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

  • Thread starter Thread starter quasar987
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Test
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving Raabe's test, which is related to the convergence of series based on the ratio of consecutive terms. Participants are exploring the conditions under which the series converges absolutely, particularly focusing on the inequalities involving the ratio of terms and their limits.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to demonstrate the logarithmic equality central to the proof of Raabe's test and are considering the use of Taylor series for better inequalities. There is also a discussion about the equivalence of different forms of Raabe's test and the implications of the inequalities involved.

Discussion Status

The conversation is active, with participants questioning the validity of their approaches and clarifying the conditions for convergence and divergence. Some guidance has been offered regarding the relationship between Raabe's test and Kummer's test, suggesting a potential pathway for further exploration.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of confusion regarding the conditions for convergence and divergence, particularly in relation to the limits and the implications of equality in the inequalities. Participants are also navigating the constraints of their textbook's chapter organization, which may affect their approach to the problem.

quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
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
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?
 
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.
 
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:
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 independent 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]
 
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:
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, ...
 
You should use the proof of Kummer's test. Rabbe's test is a specific, less-general form of Kummer's test.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
2K