Professional Documents
Culture Documents
C. T. RAJAGOPAL
THEOREM A. If 2 a
^ 2 S summable (A) to a finite value I, and
n 2n
a
then 2 k i$ summable (R, 1) to I and also summable (Rα) to I.
X
(1.1) s*{u) - + Ύ)
J (u - xf a{x) dx if a > -1, s^(u) = a{u\ u ^ 0,
nd
/ \ TU
where
i r ^_ (either —
(1.4) - -1,
0
1 if a= - 1 .
and the Laplace-Abel transform of a(u) by
tu
(1.5) **> = / e~ a(u)du, t > 0.
0
The integrals in (1.3) and (1.5) are each 'supposed to exist for every fixed
t in the interval noted against each. There is a similarity between them in
that the existence of j(t) for every t > 0 enables us to express it as an
absolutely convergent integral in the form ([6], Chapter II, proof of Theorem
8.1):
exist, and, whether they are finite or not, cr« ^ σoo. We define for s(u)
(1.8) summability (C, oo) to / : σ w ^σ^ = /, writing s{u) -> / (C, oo).
CO
βfe
For a series 2 supposed to be real in this paper, there are the usual
Jfc = l
3) TΛe method of summability (R,ρ, <κ) /or ί(«) « regular if either (ϊ) p>a-hl
^ 1 , or (ii) ^>>l>α: + 1^0. For case (i) the proof is that, since α^O, s(u)-+l(u->
oo) implies <ra(u)^l and the existence of
oo / sin & \^
/ ( ) u**»(μlt) du, t>0,
0 \ « /
and finally implies P (^,CB,O^^ as t-++Q by Lebesgue's theorem of dominated conver-
gence. In case (ii), we argue similarly with
! ^(^y c/o , ,
identifying this integral with p(/>,α,ί) by an integration by parts in which we use
(Ta + Ί O ) -W (M^oo).
4) The special definition of σ^1 is not adopted by Hirokawa and others for the
reason that it is inconsistent with the definition of σ* for.a>—1. However, this
definition of σ^1 enables us to unify in Theorem I'(A) the two cases <x—~l and at
>—1 although the first case often requires more elaborate treatment than the second.
250 C.T.RAJAGOPAL
α ι C α
written 2 * = ( ^ )»
1
CO
a
summability (A) to /: lim 2 ^ χ1c — h
5)
(1.70
written = z (A)>
summability (R,A α) to /: lim ρ{p, a, t) =
=
written 2 ^ ^ (#£>α )
2. Lemmas. In the rest of the paper, the notation and the definitions
of the preceding section are used without further explanation. The lemmas
which follow are for integrals, and they have series-analogies which are
omitted for the reason that there is no special difficulty in either formulating
or proving these analogues. In fact, series-analogues of even the subsequent
results for integrals are taken for granted unless there is some such difficulty.
The first two lenmas have obvious proofs which are left to the reader.
LEMMA 1. If fiu) is non-negative and integrabϊe in every finite interval
o/u>0, S>0, q±Q, then
siatx dx
/ tu
F(u) = / f(x) dx, then f(u) - ku^Fiμ) = 0(1) implies f(u) = O{1\ u - ' OO.
/
<τcc(x) dx = - — — cτa +1 ( « ) H ^ — •- • I σβ+i(ΛΓ) ώf,
ϋ o
from which we get the required result by using Lemma 3 with
k = — CLt f(u) = σcc+i («).
The case a = — 1 is obvious since it is simply that s(«) = 0(1) when we
^ assume the two conditions:
u
S(u) - σi(tt) = — / ΛW(Λ?) dx = O(l), σi(«) = O(l).
u
LEMMA 5. If a > — 1, ί/tew
S(M) -> /(A). σ« +1 («) - Ox(l) O S(M) -+ /(C,« + 2)
w^ic^ means that the two hypotheses on the left side, separated by a stop, lead
to the conclusion on the right side.
OL(T) on the left may be replaced by OR(1), or a fortiori, by O(l).
PROOF. The case a = — 1 is classical ([1], p. 154, integral analogue of
Theorem 94). If a > — 1, one method of proving the result is to note that
s{u)^l (A) implies, by (1.6),
+a tu
lim ί* / e- sa+J {u)du = /,
o
and then appeal to a theorem due to Hardy and Littlewood (e.g. [4], pp.256-
7, proof of Theorem t} where r0 is used instead of a 4- 1).
