This applies to the alternating series test, and one of the conditions for it to work is if absolute value of a(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); _{n}is decreasing for all n. The way the book says to do it is to take the derivative of f(x) with f(x)=a_{n}. However, if I know that the limit as n approaches infinity abs value a_{n}approaches 0, and that a_{n}(w/o the (-1)^n part) is positive for all n>N, shouldn't that enough to prove that a_{n}is decreasing to infinity. All the examples I did seem to follow this reasoning. Example: (-1)^(n-3)* sqrt(n)/(n+4). Clearly, if n is a really big positive number, then sqrt(n)/(n+4) can't be negative and the limit as it goes to infinity zero. Then the only way I can see it approaching zero is by decreasing. Might there be exceptions to this case and if so give an example? The only reason I'm asking this is that taking the derivative seems like unnecessary work to me. If I explain this on a test instead of taking a derivative, might the professor have any reason to takes points off?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Can I state that a of n is decreasing w/o taking the derivative

Loading...

Similar Threads - state decreasing taking | Date |
---|---|

B Taylor Polynomials and decreasing terms | Mar 15, 2017 |

Populations of each of the fifty US states is a vector? | Sep 27, 2012 |

Is Sin^-1 X = (Sin X ) ^ -1 ?from my book it stated :f(x) = | Nov 30, 2011 |

Kalman Filter for State Estimation | Jan 20, 2011 |

LĀ² Hilbert space, bound states, asymptotics of wave functions | Jun 3, 2010 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**