Real Analysis - Radius of Convergence


by steelphantom
Tags: analysis, convergence, radius, real
steelphantom
steelphantom is offline
#1
Apr29-08, 10:08 AM
P: 159
1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
Suppose that [tex]\sum[/tex]anxn has finite radius of convergence R and that an >= 0 for all n. Show that if the series converges at R, then it also converges at -R.

2. Relevant equations

3. The attempt at a solution
Since the series converges at R, then I know that [tex]\sum[/tex]anRn = M.

At -R, the series is the following: [tex]\sum[/tex]an(-R)n = [tex]\sum[/tex](-1)nanRn.

I'm not sure where to go from here. I thought I needed to use the alternating series test, but how can I know that a1 >= a2 >= ... >= an for all n? Do I know this because the series converges? Thanks for your help.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Going nuts? Turkey looks to pistachios to heat new eco-city
Space-tested fluid flow concept advances infectious disease diagnoses
SpaceX launches supplies to space station (Update)
Dick
Dick is offline
#2
Apr29-08, 10:14 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 25,168
Right. You can't use the alternating series test. How about a comparison test?
steelphantom
steelphantom is offline
#3
Apr29-08, 10:30 AM
P: 159
Thanks! So since [tex]\sum[/tex]anRn converges, and an(-R)n <= anRn for all n, then [tex]\sum[/tex]an(-R)n converges.

Dick
Dick is offline
#4
Apr29-08, 10:32 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 25,168

Real Analysis - Radius of Convergence


Sorry! That's wrong. I'm clearly asleep at the wheel. That's convergence for sequences. And this sort of argument only shows that the partial sums are bounded, not that they converge. Do you know the Dirichlet convergence test?
steelphantom
steelphantom is offline
#5
Apr29-08, 11:19 AM
P: 159
Quote Quote by Dick View Post
Sorry! That's wrong. I'm clearly asleep at the wheel. That's convergence for sequences. And this sort of argument only shows that the partial sums are bounded, not that they converge. Do you know the Dirichlet convergence test?
I don't know that one. But the comparison test in my book says the following:

Let [tex]\sum[/tex]an be a series where an >=0 for all n.
(i) If [tex]\sum[/tex]an converges and |bn| <= an for all n, then [tex]\sum[/tex]bn converges.

If I let an = anRn, this is >=0 for all n. And if I let bn = an(-R)n, then I have |bn| <= an for all n, so the series converges, right? What's wrong with this statement?
Dick
Dick is offline
#6
Apr29-08, 11:27 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 25,168
Nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately, I wasn't thinking of that comparison test. Hence the panic attack. Carry on.
steelphantom
steelphantom is offline
#7
Apr29-08, 11:28 AM
P: 159
Ok! Thanks once again for your help.
HallsofIvy
HallsofIvy is offline
#8
Apr29-08, 12:15 PM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 38,881
What's wrong with using the comparison test is that it only applies to positive series. Certainly -n< (1/2)n for all n, but we can't use that to conclude that [itex]\sum -n [/itex] converges!

The crucial point is that every an is positive. That means that [itex]\sum a_n x^n[/itex], for x negative is an alternating series. What is true of alternating series?
steelphantom
steelphantom is offline
#9
Apr29-08, 12:37 PM
P: 159
Quote Quote by HallsofIvy View Post
The crucial point is that every an is positive. That means that [itex]\sum a_n x^n[/itex], for x negative is an alternating series. What is true of alternating series?
If a1 >= a2 >= ... >= an >= ... >= 0 and lim(an) = 0, then the alternating series [tex]\sum[/tex](-1)nan converges. But, like I said before, do I know that a1 >= a2 >= ... >= an because the series converges at R?
Dick
Dick is offline
#10
Apr29-08, 01:30 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 25,168
Quote Quote by HallsofIvy View Post
What's wrong with using the comparison test is that it only applies to positive series. Certainly -n< (1/2)n for all n, but we can't use that to conclude that [itex]\sum -n [/itex] converges!

The crucial point is that every an is positive. That means that [itex]\sum a_n x^n[/itex], for x negative is an alternating series. What is true of alternating series?
All of terms a_n*R^n are positive and it's convergent. The series is absolutely convergent. Nothing can go wrong here.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Real Analysis proof help, convergence Calculus & Beyond Homework 11
Real Analysis - Uniform Convergence Calculus & Beyond Homework 1
Real Analysis- least upper bound and convergence General Math 4
Real analysis- Convergence/l.u.b Calculus & Beyond Homework 5
Radius of convergence Calculus & Beyond Homework 4