Convergence Proof (As Part of Geometric Series Sum)

In summary: Then it will be equivalent to the original statement.Thanks for your help, but now I'm even more confused:1) Do you mean p > 0?2) What allows you to say that (1+p)^n >npI think that we should point out that your basic statement, \lim_{n\to\infty} r^n= 0 is only true for some values of r. What are your conditions on r?Thanks again for your help, but now I'm even more confused:1) Do you mean p > 0?2) What allows you to say that (1+p)^n >npIt is only true for values of r that
  • #1
Mathmo
7
0

Homework Statement


I am trying to prove the sum of a geometric series, but one of the steps involves deriving this result:

[tex]\lim_{n\to\infty}r^{n}=0[/tex]

so that you can simplify the sum of a geometric series, where I have got to this stage:

[tex]S_{\infty} = \frac{a(1-r^{\infty})}{1-r}[/tex]


Homework Equations


[tex]\lim_{n\to\infty}r^{n}=0[/tex]
s.

The Attempt at a Solution


I've managed to do the rest of the derivation and can continue past the above steps, by assuming that the limit does equal zero, but I am stuck on the proof. I've looked online and it seems you need calculus to prove this, but we've not been taught any.

I know the limit equals zero for r <|1|, as it makes sense intuitively, but how do I prove this or start to?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Uuh, how can you talk about series without knowing calculus in the first place...

Anyway, you have to show this limit is 0. So, what does "limit" mean?? What is the definition??
 
  • #3
The limit is what it tends to, I understand that and know it tends to zero by trying values. e.g. (1/2)^9999, but how do I prove this?
 
  • #4
You prove that by applying the definition of limit. What is that??
 
  • #5
[tex]\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=L[/tex] means that given any real number e>0, there exists another real number d, such that:

if 0<|x-a|<d then |f(x) - L|<e

But I'm not sure what to do next?
 
  • #6
Mathmo said:
[tex]\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=L[/tex] means that given any real number e>0, there exists another real number d, such that:

if 0<|x-a|<d then |f(x) - L|<e

But I'm not sure what to do next?

That is the definition for the limit of a continuous function. Here you want to do another limit: you want to take the limit of a sequence. This is something completely different then what you wrote down...

The thing you need to prove is that for all e>0, there existss a positive integer N, such that for all n>N holds [itex]|r^n|<e[/itex].
 
  • #7
Thanks for your help, but I must just be really stupid, as I'm still stuck on how to progress. :(
 
  • #8
Let 0<r<1. We can write r=1/(1+p) for p>1. Now we can do

[tex](1+p)^n> np[/tex]

So

[tex]0<r^n<\frac{1}{n p}[/tex]

So in order to prove that the left hand side converges to zero, it suffices to prove that the right hand side converges to 0.
 
  • #9
Thanks again for your help, but now I'm even more confused:

1) Do you mean p > 0?
2) What allows you to say that (1+p)^n >np
 
  • #10
I think that we should point out that your basic statement, [itex]\lim_{n\to\infty} r^n= 0[/itex] is only true for some values of r. What are your conditions on r?
 
  • #11
Mathmo said:
Thanks again for your help, but now I'm even more confused:

1) Do you mean p > 0?

I mean that p is strictly larger than zero.

2) What allows you to say that (1+p)^n >np

Prove this by induction.
 
  • #12
HallsofIvy said:
I think that we should point out that your basic statement, [itex]\lim_{n\to\infty} r^n= 0[/itex] is only true for some values of r. What are your conditions on r?

-1<r<1
I think

micromass said:
I mean that p is strictly larger than zero.



Prove this by induction.
I will try to prove this by induction and come back.
 
  • #13
micromass said:
Let 0<r<1. We can write r=1/(1+p) for p>1. Now we can do

[tex](1+p)^n> np[/tex]

So

[tex]0<r^n<\frac{1}{n p}[/tex]

So in order to prove that the left hand side converges to zero, it suffices to prove that the right hand side converges to 0.

Again thanks for your help, I can show the first part of induction, that for n=1:

[tex](1+p) > p[/tex]

which is true.

When I try and extend this to n+1 I get:

[tex](1+p)^{n+1} > (n+1)p[/tex]

[tex](1+p)^{n}(1+p) > np + p[/tex]

But I don't know how to prove this last step?
 
  • #14
Mathmo said:
Again thanks for your help, I can show the first part of induction, that for n=1:

[tex](1+p) > p[/tex]

which is true.

When I try and extend this to n+1 I get:

[tex](1+p)^{n+1} > (n+1)p[/tex]

[tex](1+p)^{n}(1+p) > np + p[/tex]

But I don't know how to prove this last step?

What is your induction hypothesis?? Multiply both sides of it by 1+p.
 

Question 1: What is a geometric series?

A geometric series is a series in mathematics that consists of a sequence of numbers where each term is obtained by multiplying the previous term by a fixed number called the common ratio. The general formula for a geometric series is a + ar + ar^2 + ar^3 + ..., where a is the first term and r is the common ratio.

Question 2: What is convergence in a geometric series?

Convergence in a geometric series refers to the behavior of the series as the number of terms approaches infinity. A series is said to converge if the sum of its terms approaches a finite value as more terms are added. In other words, the series has a finite limit and does not continue to increase indefinitely.

Question 3: How do you determine if a geometric series is convergent?

A geometric series is convergent if the absolute value of the common ratio, r, is less than 1. This means that as the number of terms approaches infinity, the terms get smaller and smaller, resulting in a finite sum. If the absolute value of r is greater than or equal to 1, the series is divergent and does not have a finite sum.

Question 4: What is the formula for finding the sum of a convergent geometric series?

The formula for finding the sum of a convergent geometric series is S = a / (1 - r), where S is the sum, a is the first term, and r is the common ratio. This formula only applies if the absolute value of r is less than 1.

Question 5: Can a geometric series be both convergent and divergent?

No, a geometric series cannot be both convergent and divergent. It can only be one or the other depending on the value of the common ratio. If the absolute value of r is less than 1, the series is convergent. If the absolute value of r is greater than or equal to 1, the series is divergent. It cannot be both at the same time.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
260
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
711
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
190
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
418
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
312
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
709
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
478
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
17
Views
621
Back
Top