Harmonic Number
We define the -th harmonic number as
Geometric Summation with Offset
For any and we have
Once we've proven the generalized factoring for arbitrary sums then we have
Note that when the sum simply yields .
Series
Given a sequence and defining then we define
Note that because it is defined as a limit we can ask if converges or not.
Harmonic Series Diverges
diverges to
We claim that for all , for the base case we see that so it holds true, now suppose its true for some we want to prove that Thus since and then we know that and thus since a subsequence diverges then we know that diverges
Geometric Power Series
for we have
By definition we know that
exponent limit lemma if
then
becomes zero and we get
Geometric Power Series with Offset
For we have
Series of Halves is Bounded
In the above proposition take .
geometric sum with incrementing factor
Given , the following holds:
We want to find the sum defined by
,
But then we know that
Now since we know that
, then we have
geometric series with incrementing factor
Suppose that , then
We know that
Now since , then and , therefore as needed.
Convergent Series Implies Sequence goes to Zero
If is convergent then
Let be so defined such that , observe that for all so then
Cauchy Criterion for Series
Suppose that
is a series, then the following are equivalent:
- The series converges
We start by proving that so assume that series converges. Let be the sequence of partial sums, therefore we know that for any there is an such that for all , note that then it follows that as needed.
Now we'll prove that so to show this is true, let therefore by considering in our assumption we get an such that for any we have that
Now let and we'll prove that , to do this note the following as needed.
We'll prove that , since we assume and use the notation for as the partial sums, then we can see that and thus assuming is the same as assuming that is cauchy, but we know that any cauchy sequence is convergent and thus converges, which shows that converges.
Note that 2 informally says that tails converge and are arbitrarily small, and 3 essentially says that is a cauchy sequence because
Summable
We say that the sequence is summable if the limit exists.
Comparison Test
Consider two sequences of real numbers
with
for all
, then if
is
summable then
is summable and
while if
is not summable, then
is not summable.
Assume our hypothesis, and we'll show that
is summable, to do this we'll use 2 of the cauchy criterion, so let
, also since
is summable, by
of the cauchy criterion we obtain some
such that for any
we have
, but recall the inequalities we've assumed between
, which shows us that
The first
follows from the
generalized triangle inequality, the second follows from our assumed inequality. Thus
is summable.
Suppose that
is not summable, we'll show that
is not summble, for if it were then by part one of the proof then
would be which is a contradiction.
If the Absolute Valued Series Converges then so does the Original
If converges then so does
Clearly
for all
thus by considering
in the
comparison test we have that
is summable.
Non-Negative Series Converges iff Partial Sums are Bounded Above
Suppose that for every , then is summable iff is bounded above, where
We required that because if you consider the series \sum _ { n = 1 } ^ \infty \left( -1 \right) ^ \left( n + 1 \right)
ParseError: Got function '\left' with no arguments as superscript at position 47:
…( -1 \right) ^ \̲l̲e̲f̲t̲( n + 1 \right) that has a sequence of partial sums of the form which is clearly bounded but the limit doesn't exist.
Monotone Increasing Sequence with a Subsequence which is Bounded Above Implies Entire Sequence is Bounded Above
Suppose that is monotone increasing, and there is some subsequence that is bounded above, then is bounded above.
Cauchy Condensation Test
Suppose that is monotone decreasing then
Let's define
and
.
Assume that converges, which by definition means that converges and is therefore bounded above, which means there is some such that for any , we'll use this fact to show that is bounded above by showing that it has a subsequence which is bounded above. Namely we will prove that
Base case , as needed. Now asssume that it holds true for , which is to say that and now let's prove that
Note that in the induction step the following fact will be useful, which says for any we have that Now continuing on, we note the following
Note that going from the second line to the third comes from the fact that is decreasing which means for any that additionally the the size of that set is , which allow us to upper bound that summation by , which shows the induction step true. Thus we've proven that is bounded above, and so by the MCT it converges which is to say that
Now let's assume that converges, and show that the other one does as well, we'll follow a similar structure that in we show that is bounded above. Specifically we will show that Since is bounded above by some then by adding to both sides we obtain which is to say that which shows that is bounded above, and since it is increasing we would know that it converges by the MCT.
For the base case of we have so it holds true. Now let and suppose that we need to prove that , then notice that In this case the 3rd line follows by a similar argument to the previous induction step, but this team using the fact that for all we have because is monotone decreasing.
One over N to the p Convergence iff p is greater than One
Recall that
converges iff which
converges iff 2 ^ \left( 1 - p \right) \in \left( -1, 1 \right)
ParseError: Got function '\left' with no arguments as superscript at position 5:
2 ^ \̲l̲e̲f̲t̲( 1 - p \right)… since
2 ^ \left( 1 - p \right)
ParseError: Got function '\left' with no arguments as superscript at position 5:
2 ^ \̲l̲e̲f̲t̲( 1 - p \right) is always positive then we just need
2 ^ \left( 1 - p \right) \lt 1
ParseError: Got function '\left' with no arguments as superscript at position 5:
2 ^ \̲l̲e̲f̲t̲( 1 - p \right)… which is the same as
which is equivalent to
Root Test
Suppose that for all and let if then converges and if then diverges
Suppose everything in the hypothesis is true, let's prove that
converges. Clearly we can pick an
since
and since
by using
, then we know that there is some
such that for all
we have
since
then we must have
as it's an upper bound, thus
so that
, in other words
for all
, then we construct the sequence by
- for
- if
thus by construction we have
for all
moreover we can confirm that
is summable directly as
the final equality comes from a
geometric series with an offset since the right hand side is the sum of two finite things then
is summable and thus by the
comparison test we conclude that
converges.
Ratio Test
Suppose that is a sequence of positive terms. Show that if then converges
Alternating Sequence
A sequence is alternating if it has the form or \left( -1 \right) ^ \left( n + 1 \right) a _ n
ParseError: Got function '\left' with no arguments as superscript at position 21:
…( -1 \right) ^ \̲l̲e̲f̲t̲( n + 1 \right)… where for all .
This characterization simply states that consecutive terms change sign.
Alternating Series
A series
is said to be
alternating if
is
alternating.
Leibniz Alternating Series Test
Suppose that
is a
monotone decreasing sequence and
then the alternating series
converges
Absolutely Convergent Series
A series is said to be absolutely convergent if the series converges.
Conditionally Convergent Series
A series is said to be conditionally convergent if it converges but does not.
Recall that converges to and is conditionally convergent because the harmonic series diverges.
Series Rearrangement
A
rearrangment of a series
is another series
where
is a
permutation of
The above definition formalizes the idea of taking a series and then looking at it with the same terms in a different order. Also note that the definition of a series is the limit of the partial sums, which is an entirely different thing than the operation, thus we have no idea whether or not the new series will have the same limit, or even exist.
Every Rearrangment of an Absolutely Convergent Series converges to the same Limit
As per title.