Divergence of an infinite series (using the def of limit)

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the divergence of the series ∑a_n given that a_n > 0 and lim(na_n) = l with l ≠ 0. Participants clarify that while the limit condition implies a_n approaches a value, it does not guarantee convergence of the series. The key insight is that if a_n approaches zero as n approaches infinity, then the series diverges. The comparison test is highlighted as a crucial tool for establishing divergence, emphasizing that bounding a_n below by a constant leads to contradictions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of limits in calculus, specifically the definition of limits.
  • Familiarity with series convergence tests, particularly the comparison test.
  • Knowledge of sequences and their behaviors as n approaches infinity.
  • Basic algebraic manipulation skills to handle inequalities and limits.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the comparison test for series convergence in detail.
  • Learn about the properties of limits and their implications for sequences.
  • Explore examples of divergent series and the conditions that lead to divergence.
  • Investigate the implications of bounding sequences and their limits in series analysis.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying calculus or real analysis, and anyone interested in understanding series convergence and divergence through limit definitions.

DPMachine
Messages
26
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Given that a_{n} > 0 and lim(na_{n}) = l with l\neq0,
prove that \sum a_{n} diverges.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



lim(na_n)=l (with =/= 0), so I can safely say that:

\left|na_{n}-l\right| < \epsilon by the definition of limit.

Then isn't it also true that \left|a_{n}-l\right| < \epsilon because \left|a_{n}-l\right| \leq \left|na_{n}-l\right| and is smaller than the same epsilon?

From there it would imply that a_n converges to l which is never 0, so the sum of a_n would not converge either.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
In fact, you expect |an-l| to be approximately l for large values of n. Why? Because nan converges to a value, so an must go to zero since n goes to infinity
 
Office_Shredder said:
In fact, you expect |an-l| to be approximately l for large values of n. Why? Because nan converges to a value, so an must go to zero since n goes to infinity

I made a mistake on the original post. The goal is to prove that \sum a_{n} diverges. Sorry about that... Does my explanation make more sense now?
 
DPMachine said:
\left|na_{n}-l\right| < \epsilon by the definition of limit.

This part is true

Then isn't it also true that \left|a_{n}-l\right| < \epsilon because \left|a_{n}-l\right| \leq \left|na_{n}-l\right| and is smaller than the same epsilon?

This part isn't. For example, if an=1/n, then nan converges to 1, but an converges to 0!
 
Office_Shredder said:
This part is true
This part isn't. For example, if an=1/n, then nan converges to 1, but an converges to 0!

ok, thank you. I think I proved it by letting epsilon = 2l (which is >0 because a_n >0)

Then -2l < na_{n}-l < 2l implies -l < na_{n} < 3l, which implies -l/n < a_{n}

Since ∑ -l/n = (-1)*∑ 1/n which doesn't converge, by comparison test a_n doesn't converge.
 
You have that -l/n<an<3l/n

This doesn't tell you anything! an could be, for example, 1/n2 and satisfy this. The comparison test only works when all the terms in both series are positive

When you have

|nan-l|<e, what can you say about |an-l/n|?
 
Office_Shredder said:
You have that -l/n<an<3l/n

This doesn't tell you anything! an could be, for example, 1/n2 and satisfy this. The comparison test only works when all the terms in both series are positive

When you have

|nan-l|<e, what can you say about |an-l/n|?

|an-l/n| approaches 0 doesn't it? I'm not sure if this was what you were getting at... I understand that an is some form of 1/n, but I want to prove that by using the e def of limit and without providing a specific an that works.

How about if e = l/2? Then I would have l/2 < an < l/2 + l. Couldn't I use the comparison test on l/2 < an? Thanks again.
 
Stop trying to bound it below by a single number. You know an goes to zero, so if you can bound it below by l/2, you have a contradiction. I don't see how you got that last inequality

|an-l/n| goes to zero, but how?

Look:
|na_n-l|&lt; \epsilon \rightarrow |a_n-\frac{l}{n}|&lt; \frac{ \epsilon}{n}

So what can we say about an? For large enough n, this:

\frac{l}{n} - \frac{ \epsilon}{n} &lt; a_n &lt; \frac{l}{n} + \frac{ \epsilon}{n}

So what value of epsilon do you want, and what series are you comparing to?
 
If \epsilon = \frac{l}{2}, we have \left| na_{n} - l \right| &lt; \epsilon = \frac{l}{2}

which = -\frac{l}{2} &lt; na_{n} - l &lt; \frac{l}{2}

= -\frac{l}{2n} &lt; a_{n} - l &lt; \frac{l}{2n}

= -\frac{l}{2n} + l &lt; a_{n} &lt; \frac{l}{2n} + l

= \frac{l}{2n} &lt; a_{n} &lt; \frac{l}{2n} + l
 
  • #10
Office_Shredder said:
Stop trying to bound it below by a single number. You know an goes to zero, so if you can bound it below by l/2, you have a contradiction. I don't see how you got that last inequality

|an-l/n| goes to zero, but how?

Look:
|na_n-l|&lt; \epsilon \rightarrow |a_n-\frac{l}{n}|&lt; \frac{ \epsilon}{n}

So what can we say about an? For large enough n, this:

\frac{l}{n} - \frac{ \epsilon}{n} &lt; a_n &lt; \frac{l}{n} + \frac{ \epsilon}{n}

So what value of epsilon do you want, and what series are you comparing to?


Can \epsilon = \frac{l+\epsilon}{n}?...
 
  • #11
Probably not...

You had the right idea with comparison test. You just need to figure out what value of epsilon gives you something useful
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K