MedVision ad

maths 1B last minute questions (1 Viewer)

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Okay... I have questions about convergence and divergence.

3) How do you prove something is conditionally convergent, yes I know that you have to prove the absolute is divergent and the normal is convergent but how do you prove it to be convergent? Do you just split up the negative terms and positive terms into two series and see if they both converge?
By the way, in a conditionally convergent series, the sum of positive terms in the series will diverge and the sum of negative terms will also diverge.
 

Drsoccerball

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2014
Messages
3,650
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2015
So it didnt even matter what was in the numerator with ln's ? Youd still replace it wth something such that the bottom degree - top degree = something greater than 1? Isnt this fudging it?
 

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
It'll converge (absolutely in fact) for any x > 0, because for any fixed x, the denominator k will eventually become bigger than |x*ln(x)| and the series can then be compared to a GP with common ratio smaller than 1. All the terms in the given series will eventually become less than GP terms with common ratio smaller than 1, so it'll converge.

So radius of convergence is infinite.
 

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
So it didnt even matter what was in the numerator with ln's ? Youd still replace it wth something such that the bottom degree - top degree = something greater than 1? Isnt this fudging it?
Which part is fudging? Note that for all k sufficiently large, (ln k)^3 < k^{1/6}, so the summand is smaller than something asymptotic to 1/(k^{3/2 – 1/6}), and the sum of 1/(k^{3/2 - 1/6}) converges by the p-test.
 

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
If you meant it didn't matter exactly what polynomial in ln(k) was in the numerator, then yes, that's right, it'd work with any polynomial in ln(k) (or any finite sum of powers of ln(k)), as I explained in the later post. It's not fudging because it's something we can prove.
 

Drsoccerball

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2014
Messages
3,650
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2015
It'll converge (absolutely in fact) for any x > 0, because for any fixed x, the denominator k will eventually become bigger than |x*ln(x)| and the series can then be compared to a GP with common ratio smaller than 1. All the terms in the given series will eventually become less than GP terms with common ratio smaller than 1, so it'll converge.

So radius of convergence is infinite.
This makes sense but when we do it by force we get |xlnx| < e and this isnt true for all x? ( what i did was ratio test is less than 1)

Edit: nvm got it was missing a k+1 in the denominator
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top