Limit of definite sum equals ln(2)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Berrius
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit Sum
Berrius
Messages
19
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


As part of a problem I have to show that lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{i=\frac{n}{2}}^{n}\frac{1}{i}=ln(2)


Homework Equations


Taylor expansion of ln(2): \sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{k+1}}{k}


The Attempt at a Solution


ln(2) can be written as: ln(2) = \sum_{i=1}^{\frac{n}{2}}\frac{(-1)^{k+1}}{k} + \sum_{i=\frac{n}{2}+1}^{n}\frac{(-1)^{k+1}}{k} + \sum_{i=n+1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{k+1}}{k}

Where the middle term looks a lot like the sum i need. However I need some way to get rid of the alternating sign change, but i don't see how.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Berrius said:

Homework Statement


As part of a problem I have to show that lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{i=\frac{n}{2}}^{n}\frac{1}{i}=ln(2)


Homework Equations


Taylor expansion of ln(2): \sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{k+1}}{k}


The Attempt at a Solution


ln(2) can be written as: ln(2) = \sum_{i=1}^{\frac{n}{2}}\frac{(-1)^{k+1}}{k} + \sum_{i=\frac{n}{2}+1}^{n}\frac{(-1)^{k+1}}{k} + \sum_{i=n+1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{k+1}}{k}

Where the middle term looks a lot like the sum i need. However I need some way to get rid of the alternating sign change, but i don't see how.

You can use the exact result that
\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{i} = \Psi(n+1) + \gamma,
where ##\gamma## is Euler's constant and
\Psi(x) = \frac{\Gamma^{\, \prime}(x)}{\Gamma(x)}
is the so-called "di-gamma" function. This function has numerous published properties, which should allow you to derive the answer you want.
 
Thanx. But I think this approach is beyond the scope of my course. I was specifically told to look at the taylor expansion of ln(2). Is there a way to do it that way?
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top