1
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand{\R}{\mathbb R}\newcommand{\N}{\mathbb N}\newcommand{\si}{\sigma}\newcommand{\CC}{\mathcal C}$This previous question introduced the following notion of a summability space.

Let $\N:=\{1,2,\dots\}$. Let $T$ be the shift operator on $\R^\N$ defined by the formula $Ts:=(s_2,s_3,\dots)$ for $s\in\R^\N$. Here and in what follows, $s_j$ will denote the $j$th coordinate of a sequence $s=(s_1,s_2,\dots)\in\R^\N$.

Let $C$ denote the set of all sequences in $\R^\N$ summable in the sense that the corresponding sequence of partial sums is convergent.

Say that a pair $(S,\si)$ is a summability space if the following conditions hold:

(i) $S$ is a vector subspace of $\R^\N$ containing $C$ and closed with respect to the shift $T$;

(ii) $\si\colon S\to\R$ is a linear functional;

(iii) for every $a\in C$ we have
$\si(a) =\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n$;

(iv) for every $s\in S$ we have
$\si(s) =s_1+\si(Ts)$.

The set of all summability spaces is naturally ordered by inclusion. Clearly, $(C,\si)$ with $\si$ defined by condition (iii) above is a summability space, actually the smallest one.

Let us say that a sequence $g\in\R^\N$ is good if $g\in S$ for some summability space $(S,\si)$. Let us say that a sequence $v\in\R^\N$ is very good if for each real $t$ there is a summability space $(S_t,\si_t)$ such that $v\in S_t$ and $\si(v)=t$. Obviously, every very good sequence is good.

By Zorn's lemma, given any very good sequence $v$, for every each real $t$ there will exist a maximal summability space $(S_t^*,\si_t^*)$ such that $v\in S_t^*$ and $\si_t^*(v)=t$, so that these maximal summability spaces $(S_t^*,\si_t^*)$ will be distinct for distinct values of $t\in\R$.

For an illustration, consider the geometric sequence $b$ with $b_n=Cr^n$ for some nonzero real $C$, some nonzero real $r$, and all $n\in\N$. If $|r|<1$, then $b$ is in $C$ and therefore good. If $r=1$, then $Tb=b$ and therefore $b$ is not good, in view of condition (iv). If $r\notin(-1,1]$, then $Tb=rb$ and hence, if $b\in S$ for some summability space $(S,\si)$, then, by conditions (iv) and (ii),
we necessarily have $\si(b)=\frac{b_1}{1-r}=\frac{Cr}{1-r}$, so that in this case $b$ is good but not very good.

If a sequence $b\in\R^\N$ grows faster than geometrically, so that $b_{n+1}/b_n\to\infty$ (as $n\to\infty$), then $b$ is very good -- cf. this previous answer. On the other hand, if a sequence $b\in\R^\N$ is not in $C$ and $b_n\to0$, then, as shown in the other previous answer, $b$ is very good.

It was suggested (in some other terms) in the comment to the latter answer that a sequence $b\in\R^\N$ is not good if \begin{equation} b_n\to l \end{equation} for some nonzero real $l$.

This suggestion will be confirmed in the answer below. So, it will follow that a convergent sequence $b\in\R^\N\setminus C$ is very good iff $b_n\to0$.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

$\renewcommand{\R}{\mathbb R}\renewcommand{\N}{\mathbb N}\renewcommand{\si}{\sigma}\newcommand\ep\varepsilon$Take indeed any sequence $b\in\R^\N$ such that \begin{equation*} b_n\to l \tag{0}\label{0} \end{equation*} for some real $l\ne0$.

To obtain a contradiction, suppose that $b$ is good, so that $b\in S$ for some summability space $(S,\si)$.

Let \begin{equation*} a:=Tb-b. \tag{1}\label{1} \end{equation*} Then, for any $N\in\N$, \begin{equation*} \sum_{n=1}^N a_n=\sum_{n=1}^N (b_{n+1}-b_n)=b_{N+1}-b_1. \end{equation*} Letting now $N\to\infty$ and using condition \eqref{0}, we see that $a\in C$. Moreover, by condition (iii) in the definition of a summability space, \begin{equation*} \si(a)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n=l-b_1. \tag{2}\label{2} \end{equation*} On the other hand, by \eqref{1} and conditions (ii) and (iv) in the definition of a summability space, \begin{equation} \si(a)=\si(Tb)-\si(b)=-b_1. \tag{3}\label{3} \end{equation} Comparing \eqref{2} and \eqref{3}, we get a contradiction with the condition $l\ne0$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! I actually proved this yesterday with a similar proof :) $\endgroup$ Oct 21, 2022 at 22:05

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.