Infinite alternating series with repeated logarithms

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the convergence of the infinite alternating series defined as \(\sum_{i=2}^{\infty}(-1)^i \cdot \lg^{(i)} n\), where \(\lg^{(i)} n\) denotes the logarithm applied \(i\) times. The initial analysis using the Leibniz test confirmed convergence; however, participants concluded that the series is not well-defined, leading to uncertainty about its limit. The conversation highlights the complexities involved in evaluating such series and the importance of rigorous definitions in mathematical analysis.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of alternating series and the Leibniz test
  • Familiarity with logarithmic functions and their iterative applications
  • Basic knowledge of convergence criteria in series
  • Experience with numerical estimation techniques in calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of alternating series and the conditions for convergence
  • Explore the behavior of iterated logarithmic functions, particularly \(\lg^{(i)} n\)
  • Investigate numerical estimation methods for series convergence
  • Learn about the implications of series definitions and their impact on convergence
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying calculus, and anyone interested in advanced series convergence topics will benefit from this discussion.

LeifEricson
Messages
11
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Calculate the sum of the following series:
\sum_{i=2}^{\infty}(-1)^i \cdot \lg ^{(i)} n

Where (i) as a super-script signifies number of times lg was operated i.e. \lg ^{(3)} n = (\lg (\lg (\lg n))), and n is a natural number.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I proved by Leibniz test that this series converges. But I don't know how to find the number to which it converges to.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I really don't know how to help you... but since you know it converges you can use the numerical estimate to see if it looks like any famous number?

I hope someone helps I'm really interested in this!
 
If you try doing a numerical estimate it will blow up. Which is informative. Eventually ln^(k)(n)<1. Then ln^(k+1)(n)<0. Now what's ln^(k+2)(n)?? The series isn't even well defined much less convergent.
 
You are right.
The series isn't well defined so I cancel this question. I apologize.
 
Oh that makes me feel a little better. I could not even see how you had it converging.

:-p
 
LeifEricson said:
You are right.
The series isn't well defined so I cancel this question. I apologize.

No need for apologies! It's a perfectly valid question. It makes a good 'think about it' exercise. It does look at first glance like it ought to be a good candidate for an alternating series test.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K