2
$\begingroup$

This question is about finding the number of samples in a sequence required for the convergence of a series as a function of an error tolerance $\epsilon$. I want to show what I have tried so far.

The function is

$$ \sum_{q=1}^{N-1} \exp(-q^2 \sigma^2/2)(1 - q/N) $$ for $\sigma > 0$ and $N \geq 1$

It is confirmed that this function converges with a large N. I want to find a function for $N$ at which the error is $\epsilon$.

So, the sum of this expression from $N$ to $\infty$ is less than $\epsilon$. The sum of this from $N$ to $\infty$ can be represented as,

$$ \sum_{q=1}^{\infty} \exp(-q^2\sigma^2/2) - \sum_{q=1}^{N-1} \exp(-q^2\sigma^2/2) (1-q/N) < \epsilon $$

For the first term, I tried something like this. If $q \geq 1$, $q(q-1) \geq 0$.

So,

$$ \sum_{q=1}^{\infty} \exp(-q(q-1)\sigma^2/2) \exp(-q \sigma^2/2) \leq \sum_{q=1}^{\infty} \exp(-q \sigma^2/2) = \frac{\exp(-\sigma^2/2)}{(1 - \exp(-\sigma^2/2))} $$

For the second term,

$$ \sum_{q=1}^{N-1} \exp(-q^2\sigma^2/2) (1-q/N) $$

I used the same trick as above, but now I say that as $q \leq N-1, \quad q(q-1) \leq (N-1)(N-2) $

For the second term, as there is a negative in equation (2), we will test for greater than equal to conditional properties of that function.

$$ \sum_{q=1}^{N-1} \exp(-q^2\sigma^2/2) (1-q/N) =\sum_{q=1}^{N-1} \exp(-q(q-1)\sigma^2/2) \exp(-q \sigma^2/2) (1-q/N) $$

$$ \sum_{q=1}^{N-1} \exp(-q^2\sigma^2/2) (1-q/N) \geq \exp(-(N-1)(N-2)\sigma^2/2) \sum_{q=1}^{N-1} (1-q/N) \exp(-q \sigma^2/2) $$

I typed this sum on wolfram, and the final expression I have is this,

$$ \sum_{q=1}^{N-1} \exp(-q^2\sigma^2/2) (1-q/N) \geq \exp(-(N-1)(N-2)\sigma^2/2) \frac{\exp(-\sigma^2/2) (N-1 + \exp(-N \sigma^2/2) - N \exp(-\sigma^2/2))}{((1 - \exp(-\sigma^2/2))^2 N}$$

Rearranging a bit,

$$ \sum_{q=1}^{N-1} \exp(-q^2\sigma^2/2) (1-q/N) \geq \exp(-(N^2-3N+3)\sigma^2/2) \frac{(N-1 + \exp(-N \sigma^2/2) - N \exp(-\sigma^2/2))}{((1 - \exp(-\sigma^2/2))^2 N}$$

If I plug this into the original inequality, things become complicated.

$$ \sum_{q=1}^{\infty} \exp(-q^2\sigma^2/2) - \sum_{q=1}^{N-1} \exp(-q^2\sigma^2/2) (1-q/N) \leq \frac{\exp(-\sigma^2/2)}{(1 - \exp(-\sigma^2/2))} - \exp(-(N^2-3N+3)\sigma^2/2) \frac{(N-1 + \exp(-N \sigma^2/2) - N \exp(-\sigma^2/2))}{((1 - \exp(-\sigma^2/2))^2 N} < \epsilon $$

I don't know how to proceed from here.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand\ep\epsilon\newcommand{\si}{\sigma} $"I want to find a function for $N$ at which the error is $\epsilon$."

This question is stated very poorly.

Indeed, let $n:=N$ (there is no reason to use $N$ where $n$ will do.) The $n$th error is \begin{equation*} \ep_n:=s-s_n=\ep_{1n}+\ep_{2n}, \end{equation*} where \begin{equation*} s:=\sum_{q=1}^\infty a_q,\quad s_n:=\sum_{q=1}^{n-1} a_q(1-q/n), \quad a_q:=e^{-q^2\si^2/2}, \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} \ep_{1n}:=\sum_{q=n}^\infty a_q,\quad \ep_{2n}:=\frac1n\,\sum_{q=1}^{n-1} a_q q. \end{equation*}

Clearly, $\ep_n$ takes only countably many values; so, the equality $\ep_n=\ep$ can hold only for countably many values of $\ep$. Also, a closed-form expression for $\ep_n$ is not available. So, solutions of the equation $\ep_n=\ep$ for $n$ are not available in closed form, even when such solutions exist.

