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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miike012
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Convergent Series
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the convergence of the series (1+x)^n, specifically when n = -1 and x = 1/y for y > 1. The original poster argues that the series converges based on their own derivation of two series, SERIES 1 and SERIES 2. However, it is clarified that (1+x)^n is not a series when n is negative, and that the Taylor expansion converges for x < 1 for all integer n. The consensus is that both the book and WolframAlpha are correct in their assertions regarding convergence.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of series convergence and divergence
  • Familiarity with Taylor series expansions
  • Knowledge of mathematical notation and summation
  • Experience with WolframAlpha for mathematical queries
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of series convergence, particularly for negative exponents
  • Learn about Taylor series and their convergence criteria
  • Explore the use of WolframAlpha for verifying mathematical series
  • Investigate the implications of absolute convergence in series
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying calculus, and anyone interested in series convergence and mathematical analysis.

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: 489
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?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K