2
$\begingroup$

Let $B$ be a (real or complex) Banach space, suppose $(b_{i, j})_{i, j \in \mathbb{N}}$ is a family of elements of $B$. If we know that $$ \lim_{n \to +\infty} \left( \sum_{i=0}^{n} \sum_{j=0}^{n} b_{i, j} \right) $$ exists in $B$, can we be sure that $$ \lim_{n \to +\infty} \left( \sum_{i=0}^{n} \sum_{j=0}^{n} b_{i, j} \right) = \sum_{i=0}^{+\infty}\left( \sum_{j=0}^{+\infty} b_{i, j} \right) $$ without assuming absolute convergence?

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ If I remember correctly -- no. Series are generally sensitive to the order, just like the limits. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 13, 2016 at 15:25
  • $\begingroup$ But it is not strictly changing the order, so I'm looking for a counterexample. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 13, 2016 at 18:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ By the order I mean the order of the addition, not of the summation symbols. For a counter-example, how about $b_{i, 0} = 1$ and $b_{i,j} = \frac 1 {j + 1} - \frac 1 {j}$ for $j > 0$ and any $i$? $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 14, 2016 at 15:35
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your interesting example. Do you think the equality would hold if we assume that $\sum_{i=0}^{+\infty}\sum_{j=0}^{+\infty} \lVert b_{i, j} \rVert < \infty$? Perhaps some Fubini theorem-like argument is possible? $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 14, 2016 at 20:52
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, absolute convergence guarantees that the sum (of the infinite matrix $b_{i,j}$) does not depend on the order of the addition: you can swap the summation symbols, add and remove them, or regroup the components however you want. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 15, 2016 at 8:11

2 Answers 2

4
$\begingroup$

Without assuming absolute convergence, the left and the right side may converge do different values or diverge independently. For example, let

$$b_{i,0} = 1$$ $$\forall j > 0, b_{i,j} = \frac 1 {j + 1} - \frac 1 {j}$$

where $i$ may take arbitrary values. In this case, $\sum_{j=0}^{n} b_{i,j} = \frac 1 {n + 1}$, for all $n > 0$.

The left side becomes

$$ \lim_{n \to + \infty} \left( \sum_{i=0}^{n} \sum_{j=0}^{n} b_{i, j} \right) = \lim_{n \to + \infty} \left( n \frac 1 {n + 1} \right) = 1 $$

while the right one becomes

$$ \sum_{i=0}^{+ \infty} \left( \sum_{j=0}^{+ \infty} b_{i, j} \right) = \sum_{i=0}^{+ \infty} \left( \lim_{n \to + \infty} \frac 1 {n + 1} \right) = 0 $$

moreover, if we'd reverse the order of the summation symbols, we'd have some pretty messy situation.


Conversely, if we know that either limit exists for the absolute values of the elements, then this, and virtually any such equality, should hold. More precisely, let $X$ be a normed vector space, say $\mathbb R$ or $\mathbb C$:

  1. Suppose $\sigma: \mathbb N \to \mathbb N$ is bijective (an "infinite transposition" of the indices). And that the sequence $a: \mathbb N \to X$ is converging absolutely:

$$\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} |a_k| \in \mathbb R_{\geq 0}$$

then

$$\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} a_k = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} a_{\sigma(k)}$$

  1. And also, if $\tau: \mathbb N \to \mathbb N \times \mathbb N$ is another bijection, arranging the sequence of indices into an "infinite matrix" and vice versa, and $b: \mathbb N \times \mathbb N \to X$ is such a matrix. Then

$$\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} |b_{\tau(k)}| \in \mathbb R_{\geq 0}$$

or

$$\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} |b_{i, j}| \in \mathbb R_{\geq 0}$$

implies

$$\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} b_{i, j} = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} b_{\tau(k)}$$

A proof goes like this:

  1. First consider the case of a positive series, and establish that the sum of original (on $k$) series is $\leq$ the sum of the transposed series (on $\sigma(k)$). Since the former series may also be viewed as transposition of the latter, we also have the opposite inequality -- i.e. the sums are equal.

    The extrapolation onto the general case of arbitrary such series is done by virtue of grouping the elements of the same sign, i.e. representation of the series as double sum: first by the elements having the same sign, then by the resulting values applied to the corresponding signs. (e.g. in case of $X = \mathbb R$, it just two signs, $+$ and $-$)

  2. In one direction, assuming $\bar{B} := \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} |b_{\tau(k)}|$ is defined.

Then $\bar{B}$ is an upper bound for the increasing sequences of partial sums:

$$ \bar{B}'_i(m) := \sum_{j = 0}^{j = m} |b_{i,j}| \leq \bar{B} $$

so these sums are converging:

$$ \sum_{j = 0}^{\infty} |b_{i,j}| \text{ and } \sum_{j = 0}^{\infty} b_{i,j} =: B'_i $$

and we want yet to check that

$$ \sum_{i = 0}^{\infty} B'_i = B := \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} b_{\tau(k)} $$

Due to the absolute convergence, for any $\epsilon > 0$, we have

$$ \left| B - \sum_{k = 0}^{k = \phi(\epsilon)} b_{\tau(k)} \right| = \left| \sum_{k = \phi(\epsilon) + 1}^{\infty} b_{\tau(k)} \right| \leq \sum_{k = \phi(\epsilon) + 1}^{\infty} |b_{\tau(k)}| \lt \epsilon $$

where $\phi: \mathbb R_{\gt 0} \to \mathbb N$ is the "estimate map", from the definition of the limit, for the absolute convergence for $b_{\tau(k)}$.