However, for any real $\ep>0$, we can provide an explicit lower bound $n_{\si,\ep}$ on $n$ such that $\ep_n\le\ep$ for $n\ge n_{\si,\ep}$ -- and this is what appears to have actually been tried to do in most of the OP.

Indeed, note that \begin{equation*} r_q:=\frac{a_{q+1}}{a_q}=e^{-(q+1/2)\si^2} \end{equation*} is decreasing in $q$. So, \begin{equation*} \ep_{1n}\le\sum_{q=n}^\infty a_n r_n^{q-n}=\frac{a_n}{1-r_n}=\frac{e^{-n^2\si^2/2}}{1-e^{-(n+1/2)\si^2}} \le2e^{-n^2\si^2/2} \end{equation*} if \begin{equation*} n\ge\frac{\ln2}{\si^2}-\frac12. \end{equation*} Next, \begin{equation*} \ep_{2n}\le\frac1n\,\sum_{q=1}^\infty a_q q \le\frac{h(\si)}n, \end{equation*} where \begin{equation} h(\si):=\sum_{q=1}^\infty a_1 r_1^{q-1} q =\frac{e^{5 \si ^2/2}}{(e^{3 \si^2/2}-1)^2}. \end{equation} Thus, if \begin{equation} n\ge n_{\si,\ep}:=\max\Big(\frac{\ln2}{\si^2}-\frac12,\sqrt{\frac2{\si^2}\, \max\Big(0,\ln\frac3\ep\Big)}, \frac{h(\si)}{\ep/3}\Big), \end{equation} then $\ep_n\le\ep$. $\quad\Box$

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much indeed for the detailed answer. I will look into it line by line. When you said $n$ will do instead of $N$, do you mean only in terms of notation, or something else? And, when you said the question is stated poorly, do you mean the definition of the error stated poorly? I want to understand. $\endgroup$
    – CfourPiO
    Commented Dec 21, 2022 at 15:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @CfourPiO : (i) I meant $n$ instead of $N$ in terms of notation. (ii) As for "poorly stated", this is explained in the answer as follows: "Clearly, $\epsilon_n$ takes only countably many values; so, the equality $\epsilon_n=\epsilon$ can hold only for countably many values of $\epsilon$. Also, a closed-form expression for $\epsilon_n$ is not available. So, solutions of the equation $\epsilon_n=\epsilon$ for $n$ are not available in closed form, even when such solutions exist." $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 21, 2022 at 15:25
  • $\begingroup$ I want to understand why we use certain inequalities sometimes to find easier ways to show convergence. For example, when we say $\epsilon_{2n} = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{q=1}^{n-1} a_q q \leq \frac{1}{n}\sum_{q=1}^{\infty} a_q q$ . Logically it makes sense. However, I want to understand why it is used in this context. It could be any number less than $\infty$ and bigger than $n-1$. How do we acknowledge the error we are introducing by such inequalities. $\endgroup$
    – CfourPiO
    Commented Dec 22, 2022 at 10:04
  • $\begingroup$ I also want to understand why $\epsilon_{n}$ can only take countably many values. I am not a mathematician, so my understanding can be really basic. From your approach, all I can understand is that probably the two terms involved in the original equation behave differently as $n$ increases so you introduced $\epsilon_{1n}$ and $\epsilon_{2n}$. Then, you dealt them separately to find convergence of each and then took a maximum? I think this is what I was looking for. When I said $\epsilon$, it is a common non mathematician way of saying convergence. I am happy I am learning new things here. :) $\endgroup$
    – CfourPiO
    Commented Dec 22, 2022 at 10:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @CfourPiO : (i) We bound $\sum_{q=1}^{n-1} a_q q$ by $\sum_{q=1}^\infty a_q q$ because the latter sum is easier to deal with (see what is done with it next); also, for large $n$ the sum $\sum_{q=1}^{n-1} a_q q$ will be close to $\sum_{q=1}^\infty a_q q$. (ii) $\epsilon_n$ takes only countably many values by the definition of a countable set (see e.g. "there exists a surjective function from ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} }$ to ${\displaystyle S}$" in the section at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set#Definition . $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 22, 2022 at 17:46

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.