LEMMA 6. If a> —1, then the two hypotheses
<Γβ+1 ( l l ) = 0(1)
PROOF. It is obvious from σa(u) > — H that σa+i(u) = Ox(l). On the
other hand, σ-α+2(«*) == Oi?(l) implies the existence of a constant Jί > 0 such
that, for all large x,
+ o r
i. e. .fiΓ > g«ΐa~Γ(α + 2) lσ*+ύχ/2) ^Q» o Λ+1(xf2) = OΛ(1) as
so that finally <τa+1(u) = 0(1) as
LEMMA 9. //" «s(«) > — H{H> Q), ύtwrf ^/ί/^r 5 ( M ) ^ / ( C , * ) , £ > 0,
s(w)->/(A),
then
ru
s(u)-+l, J x\σ{x)\dx^ Θ{u).
RIEMANN-CESARO SUMMABILITY OF SERIES AND INTEGRALS 253
I xa(x) dx = o{u).
ϋ
The second conclusion follows from the above estimate together with the
estimate
ru
I x[\a(x)\-a{x)]dx<2Hu
o
resulting from the relations
then
f \<τ«(x)\dx=O(u).
o
If a— — 1, the result is the familiar one that
r r r
I I σJx) I dx <Ξ / \σa+i{X)\ dx ~j- {a + I ) " 1 / x\dσa + Λtf)\
J J J
0 0 li
1
S / \<r<*+i(x)\ dx+(a + I ) " Mj \dσ*+i(x)\ =
o o
), ί>0,
κ
" fci nfc fci
1-δ
because sk — O(# ) = o(k\ k-^-co, in consequence of the hypothesis σ
(iii) In every case in which Theorem B holds good, it can be restated
with only (TB) changed to
THEOREM Γ, If a + 1 ^ 0,
RIEMANN-CESARO SUMMABILITY OF SERIES AND INTEGRALS 255
(3.2') Σ K I =°(M).
Jfc-1-
1=1
/
. , v, sin/w , 1 Γ |crα(^)|
by (3.2) and an appeal to Lemma 1 with f{u) = | σα(«) |, q — p — a, 8 =
ί — oc — 1.
If α: = 0, ί = 1, the existence of p'£, α, ί) for fixed t > 0 is proved as
follows from (3.1) and (3.2) each with a = — 1. The integral
s
(3.3) — Γ a(x)φ*(tx)dx=— [ a(x)dx [ ^^-du, t>0,
7Γ J 7Γ J J U
0
J
by an appeal to Lemma 2, followed by (3.1) with α = — 1, and an appeal
to Lemma 1 with /(#) - x\a(x)\, q — 2, δ = 1. Since, as a result of (3.1) and
(3.2) each with a = — 1, s(w) = 0(1) by the case α; = — 1 of Lemma 4, we
256 C.T.RAJAGOPAL
We proceed to show that in all the cases considered above, ιp(p, a, t)->l
as t ->• + 0.
Case: p > a + 1 > 0. Writing φ(u) = (sin u)p/up, we get by two integrations
by parts, for fixed t > 0 and # > 0,
+1
pip, a, t) = C"i ** ( J + J y*(u) φ(tu) du
0 xlt
ίt-a /f
(3.5) - C-V7, + 72 + I3 + h)
where
We shall suppose (as we may) that t < 1 and ήx x subject to certain conditions
to be specified presently. To begin with, (3.2) and Lemma 4 in the case
a > — 1 show that <r*+i (#) = O (1) as ^-> oo and that there is a constant M
which makes
(3.6) 1/χl <Mx«+i\φ(x)\
for all large x; while (3.2) and Lemma 1 with f(u) = |.σ*(«j|, a-p—a,
$ —p — a —I, show that there is also a constant iV making
(3 7)
J
for all large ΛΓ. On the other hand, (3.1) is o-<*+>2(u)^l and it gives, when
x is fixed and t -> + 07
RIEMANN-CESARO SUMMABILITY OF SERIES AND INTEGRALS 257
(3.8) l 2 + l 3
- C p
^
Given any small 8 > 0, x can be chosen so large that the right-hand members
of (3.6), (3.7), (3.8) are each less than C ^S/S in absolute value. With this
choice of x, (3.5) gives when taken along with (3.6), (3.7) and (3.8):
lim s u p I p(p, a,t) — l\<S, i . e . lim pip, a, t) = L
t-»+0 ί-^ + 0
it being well-known that (R,l) c£>(R,2) f[l], Appendix III). Hence we may
suppose that tt + 3 * i > t t + 1 ^ 0 .
