Convergence/Divergence of series

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thomas_
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Series
AI Thread Summary
The series \(\sum\frac{(2n)!}{n^n}\) is being analyzed for convergence using the ratio test, which initially suggests divergence. The limit calculated approaches infinity, indicating divergence, yet the series is believed to converge based on an online source. The discussion highlights confusion over the application of the ratio test and potential algebraic errors. Further analysis shows that splitting the terms reveals that each term in the series exceeds one, reinforcing the idea that the series diverges. The overall conclusion is that the series does not converge as initially thought.
Thomas_
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I have to prove conv/div. for the following series:

\sum\frac{(2n)!}{n^n}

I use the "ratio-test" and get the following:

\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{a_{n+1}}{a_{n}} = \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{(2n+2)!}{(2n)!} \frac{n^n}{(n+1)^{n+1}} = \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{(2n+2)(2n+1)}{(n+1)} (\frac{n}{1+n})^n = \infty \frac{1}{e} = \infty

This means the series diverges, however, the series should converge (I could find the finite sum online).

Where is my mistake?

Thank you!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The last half terms can be written as {(n+l)/n}{(n+2)/n}{(n+3)/n}...{2n/n}, and the first n terms are just n!.
 
robert Ihnot said:
The last half terms can be written as {(n+l)/n}{(n+2)/n}{(n+3)/n}...{2n/n}, and the first n terms are just n!.
Sorry, I do not quite understand what you mean or how this helps me. Could you elaborate on that?

Also, I am interested in why the test I am using does not work out like it should or if I made an algebra mistake somewhere along the way.
 
Using stirlings approximation to replace the factorial, I get the series diverges. Where did you find online its sum?
 
Thomas_ said:
Sorry, I do not quite understand what you mean or how this helps me. Could you elaborate on that?

Also, I am interested in why the test I am using does not work out like it should or if I made an algebra mistake somewhere along the way.

What he's saying is that if you split it up, you get 1/n*1/n*1/n...*(2n)(2n-1)(2n-2)...(n+1)*n!

So you put one n under each 2n-k and get

2n/n*(2n-1)/n*(2n-2)/n...*(n+1)/n*n!

As each (2n-k)/n>1, and n!>1, each term in the series is >1. So there's very little reason why it would converge
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Back
Top