Does a Falling Function Have to Fall on Its Whole Domain?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lukatwo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Falling Functions
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of falling functions in the context of alternating series convergence. The original poster questions whether a function must be decreasing over its entire domain to satisfy the conditions for convergence of an alternating series, particularly when the series starts from a specific index.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the definition of a "falling function" versus a "decreasing function" and whether the behavior of the function over its entire domain is necessary for convergence. There is also discussion about the importance of considering the absolute values of terms in the series.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided clarifications regarding the terminology and conditions for convergence, noting that the behavior of the series before it begins decreasing may not affect convergence. Others have pointed out the distinction between conditional and absolute convergence, leading to further exploration of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of potential language barriers affecting the understanding of mathematical terminology, which may influence the clarity of the discussion. Additionally, the original poster's reference to their textbook suggests that there may be differing interpretations of the requirements for convergence in alternating series.

lukatwo
Messages
24
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Hello, I was wondering if a falling function needs to fall on it's whole domain? I was solving a series with alternating sings. It says that if the series has alternating signs, that it converges if:
1) lim(n->0)an=0
2) an is a falling function
I was solving this series, and wasn't sure if the function was falling because the series starting from n=2
As you can see in this picture, this function goes ->0 for n->+inf, but starting from 2 it falls from -inf and goes to +inf, so it's not a fall?

Homework Equations



Similarly, (2*n+3)/(n^2) for n=[1,3]

The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
"Falling function"? Do you mean "decreasing function? If your question is just whether an "alternating series" converges when it is "eventually" decreasing, the answer is yes. The sum up to the point where the series begins decreasing is a finite number and has no effect on whether the series converges.
 
Yes, that is what I meant. English is my second language so math terminology in English is not my strong point. That was my question, and thanks for clearing it up!
 
lukatwo said:

Homework Statement



Hello, I was wondering if a falling function needs to fall on it's whole domain? I was solving a series with alternating sings. It says that if the series has alternating signs, that it converges if:
1) lim(n->0)an=0
2) an is a falling function
I was solving this series, and wasn't sure if the function was falling because the series starting from n=2
As you can see in this picture, this function goes ->0 for n->+inf, but starting from 2 it falls from -inf and goes to +inf, so it's not a fall?

Homework Equations



Similarly, (2*n+3)/(n^2) for n=[1,3]

The Attempt at a Solution


What you wrote above is wrong: you need to say that the a_n are alternating in sign, and that the absolute value |a_n| is decreasing to zero as n → ∞. (You did not mention the absolute value!) Furthermore, if you have a finite sum, the behaviour of the a_n is irrelevant, as has already been pointed out to you.
 
Ray Vickson said:
What you wrote above is wrong: you need to say that the a_n are alternating in sign, and that the absolute value |a_n| is decreasing to zero as n → ∞. (You did not mention the absolute value!) Furthermore, if you have a finite sum, the behaviour of the a_n is irrelevant, as has already been pointed out to you.

My textbook doesn't say it needs to be the absolute value, although it's under the absolute convergence chapter. When I think of it, it makes a lot of sense that it needs to be absolute convergence. But then again if we pair lim(n->inf)a_n=0 with a decreasing function I think we get the same thing.
 
lukatwo said:
My textbook doesn't say it needs to be the absolute value, although it's under the absolute convergence chapter. When I think of it, it makes a lot of sense that it needs to be absolute convergence. But then again if we pair lim(n->inf)a_n=0 with a decreasing function I think we get the same thing.

No: you can have alternating series that are convergent but NOT absolutely convergent! The simplest example is
[tex]S = 1 - \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{3} - \frac{1}{4} + \cdots = \ln(2)[/tex]
but the 'absolute' series
[tex]1 + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{3} + \frac{1}{4} + \cdots \leftarrow \text{ diverges}[/tex]

Anyway, for a_n alternating in sign it makes no sense to speak of a_n decreasing; sometimes it increases and sometimes it decreases! For example, go from 1 to -1/2 (decrease); then go from -1/2 to +1/3 (increase), etc. You NEED the absolute value signs to make sense of the concept of decreasing'---no matter what your book does, or does not say.
 
That makes sense, but I probably should have said that I was wondering if it converges conditionally. Thanks for clearing things up!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K