Skip to main content

Cesaro Summability implies Abel Summability

 Let (an) be a sequence of real numbers. n=0an be a series. Let sn=nk=0ak
Then the sequence (an) is Cesaro Summable with Cesaro Sum sR if limnσnn+1=limn1n+1nk=0sn=s
Let f(x)=k=0anxn
be power series. Then the sequence is Abel Summable if the power series f(x) converges with a radius of convergence |x|<1

You can see that if snL as n then σns as n i.e. convergence of the series implies Cesaro Summability

We will prove Abel Summability is much stronger than Cesaro summability i.e. if a series is Cesaro Summable then it is Abel Summable. 

So assume an is Cesaro summable. Hence limnσnn+1=limn1n+1nk=0sn=L
Hence the sequence (σnn+1) is Abel summable. Therefore f(x)=n=0σnn+1xn
converges. Now see n=0σnxn=n=0xnnk=0sk=k=0skn=kxn=k=0skxk1x=11xn=0snxn
Doing the same process again we get n=0snxn=11xn=0anxn
Hence n=0σnxn=1(1x)2n=0anxn

Another identity we need is n=0(n+1)xn=1(1x)2
In order to show this let f(x)=n=0xn=11x. Then 1(1x)2=f(x)=n=1nxn1=n=0(n+1)xn
Now f(x)=n=0σnn+1xnxf(x)=n=1σn1nxn
Since f(x) converges, xf(x) converges and therefore f(x)+xf(x) converges. f(x)+xf(x)=n=1σn1nnxn1=n=1σn1nxn1=n=0σnxn=1(1x)2n=0anxn
Therefore n=0anxn=f(x)+xf(x)(1x)2
Since |x|<1 the function f(x)+xf(x)(1x)2 also converges. Hence n=0anxn converges. Therefore Cesaro summability implies Abel summability.

Since σn+1 converges to s. For ϵ>0  kN such that |σnn+1s|<ϵ
Now (1x)2n=0σnxn=(1x)2n=0(n+1)σnn+1xn
|(1x)2n=0(n+1)σnn+1xnL|(1x)2n=0(n+1)|σnn+1xnL|
Now breaking the sum up at k we get (1x)2kn=0(n)|σnn+1xnL|+(1x)2n=k+1(n+1)|σnn+1xnL|
As x1 the first part goes to 0 and the second part of the sum becomes (1x)2n=k+1(n+1)|σnn+1xnL|<(1x)2n=k+1(n+1)ϵk=ϵk1ϵ
which also goes to 0. Hence limx1(1x)2n=0σnxn=limx1n=0anxn=L
 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Hierarchy Theorems (Time, Space, Alternation)

There are many hierarchy theorems based on Time, Space, Nondeterminism, Randomization etc. Time Hierarchy Theorem (Version 1) : If f,g are time-constructible functions satisfying f(n)logf(n)=o(g(n)), then DTIME(f(n))DTIME(g(n))
Proof:  Consider the following Turing machine D: "On input x, run for f(|x|)log(f(|x|)) steps the Universal TM U to simulate the execution of Mx on x. If U outputs some bit b{0,1} in this time, then output the opposite answer (i.e., output 1b ). Else output 0.” Here Mx is the machine represented by the string x.      By definition, D halts within f(n)log(f(n)) steps and hence the language L decided by D is in DTIME(g(n)). Claim:  L DTIME (f(n)) Proof:  For contradiction's sake, assume that there is some TM M and constant c such that TM M, given any input x{0,1}, halts within cf(|x|) steps and outputs D(x)....

Cook - Levin Theorem

Around 1971, Cook and Levin independently discovered the notion of NPcompleteness and gave examples of combinatorial NPcomplete problems whose definition seems to have nothing to do with Turing machines. Soon after, Karp showed that NPcompleteness occurs widely and many problems of practical interest are NPcomplete. To date, thousands of computational problems in a variety of disciplines have been shown to be NPcomplete. SAT is the language of all satisfiable CNF formulae. Cook-Levin Theorem : SAT is NPcomplete Before we go into the proof first we need to define some things Configuration of a Turing Machine: A configuration of a Turing Machine at any point of time t is basically the snapshot of the turning machine at that time. It is an ordered pair of the head position, current state, and tape content. Any configuration is initialized and ended with a special symbol, let # mark its ending. Then the contents of the tape at the left of ...

Function Automata: A Technique to Solve Finite State Automata Problems

Here I will describe a strategy or technique to solve some finite state automata problems. This strategy was first taught to us by my Theory of Computation Professor. The term 'Function Automata' is given to me since we use function-like structures in this.     Suppose you are given a language that is a regular set L. So there exists a DFA for L, LD=(Q,Σ,δ,q1,F) where Q is the set of states, Σ is the set of alphabets, δ is the transition function, S is the starting state and f is the set of final states. Now let Q={q1,q2,,qn where nN. Now we will do a kind of subset construction but every new state will have n states of Q but they can repeat. So (q1,q1,,q1n times)
is a state of the new automata. Now, what is the meaning of these new states? Let f=(qk1,qk2,,qkn) be a new state where qki's are not necessary to be diff...