Results 1 to 14 of 14

Math Help - convergance of series

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2006
    From
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    70

    convergance of series

    Show that if \sum_{r=1}^{\infty} u_r converges, then:

    \sum_{r=1}^{\infty} \frac{r+10}{r} u_r also converges.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Forum Admin topsquark's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2006
    From
    Wellsville, NY
    Posts
    10,054
    Thanks
    368
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Aradesh
    Show that if \sum_{r=1}^{\infty} u_r converges, then:

    \sum_{r=1}^{\infty} \frac{r+10}{r} u_r also converges.
    For large r, the second series approaches the first (ie. \lim_{r \to \infty} \frac{r+10}{r}u_r \to \lim_{r \to \infty}u_r. For large r, the coefficient approaches 1.) Thus the second series will converge since the first does.

    If you need specifics you can get a bit fancier and do a ratio test:
    \lim_{r \to \infty} \frac{ \frac{(r+1)+10}{r+1}u_{r+1} } { \frac{r+10}{r}u_r } = \lim_{r \to \infty} \frac{r(r+11)}{(r+1)(r+10)} \frac{u_{r+1}}{u_r} = \lim_{r \to \infty} \frac{u_{r+1}}{u_r}

    Since the series \sum_{r=1}^{\infty}u_r converges we know that \lim_{r \to \infty} \frac{u_{r+1}}{u_r} < 1. Thus the series \sum_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{r+10}{r}u_r must also converge.

    -Dan
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2006
    From
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    70
    "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 \frac{u_{n+1}}{u_n}<k<1 surely there could be convergent series that do not satisfy this?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Aradesh
    Show that if \sum_{r=1}^{\infty} u_r converges, then:

    \sum_{r=1}^{\infty} \frac{r+10}{r} u_r also converges.
    Assuming, u_r>0


    You have more simply,
    \sum_{r=1}^{\infty} (1+10/r) u_r=\sum_{r=1}^{\infty} u_r+\frac{10 u_r}{r}
    Note that \sum_{r=1}^{\infty} u_r congerves.
    Then,
    \sum_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{u_r}{r} must converge because,
    0\leq \frac{u_r}{r} \leq u_r-this is direct comparassion test.
    Then so too,
    \sum_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{10u_r}{r} 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,
    \sum_{r=1}^{\infty} u_r+\frac{10 u_r}{r}
    converges, implies that this sum must converge.

    Q.E.D.
    Last edited by ThePerfectHacker; May 18th 2006 at 06:02 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by topsquark
    Since the series \sum_{r=1}^{\infty}u_r converges we know that \lim_{r \to \infty} \frac{u_{r+1}}{u_r} < 1.
    I believe that the ratio test states that is the ratio converges to less than one then the series must converge.

    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).
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Forum Admin topsquark's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2006
    From
    Wellsville, NY
    Posts
    10,054
    Thanks
    368
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker
    I believe that the ratio test states that is the ratio converges to less than one then the series must converge.

    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).
    (Ahem!) Forgot about that little point. Sorry!

    -Dan
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2006
    From
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    70
    I believe it, but i'm not convinced by one of your steps, tph.

    ie that:
    \sum_{r=1}^{\infty} \frac{u_r}{r} must converge since

    0 \le \frac{u_r}{r} \le u_r

    Aren't you are using this to say that since the terms in the series  \frac{u_1}{1} + \frac{u_2}{2} + \frac{u_3}{3} + \cdots are less than or equal to each corresponding term in the series u_1 + u_2 + u_3 + \cdots, 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
    0< |\frac{u_r}{r}| < |u_r|
    then
    \sum_{r=1}^{\infty}u_r \mbox{ converges } \Longrightarrow \sum_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{u_r}{r} \mbox{ converges }
    ?

    thanks.
    Last edited by Aradesh; May 19th 2006 at 08:49 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Aradesh
    so could you elaborate on the fact that since
    0< |\frac{u_r}{r}| < |u_r|
    then
    \sum_{r=1}^{\infty}u_r \mbox{ converges } \Longrightarrow \sum_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{u_r}{r} \mbox{ converges }
    ?

    thanks.
    If the series is absolutely convergent, how do you know? If the problem says it is then you can state that.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2006
    From
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    70
    Let  k be a constant such that:
     k>|U_n| 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, k>|U_n|, but how do you know that,
    k>|U_{n+1}| therefore the inequality (on which you base your proof) is imprecise.
    Last edited by ThePerfectHacker; May 24th 2006 at 02:36 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Aradesh
     0 < |\sum_{r=1}^\infty \frac{u_r}{r}| < k
    since k is finite, the series converges. \blacksquare
    Maybe I am missing something but, just because,
     0 < \left| \sum_{r=1}^n \frac{u_r}{r} \right| < k
    Does not mean that is converges,

    Indeed,
    0<\sum_{k=1}^{n}(-1)^k<2
    But it does not converge
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2006
    From
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    70
    you're right. so i've changed it a bit. what do you think now? is it okay?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #12
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    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
    Let  k be a constant such that:
     k>|U_n| 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, k>|U_n|, but how do you know that,
    k>|U_{n+1}| therefore the inequality (on which you base your proof) is imprecise.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  13. #13
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2006
    From
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    70
    Well i meant that  U_n is bounded so there exists a k, independent of n, such that for all U_n the inequality k > |U_n| is valid.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  14. #14
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Aradesh
    Well i meant that  U_n is bounded so there exists a k, independent of n, such that for all U_n the inequality k > |U_n| is valid.
    You should have show that,
    \forall n\in\mathbb{Z}^+,k>|U_n|
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Convergance of SF(x)
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 5th 2010, 02:33 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 27th 2010, 02:26 PM
  3. Question about Series convergance
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 11th 2010, 09:15 AM
  4. Convergance Tests For Infinite Series
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 3rd 2010, 05:41 AM
  5. Series convergance?
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 22nd 2009, 07:42 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum