a) Prove that if ∑an converges absolutely and bn is a bounded sequence, then also ∑anbn converges absolutely.
I wanted to use the comparison test to show it's true, but I think I got something mixed up. Here's what I have so far.
bn is bounded ⇒∃c>0:|bk|<c,∀k∈N
∑anbn<∑anc<c∑an. I'm very tempted to use the comparison test here and say, as ∑an converges absolutetly, then so does c∑an, but for that I needed the inverted relation, right? I would need ∑an>c∑an, which is not true. However isn't it obvious that something absolutely convergent multiplied by a constant is also absolutetly convergent? Is there a mathematical way to write this? Thanks a lot in advance.
b) Refute with a counter example: if ∑an converges and bn is a bounded sequence, then also ∑anbn converges.
Is this even possible? I mean, it has to be, but it doesn't make sense to me. If something converges, it means it's bounded, right? And I thought, well, since bounded + bounded = bounded, then bounded*bounded would also get me something bounded again.
Anyway, my idea would be to use for an an alternating series that ist only convergent, for example (−1)n1n2. But something tells me I'm trying to prove anbn is not absolutely convergent.
Thanks a lot in advance guys!
Answer
Recall that if ∑an is finite then c⋅∑an=∑can. This is true even if the series is not absolutely convergent.
The reason is simple, $\displaystyle\sum a_n = \lim_{k\to\infty}\sum_{n
Now your reasoning is true. If bn≤c then ∑anbn≤∑can≤c∑an, and the latter converges.
For the second question, in the first one the assumption was the series is absolutely convergent. Take a sequence which is not of this form.
For example an=(−1)nn, and bn=(−1)n. Now what is ∑anbn?
No comments:
Post a Comment