2 exchanging infinite processes is a delicate

Info iconThis preview shows pages 2–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 2 Exchanging infinite processes is a delicate operation; it has to be done with care. For example, suppose we take a nk = 1 n 2 k if k 6 = n , k k=n For a fixed k , once n > k the sequence is the same as 1 / (2 k n ) → 0 as n → ∞ , thus a k = lim n →∞ a nk = 0 for all k . However, it should be clear that ∞ X k =1 a nk > a kk = k for all n . So we have here a situation where each series ∑ ∞ k =1 a nk converges (absolutely since all terms are positive), the series coming from the limit sequence { a k } converges even more so since all terms are 0, but (1) is quite false. 3. Several of you got 5 for this exercise for using a correct proof incorrectly. It gave me the impression that you were not quite sure of what you were doing. Before using that proof, a lot of things have to be proved. Here is a sketch of how it works. Let X be a normed vector space. Because it is a vector space, ∑ n k =1 a k makes sense for any finite number a 1 ,...,a k ∈ X . If a n ∈ X for n = 1 , 2 , 3 ,... , one can talk now of the series ∑ ∞ n =1 a n and say that it converges iff and only if the sequence { ∑ n k =1 a k } ∞ n =1 converges, and write a = ∑ ∞ n =1 a n iff lim n →∞ ∑ n k =1 a k = a ; i.e., if lim n →∞ k ∑ n k =1 a k- a k = 0. We say the series converges absolutely iff the series of nonnegative real terms ∑ ∞ n =1 k a n k converges. Then one has: Theorem 1 If X is a complete normed space; i.e., a Banach space, absolute convergence implies convergence. The proof is similar (or identical) to the proof in the complex case, but it requires a proof. Another result needed for this other proof of completeness, a result that cannot be used so freely, that requires a proof, is one that is valid in all metric spaces, namely: Lemma 2 Let { p n } be a Cauchy sequence in a metric space M . Then there is a subsequence { p n k } such that d ( p n k- 1 ,p n k ) < 2- k . The proof is easy, but at our level it is needed. The main result involved is the converse of Theorem 1, namely: Theorem 3 If X is a normed vector space in which every absolutely convergent sequence converges, then X is a Banach space. People who used this approach provided what amounts to a moderately incorrect proof of this result. All in all, I felt there were too many gaps, and several errors, in the proofs i saw, to warrant more points than I gave. 3. Let { f n } be a sequence of continuously differentiable functions on [0 , 1] with f n (0) = f n (0) and | f n ( x ) | ≤ 1 for all x ∈ [0 , 1] and n ∈ N . Show that if lim n →∞ f n ( x ) = f ( x ) for all x ∈ [0 , 1], then f is continuous on [0 , 1]. Must the sequence converge? Must there be a convergent subsequence?...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page2 / 4

2 Exchanging infinite processes is a delicate operation it...

This preview shows document pages 2 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online