Thanks, my problem has been resolved using inductions.

I'm actually using extrealTheory. All I have for the necessary and
sufficient condition of a suminf being PosInf is the following:

   [ext_suminf_eq_infty]  Theorem

      ⊢ ∀f.
            (∀n. 0 ≤ f n) ∧ (∀e. e < PosInf ⇒ ∃n. e ≤ ∑ f (count n)) ⇒
            (suminf f = PosInf)

   [ext_suminf_eq_infty_imp]  Theorem

      ⊢ ∀f.
            (∀n. 0 ≤ f n) ∧ (suminf f = PosInf) ⇒
            ∀e. e < PosInf ⇒ ∃n. e ≤ ∑ f (count n)

In my case, given any `e < PosInf`, it's very hard to construct such a
`n` directly, but, as I found before (based on your approach), an
induction approach works, and it turns out that the proof is quite
straightforward although not very short.

--Chun

Il 02/03/19 03:05, Haitao Zhang ha scritto:
> I assume you are using the theory from src/real/seqScript.sml and it
> looks like that summable is defined as a convergence of partial sums.
> That means you should be able to directly contradict the convergence
> criterion if (f n) does not go to 0. For example, SER_CAUCHY gives you:
> 
> “!f. summable f =
>           !e. &0 < e ==> ?N. !m n. m >= N ==> abs(sum(m,n) f) < e”
> 
> Choose e < 1, for any N, find n>N such that f n = 1, then abs(sum(n,n+1)
> f)=1 > e and contradiction. (I don't know the indexing of sum so it
> could be sum(n,n)).
> 
> Hope this helps,
> Haitao
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 12:46 PM Chun Tian (binghe)
> <binghe.l...@gmail.com <mailto:binghe.l...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     there’s is a typo in my previous post. I wanted to ask “…, why f
>     must *not* be summable?” (i.e. divergent)
> 
>     On a second thought, your approach could work for proving the
>     partial sum is unbounded: for any real number e > 0, I can first use
>     Archimedean property (simple version) of reals to find an integer N
>     such that e < N, then I repeat N times your approach, first let the
>     partial sum >= 1, then >= 2, … finally >= N, by induction, then the
>     whole proof finished.  However to implement this idea it’s not easy
>     to me. Still want to know better proofs.
> 
>     —Chun
> 
>     > Il giorno 01 mar 2019, alle ore 20:54, Chun Tian (binghe)
>     <binghe.l...@gmail.com <mailto:binghe.l...@gmail.com>> ha scritto:
>     >
>     > Hi Haitao,
>     >
>     > thanks, and yes, f is a sequence of reals.  I'm following a
>     similar path
>     > (proof by contradiction), but I don't understand the last step:
>     for any
>     > m, the partial sum of f goes up by 1 at n > m, why f must be
>     summable? I
>     > think for every monotonic sequence such properties hold.
>     >
>     > --Chun
>     >
>     > Il 01/03/19 17:24, Haitao Zhang ha scritto:
>     >> You say f is a function. From the context I assume the domain is
>     Nat or
>     >> f is a sequence. Mathematically speaking, you should form the partial
>     >> sums of f ( sum f from 1 to n), which is a monotonic sequence of
>     nats.
>     >> Now proof by contradiction: if your conclusion doesn’t hold, for
>     any m,
>     >> you can find n > m, such that f n = 1. Then the partial sum goes
>     up by 1
>     >> at n. As m is arbitrary, f is not summable.
>     >>
>     >> However I don’t know what is the best way to carry out the above
>     proof
>     >> in hol as I am not familiar with the relevant libraries yet.
>     >>
>     >> Haitao
>     >>
>     >> On Friday, March 1, 2019, Chun Tian (binghe)
>     <binghe.l...@gmail.com <mailto:binghe.l...@gmail.com>
>     >> <mailto:binghe.l...@gmail.com <mailto:binghe.l...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>     >>
>     >>    Hi,
>     >>
>     >>    I'm blocked at the following goal:
>     >>
>     >>    I have a function f returning either 0 or 1.  Now I know the
>     infinite
>     >>    sum of f is finite, i.e.
>     >>
>     >>            suminf f < PosInf       (or `summable f` speaking reals)
>     >>
>     >>    How can I prove the set of {x | f x = 1} is finite, or after
>     certain
>     >>    index m all the rest f(n) are zeros?
>     >>
>     >>            ∃m. ∀n. m ≤ n ⇒ (f n = 0)
>     >>
>     >>    If I use CCONTR_TAC (proof by contradiction), I can easily
>     derive the
>     >>    following 2 assumptions using results I established in my previous
>     >>    similar questions:
>     >>
>     >>            INFINITE N
>     >>            ∀n. n ∈ N ⇒ (f n = 1)
>     >>
>     >>    but still I've no idea how to derive a contradiction with
>     `suminf f <
>     >>    PosInf` by proving `suminf f = PosInf`...
>     >>
>     >>    Thanks,
>     >>
>     >>    Chun Tian
>     >>
>     >
> 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
hol-info mailing list
hol-info@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hol-info

Reply via email to