And if $S$ is an arbitrary subset of indices, such that $[0, \phi(\epsilon)] \subseteq S \subseteq \mathbb N$, then also

$$ \left| B - \sum_{k \in S} b_{\tau(k)} \right| = \left| \sum_{k \in \mathbb N \setminus S} b_{\tau(k)} \right| \leq \sum_{k \in \mathbb N \setminus S} |b_{\tau(k)}| \leq \sum_{k = \phi(\epsilon) + 1}^{\infty} |b_{\tau(k)}| \lt \epsilon $$

generally, if $S$ and $S'$ are two such sets, and $S \subseteq S'$, then $\left| B - \sum_{k \in S'} b_{\tau(k)} \right| \leq \left| B - \sum_{k \in S } b_{\tau(k)} \right|$.

Let $\psi (f, k) := \max_{0 \le x \le k} f(x)$, and $(m, n) := \psi (\tau, \phi (\epsilon))$ defines the "index rectangle", based at $(0, 0)$ and containing all the values $\tau(0), \dots, \tau(\phi(\epsilon))$. We define $S$ to be $\tau^{-1}([0, m], [0, n])$, i.e. a set of such an indices, that are mapped by $\tau$ into the rectangle (large enough to satisfy the requirements on $S$). Then

$$ \left| B - \sum_{k \in S} b_{\tau(k)} \right| = \left| B - \sum_{i = 0}^{i = m} \sum_{j = 0}^{j = n} b_{i,j} \right| $$

and, since all such expressions are bound by $\epsilon$, and may only get smaller with $m$ and $n$, we also have

$$ \left| B - \sum_{i = 0}^{\infty} \sum_{j = 0}^{\infty} b_{i,j} \right| < \epsilon $$

Since $\epsilon$ may be arbitrarily small, necessary

$$ \sum_{i = 0}^{\infty} \sum_{j = 0}^{\infty} b_{i,j} = B $$

In the other direction, assuming $\bar{B} := \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} |b_{i, j}|$ is defined. Then

$$ \sum_{i=0}^{i=m} \sum_{j=0}^{j=n} |b_{i, j}| \leq \bar{B} $$

and

$$ \sum_{k=0}^{k=l} |b_{\tau(k)}| \leq \sum_{i=0}^{i=m} \sum_{j=0}^{j=n} |b_{i, j}| $$

where as before $(m, n) := \psi (\tau, l)$.

So $l \mapsto \sum_{k=0}^{k=l} |b_{\tau(k)}|$, the sequence of positive partial sums, is increasing and bounded, therefore, converging.

The equality of the limits follows from the previous result.

$\square$

Combination of these two rules gives the answer to the (second) question. And, among other things, it allows to swap the summation symbols for absolutely converging series. These rules may be viewed as a generalization of the commutativity of addition.


See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_(mathematics)

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer! I'm working through your proofs and I'm with you on the proof that $\sum_{k=0}^{+\infty} \lvert b_{\tau(k)} \rvert = \sum_{i=0}^{+\infty} \sum_{j = 0}^{+\infty} \lvert b_{i, j} \rvert$ assuming the former exists as a real number. I'm not sure what you mean by "Then, by means of the inequalities for sums and absolute values, conclude that the latter (double) series is converging to the same value as the original series." Could you elaborate? $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 17, 2016 at 8:54
  • $\begingroup$ Updated the proof for more precision; may be buggy though. The proofs aren't very difficult per se, but somewhat awkward to write: diagrammatically all the inequalities would look much simpler. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 17, 2016 at 17:17
  • $\begingroup$ All clear now, thank you! Just for completeness: the first time you state that $\left| B - \sum_{i = 0}^{i = m} \sum_{j = 0}^{\infty} b_{i,j} \right| = \left| \sum_{i = m + 1}^{\infty} \sum_{j = 0}^{\infty} b_{i,j} \right|$, this is not yet clear. But you can still state that $\left| B - \sum_{i = 0}^{i = m} \sum_{j = 0}^{\infty} b_{i,j} \right| \leq \sum_{k = \phi(\epsilon) + 1}^{\infty} |b_{\tau(k)}|$ so the proof continues to hold, I think. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 21, 2016 at 16:05
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, cleaned it up. That indeed wasn't quite legitimate assertion. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 22, 2016 at 11:25
  • $\begingroup$ This is a great answer, but I think the proof could be made easier to read. For instance, the definition of $\psi$ as it's written is unclear, but if one thinks about it graphically, then it's quite intuitive. Also, I'm pretty sure we need to require that $X$ be a complete normed vector space, i.e. a Banach space. Otherwise, absolute convergence need not imply convergence. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 19, 2024 at 14:32
2
$\begingroup$

Consider the infinite matrix $b_{ij}$ consisting of $1$'s along the main diagonal, $-1$'s along the diagonal directly above the main diagonal, and $0$'s everywhere else. (Good to draw a picture.) Then the "square" sums over $n\times n$ blocks are all equal to $1.$ All horizontal infinite sums are $0.$ If we then sum the horizontal sums, we get $0.$ The first vertical infinite sum is $1;$ all other vertical infinite sums give $0.$ So if we sum the vertical sums, we get $1.$ And … $0 \ne 1!$

$\endgroup$

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.