Convergent Series: Am I and The Book Wrong or is Wolfram?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miike012
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Convergent Series
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the convergence of the series (1+x)^n, particularly when n is set to -1 and x is expressed as 1/y for y>1. The original poster argues that their analysis shows the series converges, despite WolframAlpha indicating otherwise. However, other participants clarify that (1+x)^n is not a series and that setting n to negative values is not meaningful in this context. They emphasize the importance of absolute convergence in the analysis, suggesting that both the book and WolframAlpha are likely correct in their assessments. The conversation highlights the nuances of series convergence and the proper application of mathematical definitions.
Miike012
Messages
1,009
Reaction score
0
In my book it says that the series (1+x)^n converges for x<1.

However I put n = -1 and wolfram says that the series does not converge.

However if I let x = 1/y where y>1

then the expansion of (1+1/y)^-1 is equal to: (which I will define as (SERIES 1))
1 - y + (1/y)2 - (1/y)3 + (1/y)4 - ...

= 1 + ( (1/y)3 + (1/y)5 + ... ) - ( (1/y)2 + (1/y)4 + ...)

The series (1/y)3 + (1/y)5 + ... (1/y)3 + 2n + .. is equal to (which I will define as (SERIES 2))
Ʃ(1/y)3 + 2n where n→∞ and 1≤n<∞.
I also know that the sum of the (SERIES 2) is less than the series 1 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... which is convergent therefore (SERIES 2) is convergent.

Also from (SERIES 1) I know that the sum is positive and therefore the series
( (1/y)2 + (1/y)4 + ...) is less than (SERIES 2) + 1 and therefore as the number of terms approaches ∞ the series
( (1/y)2 + (1/y)4 + ...) which is positive is less than a [(finite number) + 1] which is a finite number and therefore is convergent.

∴Therefore the (SERIES 1) is convergent.


Am I and the book wrong or is wolfram?
 

Attachments

  • conv.jpg
    conv.jpg
    13.9 KB · Views: 471
Physics news on Phys.org
Miike012 said:
In my book it says that the series (1+x)^n converges for x<1.
(1+x)^n is not a series.

If you want to sum that over natural n, it is pointless to set n to anything special (in particular, negative values).

Do you want to get the taylor expansion at x=0? That converges for x<1 for all n, and for all x for integer n (including 0 if we define 00=1).


1 - y + (1/y)2 - (1/y)3 + (1/y)4 - ...

= 1 + ( (1/y)3 + (1/y)5 + ... ) - ( (1/y)2 + (1/y)4 + ...)
That step requires absolute convergence, so
1 + |1/y| + |(1/y)2| + |(1/y)3| ...
has to converge, too.

I also know that the sum of the (SERIES 2) is less than the series 1 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... which is convergent therefore (SERIES 2) is convergent.
That is true for some y only.

Am I and the book wrong or is wolfram?
I would expect that the book and WolframAlpha are right. What did you use as query for WA?
 
I picked up this problem from the Schaum's series book titled "College Mathematics" by Ayres/Schmidt. It is a solved problem in the book. But what surprised me was that the solution to this problem was given in one line without any explanation. I could, therefore, not understand how the given one-line solution was reached. The one-line solution in the book says: The equation is ##x \cos{\omega} +y \sin{\omega} - 5 = 0##, ##\omega## being the parameter. From my side, the only thing I could...
Back
Top