TheoremBase

Each claim is reduced to the corresponding statement about the sequence of partial sums, using the recursion for finite sums and the limit laws; the Cauchy criterion uses completeness of the real numbers.

Proof

Throughout, (sn)(s_{n}) and (tn)(t_{n}) denote the partial sums of (ak)(a_{k}) and (bk)(b_{k}). We write SS for the successor map on N\mathbb{N} and n+1n+1 for S(n)S(n), and use the recursion of claim 1 of Properties of Finite Sums: s1=a1s_{1}=a_{1} and sn+1=sn+an+1s_{n+1}=s_{n}+a_{n+1} for every n∈Nn\in\mathbb{N}.

An observation on indices. Every k∈Nk\in\mathbb{N} is either equal to 11 or of the form S(j)S(j) for some j∈Nj\in\mathbb{N}: the set of those k∈Nk\in\mathbb{N} with this property contains 11, and contains S(m)S(m) whenever it contains mm, hence is all of N\mathbb{N} by induction as in Natural Numbers.

Claim 1. By claim 2 of Properties of Finite Sums the nn-th partial sum of (ak+bk)(a_{k}+b_{k}) is sn+tns_{n}+t_{n}, and by claim 3 of that lemma the nn-th partial sum of (Ξ»ak)(\lambda a_{k}) is Ξ»sn\lambda s_{n}. Suppose (sn)(s_{n}) converges to LL and (tn)(t_{n}) to MM. Then (sn+tn)(s_{n}+t_{n}) converges to L+ML+M by claim 1 of Arithmetic of Limits of Real Sequences, and (Ξ»sn)(\lambda s_{n}) converges to Ξ»L\lambda L by claim 3 of that theorem. By the definition of convergence of a series and of its sum, this is precisely the assertion.

Claim 2. Suppose (sn)(s_{n}) converges to LL, and let Ρ∈R\varepsilon\in\mathbb{R} be positive; then Ξ΅2\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2} is positive and Ξ΅2+Ξ΅2=Ξ΅\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}+\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}=\varepsilon by claim 8 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field. Choose N∈NN\in\mathbb{N} with ∣snβˆ’L∣<Ξ΅2|s_{n}-L|<\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2} for every n∈Nn\in\mathbb{N} with N≀nN\le n, and put Nβ€²=S(N)N'=S(N). Let k∈Nk\in\mathbb{N} satisfy N′≀kN'\le k. We check that kβ‰ 1k\ne1. Suppose k=1k=1, so that S(N)≀1S(N)\le1. By claim 4 of Properties of the Order on the Natural Numbers we have 1≀N1\le N, and N<S(N)N<S(N) by claim 5, hence N≀S(N)N\le S(N) by claim 1. Transitivity of ≀\le, claim 1, then gives N≀1N\le1 and S(N)≀NS(N)\le N, so N=1N=1 and N=S(N)N=S(N) by claim 2, whence N<NN<N, which claim 2 excludes. Therefore kβ‰ 1k\ne1. By the observation above there is j∈Nj\in\mathbb{N} with k=S(j)k=S(j), and the recursion gives ak=aS(j)=sS(j)βˆ’sj=skβˆ’sja_{k}=a_{S(j)}=s_{S(j)}-s_{j}=s_{k}-s_{j}.

We check that N≀jN\le j. Suppose not; then j<Nj<N by trichotomy, claim 3 of Properties of the Order on the Natural Numbers, hence j≀Nj\le N by claim 1 and S(j)≀S(N)S(j)\le S(N) by claim 6 of that lemma. Since jβ‰ Nj\ne N and SS is injective by Natural Numbers, we have S(j)β‰ S(N)S(j)\ne S(N). But S(N)=N′≀k=S(j)S(N)=N'\le k=S(j), so S(j)≀S(N)S(j)\le S(N) and S(N)≀S(j)S(N)\le S(j) give S(j)=S(N)S(j)=S(N) by claim 2 of Properties of the Order on the Natural Numbers, a contradiction. Hence N≀jN\le j, and also N≀kN\le k because N≀N′≀kN\le N'\le k by claims 1 and 5.

Therefore, by claims 2 and 5 of Properties of the Absolute Value in an Ordered Field,

∣akβˆ’0∣=∣ak∣=∣(skβˆ’L)+(Lβˆ’sj)βˆ£β‰€βˆ£skβˆ’L∣+∣sjβˆ’L∣<Ξ΅2+Ξ΅2=Ξ΅.|a_{k}-0|=|a_{k}|=|(s_{k}-L)+(L-s_{j})|\le|s_{k}-L|+|s_{j}-L|<\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}+\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}=\varepsilon .

As Ρ\varepsilon was an arbitrary positive real number, (ak)k∈N(a_{k})_{k\in\mathbb{N}} converges to 00.

Claim 3. Suppose first that (sn)(s_{n}) converges to LL, and let Ξ΅\varepsilon be positive. Choose NN with ∣snβˆ’L∣<Ξ΅2|s_{n}-L|<\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2} for N≀nN\le n. For m,n∈Nm,n\in\mathbb{N} with N≀mN\le m and N≀nN\le n, claims 2 and 5 of Properties of the Absolute Value in an Ordered Field give

∣snβˆ’sm∣=∣(snβˆ’L)+(Lβˆ’sm)βˆ£β‰€βˆ£snβˆ’L∣+∣smβˆ’L∣<Ξ΅.|s_{n}-s_{m}|=|(s_{n}-L)+(L-s_{m})|\le|s_{n}-L|+|s_{m}-L|<\varepsilon .

Conversely, suppose the stated condition holds. Since dR(sn,sm)=∣snβˆ’sm∣d_{\mathbb{R}}(s_{n},s_{m})=|s_{n}-s_{m}|, it says exactly that (sn)(s_{n}) is a Cauchy sequence in (R,dR)(\mathbb{R},d_{\mathbb{R}}), hence a Cauchy sequence of real numbers, and therefore convergent by the completeness recorded there. In both directions the conclusion is the assertion about the series, by the definition of convergence of a series.

Claim 4. For every k∈Nk\in\mathbb{N} we have 0≀bkβˆ’ak0\le b_{k}-a_{k}, by claim 3 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field applied to ak≀bka_{k}\le b_{k}. By claims 2 and 3 of Properties of Finite Sums, the nn-th partial sum of the sequence with terms bk+(βˆ’1)akb_{k}+(-1)a_{k} equals tnβˆ’snt_{n}-s_{n}; by claim 5 of that lemma it is nonnegative, so sn≀tns_{n}\le t_{n} for every n∈Nn\in\mathbb{N}, again by claim 3 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field. Claim 1 of Order Properties of Limits of Real Sequences, applied to the convergent sequences (sn)(s_{n}) and (tn)(t_{n}), gives the stated inequality between their limits.

Claim 5. We show sn=cn+1βˆ’c1s_{n}=c_{n+1}-c_{1} by induction on nn. For n=1n=1 we have s1=a1=c2βˆ’c1s_{1}=a_{1}=c_{2}-c_{1}. If sn=cn+1βˆ’c1s_{n}=c_{n+1}-c_{1}, then

sn+1=sn+an+1=(cn+1βˆ’c1)+(cn+2βˆ’cn+1)=cn+2βˆ’c1,s_{n+1}=s_{n}+a_{n+1}=(c_{n+1}-c_{1})+(c_{n+2}-c_{n+1})=c_{n+2}-c_{1},

which is the identity for n+1n+1. Hence sn=cn+1βˆ’c1s_{n}=c_{n+1}-c_{1} for every n∈Nn\in\mathbb{N}.

It remains to compare the convergence of (sn)(s_{n}) with that of (ck)k∈N(c_{k})_{k\in\mathbb{N}}. Suppose (ck)(c_{k}) converges to MM and let Ξ΅\varepsilon be positive; choose NN with ∣ckβˆ’M∣<Ξ΅|c_{k}-M|<\varepsilon for N≀kN\le k. For n∈Nn\in\mathbb{N} with N≀nN\le n we have n<n+1n<n+1 by claim 5 of Properties of the Order on the Natural Numbers, hence N≀n+1N\le n+1 by claim 1, so ∣cn+1βˆ’M∣<Ξ΅|c_{n+1}-M|<\varepsilon. Thus (cn+1)n∈N(c_{n+1})_{n\in\mathbb{N}} converges to MM, and (sn)(s_{n}) converges to Mβˆ’c1M-c_{1} by claims 1 and 3 of Arithmetic of Limits of Real Sequences.

Conversely, suppose (sn)(s_{n}) converges, say to PP; then (cn+1)n∈N(c_{n+1})_{n\in\mathbb{N}} converges to P+c1=:MP+c_{1}=:M by the same two claims. Let Ξ΅\varepsilon be positive and choose NN with ∣cn+1βˆ’M∣<Ξ΅|c_{n+1}-M|<\varepsilon for N≀nN\le n; put Nβ€²=S(N)N'=S(N). For k∈Nk\in\mathbb{N} with N′≀kN'\le k, the index argument used in claim 2 gives j∈Nj\in\mathbb{N} with k=S(j)=j+1k=S(j)=j+1 and N≀jN\le j, so ∣ckβˆ’M∣=∣cj+1βˆ’M∣<Ξ΅|c_{k}-M|=|c_{j+1}-M|<\varepsilon. Hence (ck)(c_{k}) converges to MM, and βˆ‘k=1∞ak=P=Mβˆ’c1\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}a_{k}=P=M-c_{1}, as asserted.

Citations

Loading…

Dependencies

Uses0

Loading…

Comments

Log in to comment.

Loading…