Proving Convergence of $\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{k \, (\log (k+1))^p}$

  • Thread starter Thread starter devious_
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Convergence
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion centers around the convergence of the series $\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{k \, (\log (k+1))^p}$, specifically exploring the values of \( p \geq 0 \) for which the series converges or diverges. Participants are examining various convergence tests and their applicability to this series.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply the integral test but struggles to make progress. They later indicate that they have determined convergence for \( p > 1 \) and divergence for \( p = 0 \), while questioning the behavior for \( 0 < p \leq 1 \).
  • Another participant introduces a criterion related to logarithmic series, suggesting a comparison with the Riemann p-series to analyze convergence.
  • Questions arise regarding the validity of the condensation test, particularly in relation to series with alternating terms.
  • Some participants discuss the conditions under which the condensation test is applicable, noting the necessity for non-negativity and monotonicity of the terms.
  • There is mention of using the integral test again, with a focus on the increasing nature of the logarithm function.

Discussion Status

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of convergence tests, particularly in the context of logarithmic functions. There is an emphasis on the conditions required for certain tests to be valid, such as non-negativity and monotonicity of series terms.

devious_
Messages
312
Reaction score
3
Find all [itex]p \geq 0[/itex] such that

[tex]\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{k \, (\log (k+1))^p}[/tex]

converges.

It looks like the integral test is the most likely candidate, but I haven't been able to make any progress using it. I'd appreciate a push in the right direction.

Edit:
I've managed to prove that it converges for [itex]p > 1[/itex]. Since it obviously diverges for [itex]p=0[/itex], I'm trying to see what happens when [itex]0 < p \leq 1[/itex].

Edit2:
And now I just proved that it diverges for such p. Problem solved. :smile:
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
out of curiosity, how did u proceed? I used a criterion that is very useful when dealing with log series. it says that [itex]\sum a_n[/itex] converges [itex]\Leftrightarrow \sum 2^n a_{2^n}[/itex] converges.

So compare the [itex]2^n[/itex] serie with the riemann p-serie and you get that the original series behaves just like the riemann p-serie, i.e. diverges for [itex]p \leq 1[/itex] and converges for p>1.
 
Last edited:
How on Earth does that test work?

take the sum of (-1)^n/log(n), that converges by the alternating series test, yet the 2^n subseries

2^n(-1)^(2^n)/log(2^n) = 2^n/nlog(2)

does not converge.
 
Oh yeah, an must be decreasing non-negative.
 
I was just about to add "non-increasing".

For the problem here, you can also use the integral test.
 
I used the fact that log is increasing so that [itex]\log (k) < \log (k+1)[/itex], and I used the integral test.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K