Separate the degenerate case first.
If ∥a∥p∥b∥q=0 then one of a,b is the zero sequence, so ∑∣akbk∣=0 and the right side is also 0 — equality holds automatically.
Note: with b=0 but a=0, this equality holds, yet no constant — not even C≥0, let alone C>0 — satisfies ∣ak∣p=C∣bk∣q (the right side is identically 0 while some ∣ak∣p>0).
That is why the first branch of the statement is indispensable.
In both directions below, the degenerate case is settled by this paragraph, and the proportional branch is treated under ∥a∥p,∥b∥q>0.
(⇒) Assume ∥a∥p,∥b∥q>0 and that equality holds overall.
In problem 2's proof the inequality happened in exactly one place: Young's inequality AkBk≤pAkp+qBkq applied to each term.
Equality gives ∑kAkBk=1, while ∑k(pAkp+qBkq)=p1∑Akp+q1∑Bkq=1 is an identity, so if any single term were strict, the summed inequality would be strict — hence equality holds for every k.
By problem 1's equality condition, Akp=Bkq for every k; unwinding the normalization gives ∥a∥pp∣ak∣p=∥b∥qq∣bk∣q — i.e. ∣ak∣p=C∣bk∣q with C=∥a∥pp/∥b∥qq>0 (both norms are positive) independent of k.
(⇐) Conversely, assume one of the two branches.
If the degenerate branch ∥a∥p∥b∥q=0 holds, the first paragraph already verified equality with both sides 0 — this also covers the C=0 case: if ∣ak∣p=0⋅∣bk∣q for all k, then a=0 and the first branch applies with no division by any norm.
For the proportional branch, assume ∣ak∣p=C∣bk∣q for all k and some C>0.
If ∥b∥q=0 then b=0 and proportionality forces a=0 as well, returning to the degenerate branch; if ∥a∥p=0 then a=0, again the degenerate branch.
In the remaining case ∥a∥p,∥b∥q>0, division by the norms is legitimate: summing the proportionality over k forces C=∥a∥pp/∥b∥qq, and after normalization Akp=∥a∥pp∣ak∣p=∥b∥qq∣bk∣q=Bkq, so by problem 1's equality condition every Young's inequality is an equality: AkBk=pAkp+qBkq.
Summing over k gives ∑kAkBk=p1∑kAkp+q1∑kBkq=p1+q1=1, i.e. ∑k∣akbk∣=∥a∥p∥b∥q — equality in Hölder's inequality.
In the scene, ak=1/k and bk=1 have both norms positive but ∣ak∣p is not constant, so the gap can never be 0 — the gap closing as p→1+ is a collapse of the right side itself, not proportionality.