Results 1 to 3 of 3

Math Help - Stuck on a weird step when trying to find two decimal place accuracy for a series!

  1. #1
    s3a
    s3a is offline
    Super Member
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    597

    Stuck on a weird step when trying to find two decimal place accuracy for a series!

    The question along with its solution are attached.

    I'm stuck on the step where it compares the sum to the integral with the <= sign. I don't understand how someone can infer the truth of this in a way that requires no additional steps.

    Basically, how can I show this to be true without requiring too much work? (I just want to grasp it intuitively - I don't need a full proof or anything).

    Any help would be greatly appreciated!
    Thanks in advance!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Stuck on a weird step when trying to find two decimal place accuracy for a series!-q9.jpeg  
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    s3a
    s3a is offline
    Super Member
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    597

    Re: Stuck on a weird step when trying to find two decimal place accuracy for a series

    If a full proof is really necessary, then it's alright to give one (I still don't that that should be necessary) but I just want to be able to justify that step so I can move on.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    s3a
    s3a is offline
    Super Member
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    597

    Re: Stuck on a weird step when trying to find two decimal place accuracy for a series

    I now see how an integral with the same limits (if that's the correct term) is less than (or equal to) the infinite sums based on the picture I'm attaching (which I got from Wikipedia) but what I'm almost understanding but not quite is how adding 1 to the beginning of the sum's limit makes it be less than (or equal to) the integral. I'm thinking it's because starting at k+1 rather than k makes the first rectangle in the Wikipedia example picture disappear? Assuming everything I said is right, what confuses me now is how can I know that that first rectangle's total area that was skipped via n=k+1 rather than n=k for the summation is larger than then every other rectangle's part above the curve?

    Is it because I know 1/n^2 or 1/x^2 converges and therefore the little area over the curve per rectangle will converge to something smaller than the area of the first entire rectangle?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Stuck on a weird step when trying to find two decimal place accuracy for a series!-300px-integral_test.svg.png  
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: February 28th 2011, 02:45 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 1st 2009, 05:14 AM
  3. [SOLVED] 1 decimal place
    Posted in the Algebra Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 17th 2009, 05:30 AM
  4. [SOLVED] 1 decimal place
    Posted in the Algebra Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 16th 2009, 10:43 AM
  5. looks easy but stuck on one step
    Posted in the Math Topics Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 29th 2008, 03:56 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum