4
$\begingroup$

Let $\sigma_n^{(k)}=\frac{1}{n+1}\sum_{j=0}^{n}\sigma_j^{(k-1)}$ and $\sigma_n^{(1)}=\frac{1}{n+1}\sum_{j=0}^{n}s_j.$

If $\lim_{n\to \infty}\sigma_n^{(k)}=L$ we call the sequence $(s_n)$ is summable $H_k$ to $L.$

Also the sequence $(s_n)$ is called Abel summable to $L$ if $\lim_{x\to1^{-}}(1-x)\sum_{j=0}^{n}s_jx^j=L.$

Does $H_k$ summability of $(s_n)$ to $L$ imply its Abel summability to $L?$

Also, are there any sequence which is Abel summable but not $H_k$ summable?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

-2
$\begingroup$

The answer to your first question is yes, because Hölder summability (your method $H_k$) is equivalent to Cesàro summability, and Abel summability is stronger than all the Cesàro methods. These are theorems 49 and 55 in Hardy's Divergent Series (1949). So, if a sequence is $H_k$ summable, then it is $(C, k)$ summable and therefore Abel summable.

The answer to your second question is also yes. Hardy's example (p.109) defines $a_n$ by $$f(x) = e^{1/(1+x)} = \sum_{n \ge 0} a_n x^n$$ so that $f(x)$ exists for $|x| < 1$ and $f(x) \to e^{1/2}$ as $x \to 1$. But the sequence $a_n$ is not $O(n^k)$ for any $k$ since this would imply $f(x) = O((1 - |x|)^{-k-1})$ uniformly in the disk $|x| < 1$, whereas $f(x)$ tends to infinity like $e^{1/(1-|x|)}$ (which is much faster) when $x\to-1$ through real values. So, $a_n$ is not $(C, k)$ summable for any $k$, by the limitation theorem (46 op. cit.).

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ I guess my first question is also true. If a sequence is $H_k$ summable then it is Abel summable. So $H_k$ summability of a sequence imply Abel summability. But if a sequence is Abel summable it may not $H_k$ summable, i.e. Abel summability does not imply $H_k$ summability. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 20, 2015 at 9:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have already seen the book of Hardy. He gave the proof of the theorem "$(C,k)$ summability implies Abel summability" and he prove the two methods $(C,k)$ and $H_k$ are equivalent. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 20, 2015 at 10:00
  • $\begingroup$ I wonder but can not directly prove the statement "$H_k$ summability implies Abel summability" without using equivalence of $H_k$ to $(C,k).$ $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 20, 2015 at 10:03
  • $\begingroup$ Oh! You're right, I got it backwards, let me fix that. Yes, if a sequence is $H_k$ summable, then it is $(C, k)$ summable and therefore Abel summable. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 20, 2015 at 15:27
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, it is true, but i need a direct proof. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 20, 2015 at 16:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.