Show that if converges, then:

also converges.

Printable View

- May 18th 2006, 01:05 PMAradeshconvergance of series
Show that if converges, then:

also converges. - May 18th 2006, 01:57 PMtopsquarkQuote:

Originally Posted by**Aradesh**

If you need specifics you can get a bit fancier and do a ratio test:

= =

Since the series converges we know that . Thus the series must also converge.

-Dan - May 18th 2006, 06:23 PMAradesh
"For large r, the second series approaches the first" ... "Thus the second series will converge since the first does."

can you prove this? ie that.. if the terms of a second series approach the terms of a first converging series, then the second series converges also?

and as to the ratio test, i never said anything about surely there could be convergent series that do not satisfy this? - May 18th 2006, 06:55 PMThePerfectHackerQuote:

Originally Posted by**Aradesh**

You have more simply,

Note that congerves.

Then,

must converge because,

-this is direct comparassion test.

Then so too,

must converge because all you are doing is multipling and infinite series by a constant does not change its convergence.

Since the two summands of,

converges, implies that this sum must converge.

Q.E.D. - May 18th 2006, 07:01 PMThePerfectHackerQuote:

Originally Posted by**topsquark**

If the series converges does not mean that the ratio test implies it being less than one. It cannot imply more than one for that would imply that is diverges. However it can still imply that is precisely equal to 1, (remember ratio test inconclusive at L=1). - May 19th 2006, 04:27 AMtopsquarkQuote:

Originally Posted by**ThePerfectHacker**

-Dan - May 19th 2006, 09:47 AMAradesh
I believe it, but i'm not convinced by one of your steps, tph.

ie that:

must converge since

Aren't you are using this to say that since the terms in the series are less than or equal to each corresponding term in the series , therefore the first series must converge since the second one does.

But as far as I know, you can only say that if you know all the terms in the series are either all positive, or all negative (for sufficiently large r). since you'd know, for example, that the increasing smaller series would be bound above by the limit of the series you are using to compare with. but if we don't know that the series might be alternating, or changing signs erratically, I don't think you can reason it like this.

so could you elaborate on the fact that since

then

?

thanks. - May 19th 2006, 10:56 AMThePerfectHackerQuote:

Originally Posted by**Aradesh**

*absolutely convergent*, how do you know? If the problem says it is then you can state that. - May 23rd 2006, 06:34 PMAradesh
Let be a constant such that:

for all positive integer n.

I believe this is another problem.

How do you know that the inequality that follows this proposition is still valid.

Yes, , but how do you know that,

therefore the inequality (on which you base your proof) is imprecise. - May 23rd 2006, 07:51 PMThePerfectHackerQuote:

Originally Posted by**Aradesh**

Does not mean that is converges,

Indeed,

But it does not converge :eek: - May 24th 2006, 03:16 PMAradesh
you're right. so i've changed it a bit. what do you think now? is it okay?

- May 24th 2006, 03:40 PMThePerfectHacker
I am so sorry!

I wanted to QUOTE repley but I accidently pressed EDIT and my moderator priveleges deleted your entire post!!

Your proof is gone :(,

Anyway I believe it was wrong because,

Quote:

Originally Posted by**Aradesh**

How do you know that the inequality that follows this proposition is still valid.

Yes, , but how do you know that,

therefore the inequality (on which you base your proof) is imprecise. - May 24th 2006, 04:19 PMAradesh
Well i meant that is bounded so there exists a , independent of n, such that for all the inequality is valid.

- May 24th 2006, 07:15 PMThePerfectHackerQuote:

Originally Posted by**Aradesh**