MHB Do we distinguish cases for n?

  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on determining the bounds of the set defined by the series sum \(1 + \alpha + \dots + \alpha^n\) for different ranges of \(\alpha\). It is established that for \(0 < \alpha < 1\), the least upper bound is \(\frac{1}{1-\alpha}\) and the lower bound is \(0\). For the case where \(-1 < \alpha < 0\), the upper bound is found to be \(\sigma = \frac{1 + \beta^3}{1 + \beta}\), where \(\beta = -\alpha\), and this value serves as the least upper bound. The discussion also emphasizes that the bounds differ based on whether \(n\) is odd or even, and it clarifies the conditions under which these bounds hold. Overall, the analysis concludes that \(\sigma\) is the least upper bound for the set when \(-1 < \alpha < 0\).
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hello! (Wave)

Let $\alpha \neq 1$. I have shown that

$$1+\alpha+ \dots+ \alpha^k+\dots+ \alpha^n=\frac{1-\alpha^{n+1}}{1-\alpha}.$$

Now I want to show that, when $0<|\alpha|<1$, then the set $\{1+ \alpha+ \dots+ \alpha^k+\dots+ \alpha^n \mid n \in \mathbb{N} \}$ is bounded. And I want to find its least upper bound.

I have shown that when $0< \alpha<1$, then the lower bound of the set is $0$ and the least upper bound is $\frac{1}{1-\alpha}$.

So it suffices to find the upper and lower bound of the set when $-1< \alpha<0$.

In this case, we cannot find a general inequality for $\alpha^{n+1}$. Do we distinguish cases for $n$ ? (Thinking)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
evinda said:
In this case, we cannot find a general inequality for $\alpha^{n+1}$.

Hey evinda! (Smile)

Can't we use $-1-|\alpha|-|\alpha|^2-...$ and $1+|\alpha|+|\alpha|^2+...$ as lower and upper bounds? (Wondering)
 
I like Serena said:
Hey evinda! (Smile)

Can't we use $-1-|\alpha|-|\alpha|^2-...$ and $1+|\alpha|+|\alpha|^2+...$ as lower and upper bounds? (Wondering)

Ah I see... But can we also find a least upper bound for the general case? (Thinking)
 
Note $1/(1 - \alpha)$ cannot be the least upper bound when $-1 < \alpha < 0$. For if $\alpha = -1/2$, $1/(1 - \alpha) = 2/3$, but $1 + \alpha = 3/2 > 2/3$.

To handle the negative case, let $\beta = -\alpha$ so that $0 < \beta < 1$. Then

$$1 + \alpha + \cdots + \alpha^n = \begin{cases}\dfrac{1 - \beta^{n+1}}{1+\beta}&\text{if $n$ is odd}\\\dfrac{1 + \beta^{n+1}}{1 + \beta}&\text{if $n$ is even}\\\end{cases}$$

Since $0 < \beta < 1$, in the both cases above, the sum on the left-hand side is bounded above by $\sigma := (1 + \beta^3)/(1 + \beta) = (1 -\alpha^3)/(1 - \alpha)$. Thus, $\sigma$ is an upper bound for your set, call it $S$. Since $1 + \alpha + \alpha^2 = (1 - \alpha^3)/(1 - \alpha) = \sigma$, then $\sigma$ is in fact the least upper bound of $S$.
 
Euge said:
Note $1/(1 - \alpha)$ cannot be the least upper bound when $-1 < \alpha < 0$. For if $\alpha = -1/2$, $1/(1 - \alpha) = 2/3$, but $1 + \alpha = 3/2 > 2/3$.

To handle the negative case, let $\beta = -\alpha$ so that $0 < \beta < 1$. Then

$$1 + \alpha + \cdots + \alpha^n = \begin{cases}\dfrac{1 - \beta^{n+1}}{1+\beta}&\text{if $n$ is odd}\\\dfrac{1 + \beta^{n+1}}{1 + \beta}&\text{if $n$ is even}\\\end{cases}$$

Since $0 < \beta < 1$, in the both cases above, the sum on the left-hand side is bounded above by $\sigma := (1 + \beta^3)/(1 + \beta) = (1 -\alpha^3)/(1 - \alpha)$. Thus, $\sigma$ is an upper bound for your set, call it $S$. Since $1 + \alpha + \alpha^2 = (1 - \alpha^3)/(1 - \alpha) = \sigma$, then $\sigma$ is in fact the least upper bound of $S$.