Cΰts^: α + 3 Φ ί > α : + l > 0 . After establishing the existence of the p(p,
a, t) in (1.3') as in the proof of Theorem I, we proceed to the step correspo-
nding to (3.5) there, which is now obtained by two Abel or partial-summation
transformations, in the form
ί
" I " Ίr J^^Λ k
Jc - l fc=>m+l
sa
= Ci!JA + ϊι + ί + ^)> y>
where m = the integral ["part of xft, x > 0, t > 0. By (3.2') and the series-
analogue of Lemma 4, σ-*+1 = Oil) as ^->co ? so that, as in the proof of
Theorem I, there is a constant M such that
(3.6r) \K\ < Mxa+I\φ(x)\
for all large x. By (3.2') and the series-analogue of Lemma 1, there is also
a constant N such that
(3.7') \Ϊ4\ >NxΛ+'ί'p
for all large x. lί x is fixed, using the hypothesis (3. Γ) that σ%+2 ->• / as
k~+co} we can show that
(3.8') Km+ sup I/; + / 3 - CPt*i\
CO
|Z|
*"- ^r^ + 1 !Φ^)l + ' ' l
we can write
Ztl Aφ{m - If) + t«+1l£m^ A%t:{ Aφ{m - It)
k=ι
(3.100 = 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 4, say.
Since there is a constant K such that |Δaφ(*f)| < KP-pk~p for all ί > 0 and
^ > 1 ([3], p. 443), we first get, using (3.9') in /^
Since there is evidently also a constant Kx such that 2 ^α+2"P < KιmΛ+z'p,
Secondly, there is a constant L such that \Aφ(kt)\ < Ltι-pk~* for all ί > 0
and k > 1 and so we find, recalling that
fc-1
where, since mt-^x as £ -* + 0,
(3.16') t«^A%
260 C.T.RAJAGOPAL
>
£5 «•
(31r c
> • " " -
Using (3.11'), (3.120, (3.130, (3.170 in (3.100, we finally obtain (3.80 with
(3. 18 ) F{X) = KKτ *H*+3-p| + /^l-lβH-s-*!
where K,KΛi L are absolute constants. This completes the proof as already
explained.
COROLLARY 1(1). If s(u) -> / (C, oo), then, for all large a, say a > aOt s{u)
-> / (R, py oi) if P is a positive integer chosen corresponding to each a, so that
W, t -> + 0.
is absolutely convergent.
PROOF. The two hypotheses (3.1), (3.2) of Theorem Γ are ensured, the
RΪEMANN-CESARO SUMMABILITY OF SERIES AND INTEGRALS 261
first one obviously and the second one by Lemma 10 and so every case of
Corollary 1(2) is reducible to the corresponding case of Theorem I.
THEOREM II. If a > —1, H > 0, then, for a positive integer p > a + 1,
s(u) -* I (C, a + 2). σ-cc(u) > -H φ s(u) -+ / (R, A α).
The above result is additionally true with a = — 1 in the hypothesis (left
side) and a = 0, p ~ 1 in the conclusion (right side).
PROOF. If a > —1, Lemma 8 shows that σ-«+i(«) = 0(1) and that con-
sequently
u u
= O(u)
/
which together with the hypothesis s(u) ->• / (G, 1) shows that the case p >
cc + 1 = 0 of Theorem II is included in the same case of Theorem I.
Finally, the additional result follows from the case a = 0, p = 1 of
Theorem I.
COROLLARY II. For s(u) > — H, summabilities (C, 2) #M</ (R3) are equivalent.
PROOF. For the class of s(u) in question, we have, taking a = 0, /> = 2
in Theorem I,
(C?2)C>(R3)
while, by a known theorem ([1], p. 305, Theorem 237),
either
PROOF. For α: :> —1, the hypothesis crΛ>) > —77 gives σα+i(M) = OΛ1)
which, in conjunction with the hypothesis s(u) -> / (A) leads to s(u) -> /(C, α: +
2) by Lemma 5. And so Theαrem fI(A)is reducible to Theorem II.
Whether for series or for integrals, the known theorems ([1], Appendix
III) connecting each of the summabilities (R, 1), (R,2), (R2) with summability
(A) are that
(R, 1) - ^ (R, 2) -++ (A), (R,) ^ ^ (A).
There are non-trivial converses of these theorems for integrals, under a one-
sided Tauberian condition, contained in Theorem Π(A) and explicitly stated
below.
COROLLARY Π(A).
REFERENCES