12
$\begingroup$

How can one prove for any sequence of positive numbers $a_n, n\ge1,$ we have $\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{n}{a_1+a_2+a_3+\cdots+a_n}\le 2\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{a_n}$


Added later:

Apparently, this is a version of Hardy's inequality. The above is the case $p=-1$. (See the wiki for what $p$ is).

The case $p=2$ appears here: Proving $A: l_2 \to l_2$ is a bounded operator

  • 0
    @anon: That is an idea OP had. It was an answer, which was moved into the question by Zev.2012-02-13

3 Answers 3

9

Here is a proof.

We try using induction, but as usual, a direct approach seems to fail and we have to try and prove a stronger statement.

So we try and pick a positive function $f(n)$ such that

$ \frac{f(n)}{a_1 + a_2 + \dots + a_n} + \sum_{k=1}^{n} \frac{k}{a_1 + a_2 + \dots + a_k} \le \sum_{j=1}^{n} \frac{2}{a_j}$

Let $S = a_1 + a_2 + \dots + a_n$ and let $x = a_{n+1}$.

In order to prove that $n$ implies $n+1$ it would be sufficient to prove

$\frac{2}{x} + \frac{f(n)}{S} \ge \frac{f(n+1) + n+1}{S+x}$

This can be rearranged to

$2S^2 + f(n) x^2 + (f(n) + 2) Sx \ge (f(n+1) + n+1) Sx$

Since $ 2S^2 + f(n) x^2 \ge 2 \sqrt{2 f(n)} Sx$

it is sufficient to prove that $f(n)$ satisfies

$ f(n) + 2 + 2\sqrt{2 f(n)} \ge f(n+1) + n + 1$

Choosing $f(n) = \dfrac{n^2}{2}$ does the trick.

We can easily verify the base case for this choice of $f(n)$.

Thus we have:

$ \frac{n^2}{2(a_1 + a_2 + \dots + a_n)} + \sum_{k=1}^{n} \frac{k}{a_1 + a_2 + \dots + a_k} \le \sum_{j=1}^{n} \frac{2}{a_j}$

  • 0
    Indeed, I make mistakes in the computations.2012-02-12
-2

Forgive me as it is my first time on math exchange and I dont know how formatting is done for expressions.

first thing I feel is factor of 2 on right side is not necessary. It can be any number greater than or equal to 1. Equality can occur only when all a_i are identical and that factor on right side is 1.

lets call expression on right side as RHS and on left side as LHS.

Define f(n) = RHS_n - LHS_n then f(n+1) = RHS_{n+1} - LHS_{n+1} 

it is easy to see that

f(n+1) - f(n)>0 for all n 

(final expression will be quadratic in a_{n+1} and X, where X = summation of a_i [i =1 to n]).

given inequality is obvious when n =1, so that f(1) >0. hence f(n) > 0 for all n.

  • 0
    f(n+1) stands for difference between RHS and LHS. where RHS, LHS are themselves sum of terms from index$1$to n+1. If all the terms a_i are equal then we can see that respective terms on right and left side are equal, so is their sum. Generally in inequality, two sides are equal only when all the a_i are equal.(this is not a rule though, it is just my feeling). Probably I have not presented my arguments well enough or there is some flaw in arguments. I will go through it again, though thanks for reading and feedback of yours.2012-01-16