How did you find these upper bounds?
I found that the upper bound is $\frac{1}{1+\beta}$ when $n$ is odd, and $\frac{2}{1+\beta}$ when $n$ is even. (Thinking)

I found the upper bounds as follows.We have that $\beta>0$. So $1-\beta^{n+1} <1 \Rightarrow \frac{1-\beta^{n+1}}{1+\beta}<\frac{1}{1+\beta}$.

We also have that $\beta<1 \Rightarrow \beta^{n+1}<1$. So $\frac{1+\beta^{n+1}}{1+\beta}<\frac{2}{1+\beta}$.
 
First, let me make a correction above: In my example where $\alpha = -1/2$, I meant to say $1/(1 - \alpha) = 2/3$, but $1 + \alpha + \alpha^2 = 1 - 1/2 + 1/4 = 3/4 > 2/3$.

Now since $0 < \beta < 1$, then when $n$ is even, $\beta^{n+1} \le \beta^{2 + 1} = \beta^3$, so then $(1 + \beta^{n+1})/(1 + \beta) \le (1 + \beta^3)/(1 + \beta)$ for even $n$. Since $\beta > 0$, then for all $n$, $(1 - \beta^{n+1})/(1 + \beta) < (1 + \beta^3)/(1 + \beta)$. This is how I obtain $\sigma := (1 + \beta^3)/(1 + \beta) = (1 - \alpha^3)/(1 - \alpha)$ as an upper bound for $S$. Since $\sigma \in S$, then $\sigma$ is the least upper bound for $S$.

Note that your bounds are not the upper bounds, as there are infinitely many upper bounds in the even and odd cases (in fact, there are infinitely many upper bounds for any nonempty bounded subset of the reals).
 
Euge said:
Now since $0 < \beta < 1$, then when $n$ is even, $\beta^{n+1} \le \beta^{2 + 1} = \beta^3$, so then $(1 + \beta^{n+1})/(1 + \beta) \le (1 + \beta^3)/(1 + \beta)$ for even $n$.

This holds for $n \geq 3$. It does not hold for $n=1$, right?
 
evinda said:
This holds for $n \geq 3$. It does not hold for $n=1$, right?

n=1 isn't even is it?
And doesn't it hold for n=2? (Wondering)
 
I like Serena said:
n=1 isn't even is it?
And doesn't it hold for n=2? (Wondering)

Oh yes, you are right.

To show that $\frac{1+\beta^3}{1+\beta}$ is indeed the least upper bound, I supposed that there is an $\epsilon>0$ such that $\frac{1+\beta^3}{1+\beta}-\epsilon$ is a smaller upper bound.

When $n$ is even, then we will have that $\frac{1+\beta^{n+1}}{1+\beta}<\frac{1+\beta^3}{1+\beta}-\epsilon, \forall n \in \mathbb{N}$.

Then we get that $n<\frac{\ln{(\beta^3-\epsilon (1+\beta))}}{\ln{(\beta)}}-1$, which is a contradiction.

When $n$ is odd, from $\frac{1-\beta^{n+1}}{1+\beta}< \frac{1+\beta^3}{1+\beta}$ we get that $\beta^{n+1}>-\beta^3+\epsilon(1+\beta)$.

Is $-\beta^3+\epsilon(1+\beta)$ positive? Or how do we find a restriction for $n$ in order to get a contradiction?
 
  • #10
I actually gave a proof that $\sigma$ is the least upper bound in my first post, adding more details in my second post.
 
  • #11
Euge said:
Since $\sigma \in S$, then $\sigma$ is the least upper bound for $S$.

How do we know that there is no other element in $S$ that is a lower upper bound of the set? (Thinking)
 
  • #12
evinda said:
How do we know that there is no other element in $S$ that is a lower upper bound of the set? (Thinking)

If you have a nonempty bounded set $X$ with an upper bound $s$ such that $s\in X$, then $s$ is the least upper bound of $X$. For since $s\in X$, $s\le \sup X$. On the other hand, since $s$ is an upper bound for $X$, $s \ge \sup X$. This shows $\sup X = s$.
 
  • #13
Euge said:
If you have a nonempty bounded set $X$ with an upper bound $s$ such that $s\in X$, then $s$ is the least upper bound of $X$. For since $s\in X$, $s\le \sup X$. On the other hand, since $s$ is an upper bound for $X$, $s \ge \sup X$. This shows $\sup X = s$.

Ah I see... And how can we find the lower bound of the set when $-1<\alpha<0$ ?Also.. are my lower and upper bound of the set correct for the case when $0<\alpha<1$ ?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
822
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K