MHB Order of Expression: c,m,logm,2^j-1/2, m^o(logm) Explained

  • Thread starter Thread starter bincy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Expression
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the mathematical expression involving the sum of terms related to \(c\), \(m\), and logarithmic factors, specifically analyzing the claim that the sum is of the same order as its largest term. Participants emphasize the need to identify the largest term and establish bounds, particularly for large values of \(m\). A key point is that the leading term dominates the sum, and the analysis leads to the conclusion that the limit of the logarithm of the function divided by \(m\) approaches zero as \(m\) increases. However, there is also a caution regarding the ambiguity of the term "order" in this context, suggesting that further proof may be necessary to validate the initial claim. The conversation highlights the complexity of analyzing such sums and the importance of rigorous mathematical justification.
bincy
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Hii Every one,

In one paper I read that, [math]{\displaystyle \sum_{j\geq1}\left(\frac{c*m*logm}{2^{\left(\frac{j-1}{2}\right)}}\right)}^{j}<=m^{o(logm)}
[/math] with the explanation "Since the sum is of the same order as its largest term".

c>0, m>=2. m is an integer.
Can anyone pls explain?Regards,
Bincy
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
bincybn said:
Hii Every one,

In one paper I read that, [math]{\displaystyle \sum_{j\geq1}K \left(\frac{c*m*logm}{2^{\left(\frac{j-1}{2}\right)}}\right)}^{j}<=m^{o(logm)}
[/math] with the explanation "Since the sum is of the same order as its largest term".

c>0, m>=2. m is an integer.
Can anyone pls explain?Regards,
Bincy

If we accept that the sum is of the same order as its largest term (and this is ambiguous since order in this context is poorly defined) then you need to find the largest term, or at least a bound on it. What I think it is trying to say is that for \(m\) large enough, there exists a \(K>0\) such that:

\[{ \sum_{j\geq1}\left( \frac{c\;m\;\log(m)}{2^{\left(\frac{j-1}{2}\right)}}\right)}^{j} \le K {\left(\frac{c \; m\; \log(m) }{2^{\left( \frac{J-1}{2}\right)}}\right)}^{J}\]

where the right hand side is the largest term.

Do this by finding the \(x\) that maximises:

\[f(x)=\left[ \frac{c\;m\;\log(m)}{2^{\frac{x-1}{2}}}\right]^x \]

and using the function value at this point as a bound on the largest term.

(to me it looks like the leading term is always the largest in this case)

CB
 
Last edited:
CaptainBlack said:
If we accept that the sum is of the same order as its largest term (and this is ambiguous since order in this context is poorly defined) then you need to find the largest term, or at least a bound on it. What I think it is trying to say is that for \(m\) large enough, there exists a \(K>0\) such that:

\[{ \sum_{j\geq1}\left( \frac{c\;m\;\log(m)}{2^{\left(\frac{j-1}{2}\right)}}\right)}^{j} \le K {\left(\frac{c \; m\; \log(m) }{2^{\left( \frac{J-1}{2}\right)}}\right)}^{J}\]

where the right hand side is the largest term.

Do this by finding the \(x\) that maximises:

\[f(x)=\left[ \frac{c\;m\;\log(m)}{2^{\frac{x-1}{2}}}\right]^x \]

and using the function value at this point as a bound on the largest term.

(to me it looks like the leading term is always the largest in this case)

CB

So the leading term is dominant and is for some \(K\) may be written:

\[f(m)=K m \log(m)\]

so to get the result we need to show that for \(m\) large enough:

\[f(m)\le m^{o(\log(m)} \]

which reduces to:

\[\frac{\log(f(m))}{m}\le o(\log(m))\]

which if we show that:

\[ \lim_{m\to \infty} \frac{\log(f(m))}{m \log(m)} = 0 \]

we are done.

Putting \(x=K m\log(m)\) the limit on the right becomes becomes:

\[ K \lim_{x\to \infty} \frac{\log(x)}{x}\]

which is well known to be \(0\)

CB
 
In an earlier post in this thread I wrote:

CaptainBlack said:
If we accept that the sum is of the same order as its largest term (and this is ambiguous since order in this context is poorly defined) then you need to find the largest term, or at least a bound on it.

The reader should have noted the equivocation in the first part of this. That is because the claim that the sum is of the same order as its largest term is not in general true and would have to be proven for what follows in the earlier posts to hold (allowing for the noted ambiguity in the term "order").

One way to show this is to consider the integral analogue of this via the integrals:

\[ I(\sigma)= \int_0^{\infty} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi} \sigma}e^{- \; \frac{x^2}{2\sigma^2}}\;dx \]

Here the analogue of the largest term is the maximum value of the integrand \(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi} \sigma}\), but \(I(\sigma)=\frac{1}{2} \notin O(\sigma^{-1})\) or \(o(\sigma^{-1}) \) for that matter.

Note the analogy can be elliminated by considering the series with \(n\)-th term the integral from \(n-1\) to \(n\), then \(I(\sigma)\) is the sum of a series with the properties required of a counter example.

CB
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Problem with calculating projections of curl using rotation of contour'
Hello! I tried to calculate projections of curl using rotation of coordinate system but I encountered with following problem. Given: ##rot_xA=\frac{\partial A_z}{\partial y}-\frac{\partial A_y}{\partial z}=0## ##rot_yA=\frac{\partial A_x}{\partial z}-\frac{\partial A_z}{\partial x}=1## ##rot_zA=\frac{\partial A_y}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial A_x}{\partial y}=0## I rotated ##yz##-plane of this coordinate system by an angle ##45## degrees about ##x##-axis and used rotation matrix to...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
724
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K