Sigh, please tell me that this book is being an idiot

  • Thread starter Thread starter flyingpig
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the convergence of the series \(\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} ne^{-n}\). Participants express confusion regarding the justification provided in a textbook, questioning the validity of using the limit approaching zero as a criterion for convergence.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants question the reasoning behind the convergence conclusion based solely on the limit approaching zero. Some suggest that the textbook's approach is misleading and lacks necessary details. Others propose using comparison tests with known convergent series.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants sharing their thoughts on the textbook's accuracy and the implications of the convergence criteria. Some have offered alternative approaches to understanding the problem, indicating a productive exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of a specific textbook, "James Stewart, 6e," and concerns about the accuracy of its solutions. Participants also note potential errors that may persist in future editions, reflecting on the reliability of the material.

flyingpig
Messages
2,574
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Find if this converge or diverges

[tex]\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} ne^{-n}[/tex]

Solution

[tex]\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} ne^{-n} = 0[/tex] using L'Hopital's rule. Thus [tex]\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} ne^{-n}[/tex] converges



My Problem with this

WHAT?? I THOUGHT JUST BECAUSE THE LIMIT GOES TO 0, IT CONCLUDES NOTHING ABOUT IT'S CONVERGENCE!?? WHY ARE THEY CONTRADICTING THEMSELVES? I feel like suing Mr.Stewart for making my Calculus life difficult
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Eh if you think about it the author doesn't really have an incentive to write correct solutions. You are right of course.
 
What in the hell? What's the name of this book? If that is the answer and justification for that question, that's embarrassing.
 
James Stewart, 6e, and they are coming out with a 7e, I bet you they are going to make the same mistake in the new edition too.
 
Stewart is garbage, He most likely had nothing to do with that solution and does not care about its accuracy. This is however easily fixed.
consider sum f(n)
lim f(n)=0
is a necessary condition for convergence, but not a sufficient one
lim f(n)+f(n+1)+...+f(n+m-1)+f(n+m)=0
is necessary and sufficient
here f(n)=n e^-n
0<f(n)+f(n+1)+...+f(n+m-1)+f(n+m)<m(1+m/n)f(n)
lim m(1+m/n)f(n)=lim f(n)=0
lim f(n)=0->convergence
as asserted.
So really the statement is true, but misleading if omited details are not infered.
 
Last edited:
flyingpig said:
James Stewart, 6e, and they are coming out with a 7e, I bet you they are going to make the same mistake in the new edition too.

That is Stewarts version of improvement, retain existing errors and add new ones.
 
It's funny because I think in somewhere in chapter 9, it still says "Work = force x distance" instead of "work = force x displacement"
 
err, yeah its definitely not clear, but to ease your preocupation use comparison with 1/n^2 and use l'hopital several times
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K