Proving part of the ratio test

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of a part of the ratio test in the context of series convergence, specifically addressing the condition that if lim n→∞ |an+1/an| = L < 1, then the series Σan converges absolutely. Participants explore the implications of this limit and the nature of the series involved.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to formalize their reasoning regarding the convergence of the series based on the limit condition, expressing concern about the rigor of their argument. Some participants question the validity of assuming that the ratios become equal and suggest using epsilon-delta reasoning for clarity. Others propose showing that the series is eventually smaller than a convergent geometric series instead of merely tending toward one.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's reasoning, offering suggestions for improvement and alternative approaches. There is a recognition of the need for more rigorous justification in certain areas, particularly regarding the application of the ratio test and the conditions for convergence.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the ratio test requires careful consideration of the conditions under which it applies, particularly in relation to sequences that do not converge to zero. There are also discussions about specific examples that may or may not fit the criteria of the ratio test.

mindarson
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
This is not a homework problem. I'm doing it for fun. But it is the kind that might appear on homework.

Homework Statement



I'm trying to prove that if lim n→∞ |an+1/an| = L < 1, then \Sigma an converges absolutely and therefore converges.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



Here's my thinking. I feel like I'm on the right track, but I may need some help formalizing my expression of what's happening "in the limit" as n→∞.

To show that ∑an converges absolutely, I need to show that ∑|an| converges. My strategy is to show that, because of the condition above, as n→∞ this "tends toward" a geometric series with common ratio < 1 and therefore converges.

I have

∑an = |a1| + |a2| + |a3| + ... + |an|

= |a1| + |a1||a2/a1| + |a1||a2/a1||a3/a2| + ... + |a1||a2/a1||a3/a2||a4/a3|...|an/an-1|

Supposing lim n→∞ |an+1/an| = L < 1, this means that there is some integer N such that for n > N, all the ratios |an+1/an| are equal in the sense that the difference between any two of them can be made arbitrarily small by choosing N appropriately.

Therefore I conclude that for n > N, the series above can be written

∑|an| = |a1|(1 + L + L2 + L3 + L4 + ... + Ln)

i.e. it is a geometric series (or eventually becomes one beyond N) with common ratio < 1 and therefore converges.

And finally, since ∑|an| converges, ∑an converges absolutely and therefore it also converges.

Is my reasoning solid here? I am particularly concerned about the conclusion that all the ratios in the series (the ones that multiply |a1| in each term) eventually equal L. I think my intuition here is correct, but I am not well enough attuned to the subtleties of analysis to be confident that my chain of reasoning is unimpeachable.

NOTE: I know there must be better, shorter, more elegant, less cumbersome ways of proving this. I'm not interested in those until I have developed my own proof to the utmost. That way I will learn the most from the process.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mindarson said:
Supposing lim n→∞ |an+1/an| = L < 1, this means that there is some integer N such that for n > N, all the ratios |an+1/an| are equal in the sense that the difference between any two of them can be made arbitrarily small by choosing N appropriately.

This is what troubles me most. A bit hand-wavey, I fear. I am wondering if I shouldn't try to show this explicitly using epsilonic reasoning, etc.
 
Rather than showing your series "tends toward" a geometric series, maybe try to show that it is eventually smaller than a convergent geometric series.
 
In undergraduate analysis, most proofs require an epsilon. This is one of them.
 
hmmm... is that a proper representation of the ratio test?

What about something like this:

##∑(5-\frac{n}{1000})##

Or is this a situation where the ratio test doesn't apply? I'm just asking, because this fits within your conditions, ##\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_{n}}<1## but as n approaches infinity, ##a_{n}→5##

I think you need:
if
##\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_{n}}<1## and ##\displaystyle\lim_{n→\infty}a_{n}=0## then S is convergant.

I know this doesn't really help you answer your question, but I feel it's a necessary condition.
 
oh wait, I lied. ##a_{n}→-\infty##
either way, it doesn't converge...
 
BiGyElLoWhAt said:
I think you need:
if
##\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_{n}}<1## and ##\displaystyle\lim_{n→\infty}a_{n}=0## then S is convergant.
No, that's not enough to ensure convergence. If ##a_n = 1/n## then ##a_n \rightarrow 0##
$$\frac{1/(n+1)}{1/n} = \frac{n}{n+1} < 1$$
but ##\sum a_n## diverges.

I suggest the following approach. We are given that
$$\lim \left|\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n}\right| = L < 1$$
Therefore if we pick some number ##M## satisfying ##L < M < 1##, then there is some ##N## such that
$$\left|\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n}\right| < M$$
for all ##n \geq N##. Now use the fact that if ##n > N##,
$$|a_n| = \left|\frac{a_{n}}{a_{n-1}}\right|\cdots\left|\frac{a_{N+1}}{a_N}\right||a_N|$$
 
BiGyElLoWhAt said:
hmmm... is that a proper representation of the ratio test?

What about something like this:

##∑(5-\frac{n}{1000})##

Or is this a situation where the ratio test doesn't apply? I'm just asking, because this fits within your conditions, ##\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_{n}}<1## but as n approaches infinity, ##a_{n}→5##

No, 5 - \frac{n}{1000} \to -\infty. Also, the condition is that <br /> \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{|a_{n+1}|}{|a_n|} &lt; 1, and for a_n = 5 - n/1000 we get <br /> \frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n} = \frac{n + 1 - 5000}{n - 5000} \to 1 so this is not a counter-example.

In fact, if |a_{n+1}|/|a_n| tends to anything other than 1 then it must be the case that |a_n| \to 0: If |a_n| \to a &gt; 0 then also |a_{n+1}| \to a &gt; 0 and thus |a_{n+1}|/|a_{n}| \to a/a = 1 by the theorem that if the limits of two sequences exist, then the limit of the product exists and is the product of the limits. But if |a_n| \to 0 then the sequence 1/|a_{n}| diverges to +\infty and that theorem doesn't apply: the limit of |a_{n+1}|/|a_{n}| is in this case of the indeterminate form 0/0.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K