How do I prove that a_n is a decreasing sequence of non-negative real numbers?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter sparkster
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral Sequence
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the sequence \( a_n \), defined as \( a_n = \sum_{k=1}^n f(k) - \int_1^n f(t) dt \), is a decreasing sequence of non-negative real numbers, given that \( f \) is a continuous decreasing non-negative function on the interval \([1, \infty)\). The focus is on the mathematical reasoning and techniques involved in establishing the decreasing nature of the sequence.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses uncertainty about proving that \( a_n - a_{n+1} \) is greater than zero and seeks suggestions for a formal proof.
  • Another participant suggests simplifying the expression for \( a_n - a_{n+1} \) to involve a single integral and implies that a strategic choice of a step function could aid in demonstrating the inequality.
  • A third participant points out that the difference \( \int_1^{n+1} f(t) dt - \int_1^n f(t) dt \) simplifies to \( \int_n^{n+1} f(t) dt \) and argues that this integral will be greater than any right endpoint approximation, specifically \( f(n+1) \), due to the decreasing nature of \( f \).
  • One participant expresses embarrassment about their initial question, indicating a possible feeling of inadequacy in their understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion does not reach a consensus, as participants offer different approaches and insights without resolving the proof of the decreasing nature of the sequence.

Contextual Notes

Participants do not clarify certain assumptions regarding the properties of the function \( f \) or the implications of the integrals involved, leaving some aspects of the proof unresolved.

sparkster
Messages
153
Reaction score
0
If f is a continuous decreasing non-negative function on [1, oo) and
[itex]a_n = \sum_{k=1}^nf(k) - \int_1^nf(t)dt[/itex].

I need to show that a_n is a decreasing sequence of non-negative real numbers.

I'm working on the decreasing part. If I subtract [itex]a_n - a_{n+1}[/itex] I get

[itex]\int_1^{n+1}f(t)dt - \int_1^nf(t)dt - f(n+1)[/itex]

but I don't know how to show this is bigger than zero. I did an example with [itex]f(x)=\frac{1}{x^2}[/itex] and of course it worked, but it didn't help me with the proof.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

ETA: Let me clarify. Looking at this graphically, I realize that if I do the subtractions, I'm going to get a positive area. But I don't know how to formalize this.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
First, the expression for a_n - a_(n + 1) can be simplified so that it only involves a single integral. Then you can show the desired inequality by "wisely" choosing a step function for the integral.
 
[itex]\int_1^{n+1}f(t)dt - \int_1^nf(t)dt = \int_n^{n+1}f(t)dt[/itex]
and since f is strictly decreasing you know that this integral is going to be greater than any right end point approximation. With 1 rectangle, such an approximation is f(n+1).
 
Damn...I'm embarrassed that I even asked.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K