is a nice question as it illustrates a combination of several useful techniques.
– RRL
Dec 4 '18 at 4:49
add a comment |
Nonnegativity is not required.
Suppose the series $sum k a_k$ converges and
$$lim_{n to infty} S_n = lim_{n to infty} sum_{k=1}^n k a_k = S$$
Summing by parts we get
$$n sum_{k=n}^m a_k = n sum_{k=n}^m ka_k frac{1}{k} = n left[frac{S_m}{m} - frac{S_{n-1}}{n} + sum_{k=n}^mS_kleft(frac{1}{k} - frac{1}{k+1} right)right]$$
The last sum on the RHS converges as $m to infty$ since the summand is $mathcal{O}(k^{-2})$. Taking the limit of both sides as $m to infty$ and noting that $S_m/m to 0$ we get
$$n sum_{k=n}^infty a_k = - S_{n-1} + nsum_{k=n}^infty S_kleft(frac{1}{k} - frac{1}{k+1} right)$$
For any $epsilon> 0$ and all sufficiently large $n$ we have for $k geqslant n$,
$$S- epsilon leqslant S_k leqslant S + epsilon,$$
and
$$-S_{n-1} +n (S- epsilon)sum_{k=n}^infty left(frac{1}{k} - frac{1}{k+1} right) leqslant nsum_{k=n}^infty a_k leqslant -S_{n-1} +n (S+ epsilon)sum_{k=n}^infty left(frac{1}{k} - frac{1}{k+1} right) $$
Noting the telescoping sum converging to $1/n$, it follows that
$$-S_{n-1} + S - epsilon leqslant nsum_{k=n}^infty a_k leqslant -S_{n-1} + S+ epsilon,$$
whence,
$$-epsilon leqslant liminf_{n to infty},, nsum_{k=n}^infty a_kleqslant limsup_{n to infty},,nsum_{k=n}^infty a_k leqslant epsilon$$
Since $epsilon$ can be arbitrarily close to $0$ we must have
$$lim_{n to infty} n sum_{k=n}^infty a_k = 0$$
Nonnegativity is not required.
Suppose the series $sum k a_k$ converges and
$$lim_{n to infty} S_n = lim_{n to infty} sum_{k=1}^n k a_k = S$$
Summing by parts we get
$$n sum_{k=n}^m a_k = n sum_{k=n}^m ka_k frac{1}{k} = n left[frac{S_m}{m} - frac{S_{n-1}}{n} + sum_{k=n}^mS_kleft(frac{1}{k} - frac{1}{k+1} right)right]$$
The last sum on the RHS converges as $m to infty$ since the summand is $mathcal{O}(k^{-2})$. Taking the limit of both sides as $m to infty$ and noting that $S_m/m to 0$ we get
$$n sum_{k=n}^infty a_k = - S_{n-1} + nsum_{k=n}^infty S_kleft(frac{1}{k} - frac{1}{k+1} right)$$
For any $epsilon> 0$ and all sufficiently large $n$ we have for $k geqslant n$,
$$S- epsilon leqslant S_k leqslant S + epsilon,$$
and
$$-S_{n-1} +n (S- epsilon)sum_{k=n}^infty left(frac{1}{k} - frac{1}{k+1} right) leqslant nsum_{k=n}^infty a_k leqslant -S_{n-1} +n (S+ epsilon)sum_{k=n}^infty left(frac{1}{k} - frac{1}{k+1} right) $$
Noting the telescoping sum converging to $1/n$, it follows that
$$-S_{n-1} + S - epsilon leqslant nsum_{k=n}^infty a_k leqslant -S_{n-1} + S+ epsilon,$$
whence,
$$-epsilon leqslant liminf_{n to infty},, nsum_{k=n}^infty a_kleqslant limsup_{n to infty},,nsum_{k=n}^infty a_k leqslant epsilon$$
Since $epsilon$ can be arbitrarily close to $0$ we must have
$$lim_{n to infty} n sum_{k=n}^infty a_k = 0$$
edited Dec 3 '18 at 23:53
answered Dec 3 '18 at 23:39
RRLRRL
49.3k42573
49.3k42573
Wow thanks, I think that's right
– DiaryofNewton
Dec 4 '18 at 0:38
@DiaryofNewton: You're welcome. This is a nice question as it illustrates a combination of several useful techniques.
– RRL
Dec 4 '18 at 4:49
add a comment |
Wow thanks, I think that's right
– DiaryofNewton
Dec 4 '18 at 0:38
@DiaryofNewton: You're welcome. This is a nice question as it illustrates a combination of several useful techniques.
– RRL
Dec 4 '18 at 4:49
Wow thanks, I think that's right
– DiaryofNewton
Dec 4 '18 at 0:38
Wow thanks, I think that's right
– DiaryofNewton
Dec 4 '18 at 0:38
@DiaryofNewton: You're welcome. This is a nice question as it illustrates a combination of several useful techniques.
– RRL
Dec 4 '18 at 4:49
@DiaryofNewton: You're welcome. This is a nice question as it illustrates a combination of several useful techniques.
– RRL
Dec 4 '18 at 4:49
add a comment |
Is there any condition for $a_n$, such as nonnegativity or absolute convergence?
– bellcircle
Dec 3 '18 at 13:45
The statement is not true if we take $a_n = -1$ for all $n$.
– 5xum
Dec 3 '18 at 13:46
@bellcircle No no such conditions are given.
– DiaryofNewton
Dec 3 '18 at 13:48
@5xum Well if $a_n=-1$ the sequence is not convergent
– DiaryofNewton
Dec 3 '18 at 13:50
1
it does not make sense if $a_n<0$. i think there is a missing condition
– Alexis
Dec 3 '18 at 13:54