Theory behind Integral Test with Riemann Sums

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Integral Test for convergence in calculus, specifically addressing the use of left and right Riemann sums. The left Riemann sum, which overestimates the area, confirms that if the integral diverges, the Riemann sum must also diverge. Conversely, the right Riemann sum underestimates the area, indicating that if the integral converges, the Riemann sum must converge as well. Both methods demonstrate that the series and the integral either both converge or both diverge, clarifying that neither method contradicts the other.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Riemann sums
  • Knowledge of improper integrals
  • Familiarity with convergence and divergence of series
  • Basic calculus concepts, including functions that are positive, decreasing, and continuous
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of improper integrals in detail
  • Learn about the differences between left and right Riemann sums
  • Explore the concept of convergence tests in series, focusing on the Integral Test
  • Investigate the implications of circumscribed vs. inscribed rectangles in Riemann sums
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in calculus, particularly those focusing on series convergence, as well as mathematicians interested in the applications of Riemann sums and integral tests.

vanmaiden
Messages
101
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


I've seen two methods that prove the integral test for convergence, but I fear they contradict each other. Each method uses an improper integral where the function f(x) is positive, decreasing, and continuous and f(x) = an. What confuses me is one method starts off the riemann sums at n = 1 and makes them all circumscribed rectangles - which make sense to me. The other method starts off the riemann sums at n = 0 and makes them all inscribed rectangles. Can anybody explain to me why each one of these work? Is one right and the other one wrong?

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I've reviewed riemann sums in general, but I'm confused as to why two different methods are used in the theory behind the integral test.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


Just fixed the title
 
They prove opposite parts of the integral test. When you do a left Riemann sum you get a Riemann sum which overestimates the area - so if the integral diverges (infinite area), the Riemann sum must diverge as well. And if the Riemann sum converges (finite area under the rectangles) the integral must converge as well

On the other hand, if you do a right Riemann sum you get an underestimate for the area under the graph of the function. So if the integral converges (finite area under the graph) you must have a finite Riemann sum as well. And if the Riemann sum diverges, the integral diverges as well.

Since both Riemann sums are the exact same except for the first term of the series, this shows that the series and the integral either both diverge or both converge, you can't have one do one and one do the other
 
Office_Shredder said:
They prove opposite parts of the integral test. When you do a left Riemann sum you get a Riemann sum which overestimates the area - so if the integral diverges (infinite area), the Riemann sum must diverge as well. And if the Riemann sum converges (finite area under the rectangles) the integral must converge as well

On the other hand, if you do a right Riemann sum you get an underestimate for the area under the graph of the function. So if the integral converges (finite area under the graph) you must have a finite Riemann sum as well. And if the Riemann sum diverges, the integral diverges as well.

Since both Riemann sums are the exact same except for the first term of the series, this shows that the series and the integral either both diverge or both converge, you can't have one do one and one do the other

I see what you mean, but the two sequences I stated above both start off at n = 1. I understand the idea of shifting and changing the index, but the index stays the same. One source makes the rectangles circumscribed at n = 1 whereas the other makes them inscribed at n = 1. That's pretty much what confuses me.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K