Can we still use the ratio test if the sequence of ratios diverges to infinity?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the application of the ratio test and root test for series with positive terms, particularly in cases where the sequence of ratios diverges to infinity. Participants explore whether such divergence can be interpreted as falling into the established cases of convergence or divergence outlined by these tests.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant outlines the ratio test and questions whether a divergence of the ratio \( a_{k+1}/a_k \) to infinity can be treated as \( c > 1 \), and what implications this has for the convergence of the series \( \sum a_k \).
  • Another participant suggests that if \( a_{k+1}/a_k \to \infty \), then for any large \( M \), there exists an \( N \) such that \( a_{k+1}/a_k > M \) for all \( k > N \), indicating divergence.
  • A similar argument is made regarding the root test, where if \( \text{lim sup } a_k^{1/n} = \infty \), it implies divergence as well.
  • There is a question raised about whether the case \( c = \infty \) is permissible within the ratio test framework, with one participant asserting that the definition requires convergence of the sequence of ratios.
  • Another participant argues that even if the sequence diverges, a modification of the argument can still yield the same conclusion regarding divergence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the divergence of the ratio or root tests can be treated as indicative of divergence of the series. There is no consensus on the implications of these cases, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the nuances in the definitions of the ratio and root tests, particularly regarding the treatment of divergent sequences. There are unresolved assumptions about the implications of divergence in these contexts.

kingwinner
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
0
Let ∑ak be a series with positive terms.
Ratio test:
Suppose ak+1/ak -> c.
If c<1, then ∑ak converges.
If c>1, then ∑ak diverges.
If c=1, the test is inconclusive.

What if ak+1/ak diverges (i.e. ak+1/ak->∞)? Do we count this as falling into the case c>1? Can we say whether ∑ak converges or not?

Root test:
Suppose limsup (ak)1/k = r.
If r<1, then ∑ak converges.
If r>1, then ∑ak diverges.
If r=1, the test is inconclusive.

What if limsup (ak)1/k = ∞? Do we count this as falling into the case r>1? Can we say whether ∑ak converges or not?


Thanks for clarifying!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Just unwind the definitions, and it should be clear.

First question: if [tex]a_{k+1}/a_k\to\infty[/tex], then for M as big as you like, there's some N such that [tex]a_{k+1}/a_k>M[/tex] for all k>N. That means that for k>N, we have [tex]|a_k|>M^{k-N}[/tex]. Clearly that's diverging.

Second question: if [tex]\text{lim sup }a_k^{1/n}=\infty[/tex], then for M and N as large as you'd like, there's a k>N with [tex]a_k^{1/k}>M[/tex], i.e. [tex]|a_k|>M^k[/tex]. Again, clearly divergent.
 
So in the ratio test, the case c=∞ is allowed?

c=∞>1 => ∑ak diverges?
 
kingwinner said:
So in the ratio test, the case c=∞ is allowed?

"The" ratio test requires that the sequence of ratios converges--it's right there in the definition you gave. If the sequence diverges to infinity, though, a simple modification of the argument yields the same result.

Whether that distinction is meaningful is up to you.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K