Brad Rodgers
Posted on Monday, 13 January, 2003 - 01:25 am:

Suppose we are given a sequence an such that

n=1 N an ~bN,

for a constant b.

Does this necessarily imply that

n=1 N an 2 ~cN,

for a constant c?

Thanks,

Brad

David Loeffler
Posted on Monday, 13 January, 2003 - 09:31 am:

What if we set a2n =n and a2n+1 =1-n? Then n=1 N an ~ 1 2 N, but n=1 N an 2 ~ 1 6 N3/2 or something like that.

Maybe the result is true if we constrain an to be positive real.

David

Michael Doré
Posted on Monday, 13 January, 2003 - 05:10 pm:

It's not. Consider a sequence where for each n either a2n = a2n+1 =1/2 or a2n =3/4, a2n+1 =1/4. Then n=1 N an ~N/2 but it should be clear that we make n=1 N an 2 /N oscillate between 1/4 and 5/16.
Brad Rodgers
Posted on Tuesday, 14 January, 2003 - 02:26 am:

Hrm. I vaguely recall seeing this argument before, or at any rate something very close to it - Michael's that is; in fact, I vaguely recall asking something to the effect of this question before...

Apologies if those memories are accurate, but thanks in either case for the quick responses.

Brad