Can Kummer's Test Be Used to Prove Raabe's Test?

  • Thread starter quasar987
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof Test
In summary, the conversation is discussing the proof of Raabe's test for determining the convergence or divergence of a series. The conversation includes a discussion of different versions of the test, issues with inequalities in the expressions, and a suggestion to use the proof of Kummer's test instead.
  • #1
quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
4,807
32
The proof of Raabe's test

Homework Statement


I was asked to prove Raabes test in the form that if

[tex]|a_{n+1}/a_{n}|<1-A/n[/tex]

for some A>1 and for n large enough, then the series converges absolutely.

After struggling for days (I work at a factory doing repetitive work so I can easily let my body work while I think about math :smile:), I capitulated and peeked at the hint at the end of the book. It says, let

[tex]P_n=\prod_{k=1}^{n}\left(1-\frac{A}{k}\right)[/tex]

and show that

[tex]\ln(P_n)=-A\ln(n)+O(1)[/tex].

While I understand perfectly how this equality is the kernel of the proof, I can't seem to be able to demonstrate its truth. My best shot is...

[tex]\ln(P_n)=\sum_{k=1}^n\ln\left(1-\frac{A}{k}\right)\leq \sum_{k=1}^n\left(1-\frac{A}{k}\right)=n-A\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{1}{k}=n-A\ln(n)+O(1)[/tex]

The last equality is because the sequence [tex]\gamma_n=\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{1}{k}-\ln(n)[/tex] is decreasing and bounded below by 0 (and converges to Euler's cst [itex]\gamma[/itex]).
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
quasar987 said:
While I understand perfectly how this equality is the kernel of the proof, I can't seem to be able to demonstrate its truth. My best shot is...

[tex]\sum_{k=1}^n\ln\left(1-\frac{A}{k}\right)\leq \sum_{k=1}^n\left(1-\frac{A}{k}\right)[/tex]

That seems like a poor choice of inequality -- the terms on the left are pretty close to zero, while the ones on the right are close to 1. I wonder if you could use the Taylor series:
[tex]\ln(1+x)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^n}{n+1}x^{n+1}[/tex]
to come up with something better?
 
  • #3
I wonder... :wink:

I'd be surprised if that is the only way to go however. Cuz this is a problem from chapter 2, and Taylor's thm is in somthing like cahpter 6.
 
  • #4
First, let me state correctly the version of Raabe's test I was asked to prove: "If

[tex]|a_{n+1}/a_{n}|\leq 1-A/n[/tex]

for some A>1 and for n large enough, then the series converges absolutely. And if

[tex]|a_{n+1}/a_{n}|\geq 1-1/n[/tex]

for n large enough, then the series diverges."

And I suppose that it is implied that if neither of these inequality hold for n large enough, then we cannot conclude.Is this version of Raabe's test really equivalent to the one that says, "Let

[tex]L=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}n\left(1-\left|\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n}\right|\right)[/tex]

If L>1, the series converges absolutely.
If L<1, the series diverges.
If L=1, we cannot conclude."

Or is this last one more general?

(And by the way, I think something's not right... because if we take the case [itex]|a_{n+1}/a_{n}|\geq 1-1/n[/itex], then the first test asserts convergence. But this equality also means that

[tex]n\left(1-\left|\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n}\right|\right)\leq 1[/tex].

But in the case =1, the second test asserts that we cannot conclude. The two statements contradict each other, do they not?)
 
Last edited:
  • #5
quasar987 said:
I'd be surprised if that is the only way to go however. Cuz this is a problem from chapter 2, and Taylor's thm is in somthing like cahpter 6.

Well, you can fudge it:
[tex]x \in (-\frac{1}{2},0)[/tex]
Gives you
[tex]1 < \frac{d}{dx} \ln(1+x) < 2 [/tex]
and
[tex]\ln 1= 0[/tex]
so on the same interval
[tex]x > \ln(1+x) > 2x[/tex]
Which is plenty strong for your needs.

You've got some issues with the inequalities in your expressions since both the conditions for convergence and divergence allow for equality.

You're not guaranteed that conditions are sufficient to guarantee that the limit exists so the inequalities are actually more general. Beyond that, it's quite easy to convert from one to the other using the notion of limit and some basic algebra:
[tex]\left| \frac{a_n}{a_{n+1}} \right | \leq 1 - \frac{A}{n}[/tex]
[tex]-\left|\frac{a_n}{a_{n+1}} \right | \geq \frac{A}{n} - 1[/tex]
[tex]1-\left| \frac{a_n}{a_{n+1}}\right| \geq \frac{A}{n}[/tex]
[tex]n\left(1-\left| \frac{a_n}{a_{n+1}}\right|\right) \geq A[/tex]
Now, the RHS is independant of [itex]n[/itex] so we can translate the 'sufficiently large' notion into a limit (provided the limit exists).
[tex]\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} n\left(1-\left| \frac{a_n}{a_{n+1}}\right|\right) \geq A[/tex]
 
  • #6
NateTG said:
You've got some issues with the inequalities in your expressions since both the conditions for convergence and divergence allow for equality.

I had a mistake in my post, sorry!

I edited it; the mistake is that the series will diverge if

[tex]|a_{n+1}/a_{n}|\geq 1-1/n[/tex]

for n large enough, and not if

[tex]|a_{n+1}/a_{n}|\geq 1-A/n[/tex]Thanks a bunch for everything NateTG! <3
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Rabbe's test (as stated) can be applied even when the ratio of terms doesn't converge. e.g.

1, 1/2, 1/8, 1/16, 1/64, 1/128, 1/512, 1/1024, ...
 
  • #8
You should use the proof of Kummer's test. Rabbe's test is a specific, less-general form of Kummer's test.
 

1. What is Rabbe's test and why is it important in scientific research?

Rabbe's test is a statistical test used to determine the significance of a difference between two or more groups in an experiment. It is important in scientific research because it allows researchers to determine whether the observed differences are due to chance or a real effect.

2. How is Rabbe's test different from other statistical tests?

Rabbe's test is different from other statistical tests because it takes into account the variability of the data within each group, as well as the sample sizes. This makes it more robust and reliable compared to other tests that only consider the overall means of the groups.

3. How do you interpret the results of Rabbe's test?

The results of Rabbe's test are interpreted by comparing the calculated p-value to a predetermined significance level (usually 0.05). If the p-value is less than the significance level, then the difference between the groups is considered statistically significant. If the p-value is greater than the significance level, then the difference is not considered significant.

4. Can Rabbe's test be used for all types of data?

No, Rabbe's test is most commonly used for normally distributed data with equal variances between groups. It may not be appropriate for non-normal or skewed data.

5. Are there any limitations to using Rabbe's test?

Yes, Rabbe's test can only be used for independent samples and cannot be applied to dependent or paired data. Additionally, it is sensitive to outliers and can produce misleading results if there are extreme values in the data.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
708
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
178
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
719
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
597
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
686
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
481
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
409
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
335
Back
Top