Prove sequence is bounded above

  • Thread starter Thread starter csc2iffy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bounded Sequence
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves the sequence defined by a_n = 1 + 1/(1*2) + 1/(2*3) + ... + 1/(n*[n+1]) and requires proving that this sequence is bounded above. The subject area relates to series convergence and properties of sequences.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the nature of the series, with some suggesting it is a telescoping series. Others explore the convergence and monotonicity of the sequence. There are attempts to derive expressions for the terms and to sum them to find a limit.

Discussion Status

Several participants have provided insights into the structure of the series and its terms. There is a suggestion that the sequence converges to a limit, and one participant questions whether proving the limit by induction would be excessive. The discussion reflects a mix of interpretations and approaches without reaching a definitive conclusion.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the completeness of their proofs and seek validation of their reasoning. There is also mention of comparing terms to the reciprocals of squares as a potential bounding argument.

csc2iffy
Messages
74
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let a_n = 1 + 1/(1*2) + 1/(2*3) + ... + 1/(n*[n+1]). Prove {a_n} is bounded above.


Homework Equations


1/(2*3) = 1/2 - 1/3


The Attempt at a Solution


I accidentally left my notebook at school and I have no idea how to do this without my class notes. The book doesn't have any examples to help me out either. Please help...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'd prove the series converges and is monotonically increasing
 
It's a telescoping series, isn't it?
 
Use your "relevant equation" on the first five or six terms and see where Dick's term comes from...
 
ok so this is what i have so far, I'm not sure if it "proves" it completely though:
a1 = 1/1 - 1/2 = 1/(1*2)
a2 = 1/2 - 1/3 = 1/(2*3)
a3 = 1/3 - 1/4 = 1/(3*4)
...
a(n-1) = 1/(n-1) - 1/n = 1/((n-1)*n)
an = 1/n - 1/(n+1) = 1/(n*(n+1))

Adding everything together
(1 - 1/2) + (1/2 - 1/3) + (1/3 - 1/4) + ... + (1/(n-1) - 1/n) + (1/n - 1/(n+1))
1 - 1/(n+1) = 1/(1*2) + 1/(2*3) + ... + 1/(n*(n+1)) = an - 1
Add 1 to both sides
an = 2 - 1/(n+1) = (2n+1)/(n+1)
lim(an) = 2
Therefore the series is bounded above by 2

does this complete my proof?
 
csc2iffy said:
ok so this is what i have so far, I'm not sure if it "proves" it completely though:
a1 = 1/1 - 1/2 = 1/(1*2)
a2 = 1/2 - 1/3 = 1/(2*3)
a3 = 1/3 - 1/4 = 1/(3*4)
...
a(n-1) = 1/(n-1) - 1/n = 1/((n-1)*n)
an = 1/n - 1/(n+1) = 1/(n*(n+1))

Adding everything together
(1 - 1/2) + (1/2 - 1/3) + (1/3 - 1/4) + ... + (1/(n-1) - 1/n) + (1/n - 1/(n+1))
1 - 1/(n+1) = 1/(1*2) + 1/(2*3) + ... + 1/(n*(n+1)) = an - 1
Add 1 to both sides
an = 2 - 1/(n+1) = (2n+1)/(n+1)
lim(an) = 2
Therefore the series is bounded above by 2

does this complete my proof?

I think that would do it, yes!
 
Would it be overkill to prove [itex]a_{n}=2-\frac{1}{n+1}[/itex] by induction?

Additionally my "quick and dirty" bounded-above argument would have been to observe that the terms are less than the reciprocals of squares (1/(2*3) < 1/(2*2) etc). Getting the least upper bound is a bonus, of course.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K