Prove thatis convergent.
Printable View
Prove thatis convergent.
can we use the inequality( the equality holds only when n = 1 ) ?
the next step we have to go is just considering whetherconverges
Maybe use the integral test and we know that.
If we indicate with...
(1)
... the 'armonic number' of index n, the 'infinite series' is...
(2)
Remembering that the generating function of armonic numbers is...
(3)
... we derive in two steps...
(5)
(6)
Now we use the identity...
(7)
... and (6) to arrive at the result...
(8)
Kind regards
![]()
Investigate the convergence of series.
It is well known that, where
is the Euler-Mascheroni constant.
Obviously seriesconverges since
, knowing
exists.
Now investigate the convergence of series, leaving to check if the following integral exists
. Integral by part, it is easy to know it exists.
Therefore,converges.
Luobo,
What you did is correct.
But it doesn't help for the present problem, since we want to prove if the seriesis convergent, not the sequence
.
chisigma, how do you prove thatconverges ?
Moo,
I indeed is talking about series. For clarity, it is rearranged below:
(1) Seriesis convergent.
{ Note:
}
The first term converges knowingis bounded, the second term converges even more obviously.
(2) Seriesis also convergent.
It converges sinceis bounded.
![]()
(3) Seriesis convergent
... all right!... with little patience [or even using Wolfram Integrator (Wink) ...] you find that...
(1)
... whereis the Polylogarithm function of order two, defined in the complex plane as...
(2)
Now the series (2) converges forso that
and
both exist...
Kind regards
![]()
Following the same procedure we arrive to demonstrate that is...
(1)
These are interesting results that are not isolated, because the same procedure can be used to arrive to even better results (Wink) ...
Kind regards
![]()
An example... from the well known expression...
(1)
... we derive...
(2)
Now from (2) and the identity...
(3)
... we derive...
(4)
... and from (2) and the identity...
(5)
... we derive...
(6)
Kind regards
![]()
NonConAlg,
You are right. Thanks a lot. Maybe we can switch to Abel's test. Abel's Test. Check below.
(1) Partial sumis bounded.
= Im
= Im
![]()
(2) Seriesis convergent.
{ Note:
}
The second term converges obviously. The first term also converges according to Abel's test:
(Condition 1) Sequenceis decreasing
(Condition 2)
(Condition 3) Partial sumis bounded
(3) Seriesis also convergent.
(Condition 1) Sequenceis decreasing for
(Condition 2)
(Condition 3) Partial sumis bounded
(4) Seriesis convergent
The sequenceis monotonically decreasing to
.
Let. Then
.
Thusfor all
, i.e. the partial sums of
are bounded.
By Dirichlet's test,converges.
halbard,
I was thinking about doing the same thing (Happy). My reference about the Abel's Test from a website appears ought to be the Dirichlet's test.
Luobo