Serlo: EN: Application of convergence criteria

Aus testwiki
Version vom 4. Mai 2020, 20:37 Uhr von imported>Sascha Lill 95
(Unterschied) ← Nächstältere Version | Aktuelle Version (Unterschied) | Nächstjüngere Version → (Unterschied)
Zur Navigation springen Zur Suche springen

Many problems in real analysis lectures (and also in applications afterwards) involve the investigation whether a certain series converges or diverges. This page offers you a collection of methods how to tackle such problems. We present strategies that experienced mathematicians use to successfully prove or disprove convergence. These strategies are then applied to some practical examples

Methods for investigating convergence

Using the term test

A series k=1ak can never converge, if the corresponding sequence (ak)k does not converge to 0. It therefore makes sense to first try to find the limit of (ak)k. If this limit doesn't exist or is not 0, you instantly know that k=1ak diverges

If you find out that (ak)k converges to 0, the next question is: How fast does it converge to 0? If it goes to 0 slower than 1k (harmonic series) you can expect divergence. The harmonic series is the "fastest decaying series that still diverges". By contrast, if (ak)k decays faster than qk for some q<1 (geometric series) you know that it converges. The geometric series is "one of the slowest decaying series that still converges". It is a useful idea, to compare (ak)k to a harmonic or geometric series in order to disprove or prove its convergence.

Ratio test

This test is virtually a comparison to a geometric series. It is often useful for series in quotient form k=1akbk . If lim supk|ak+1bk+1akbk|=lim supk|ak+1bkbk+1ak|<1, then the series converges absolutely by the ratio test, since it is bounded by some geometric series k=1cqk (with some constant c). In that case, any lim supk|ak+1bkbk+1ak|<q<1 serves for such a bound. However, for lim infk|ak+1bkbk+1ak|>1, the series diverges. In case lim infk|ak+1bkbk+1ak|=1=lim supk|ak+1bkbk+1ak|, we cannot say anything about the convergence and have to use a different test.

Root test

This test is also effectively a comparison to a geometric series. It is particularly useful for power series like k=1akk or k=1akk2. Absolute convergence holds for lim supk|akk|k=lim supk|ak|<1 or lim supk|akk2|k=lim supk|akk|<1 . However, for lim supk|ak|>1 or lim supk|akk|>1 we have divergence. If the sequence (ak)k or (akk)k converges, we can replace the lim sup with a lim. If the lim sup equals 1, we again cannot make any conclusions and need a different test.

Alternating series test

Alternating series call for being treated by the alternating series criterion. According to it, any series k=1(1)kak or k=1(1)k+1ak converges if (ak)k is a monotonously decreasing null sequence. "Monotonously decreasing" makes sure that a2ka2k+1=|a2k||a2k+1|0 (if a2k are the positive elements). By "null sequence", we know that all a2ka2k+1 sum up to a0 at most and that the ak are positive. There are alternating series, for which (ak)k does not meet these two criteria. Then, the alternating series test does not work - even though we have an alternating series. If (ak)k is not a null sequence, the series even diverges by the term test. If (ak)k is a null sequence that does not decrease monotonously, we need to search for a different criterion.


Direct comparison

Direct comparison is useful, if we have a fraction of polynomials - like k=1P(k)Q(k). The ratio test and the root test may fail in this case. In particular, P and Q might be complicated and therefore difficult to handle. It is easier to compare the fraction to a convergent series k=11k2=π26 (i.e. power 2 in the denominator) or to a divergent harmonic series k=11k (power 1). In general, convergence can be established by comparison to k=11kα with any power α>1 and divergence by comparison to k=11kα with a power α1 . The convergence proof requires bounding P(k) from above and Q(k) from below. The divergence proof works vice versa. If the polynomials P(k),Q(k) have some degrees deg(P),deg(Q), the following rule of thumb holds: If deg(P)<deg(Q)1, the series converges . If deg(P)deg(Q)1 ,it diverges. For a mathematical proof, we can then use a direct comparison to a series k=1ckα with some constants c,α.

Decision tree for convergence and divergence

The tricks above can be visually represented in a decision tree:

Decision tree for convergence and divergence
Decision tree for convergence and divergence

Applications

Example 1

We consider the series

Vorlage:Einrücken

The coefficient sequence is

Vorlage:Einrücken

This is a null sequence. We already proved limkkak!=0 for natural numbers a. The squeeze theorem implies limkkak!=0 for all rational a. The sequence is not alternating, since its elements are positive. As it is a sequence of quotients, we might have good luck with the ratio test:

Vorlage:Einrücken

In the limit k, there is

Vorlage:Einrücken

So the ratio test applies and our series k=1kak! converges absolutely. Done with it!

Example 2

Next, we consider the sequence

Vorlage:Einrücken

Again, we have a null sequence of elements:

Vorlage:Einrücken

This will get obvious when we write ak=kk2k2=(k2k)k . There is limkk2k=0 , so also limkak=limk(k2k)k=0. This sequence is again not alternating as all elements are positive. We have a quotient, which suggests taking the ratio test. But there is also a power of k, which suggests using the root test. Handling powers of k by the ratio test is tedious, so we try the root test first, i.e. we take the k-th root:

Vorlage:Einrücken

Since

Vorlage:Einrücken

the root test succeeds and our series k=1kk2k2 converges absolutely.

Example 3

Now, we investigate the alternating series

Vorlage:Einrücken

The corresponding sequence

Vorlage:Einrücken

is a null sequence, since limk|ak|=limk12k1=0. At this point, the alternating series test seems the first option. In order to apply it, we need to check whether (bk)k is monotonously decreasing. For all k, there is:

Vorlage:Einrücken

So (12k1)k is monotonously decreasing. By the alternating series test, we know that the series k=1(1)k2k1 converges. But does it also converge absolutely? We need to investigate whether the series k=1|(1)k2k1|=k=112k1 converges. This scales like a harmonic series, so it should not converge. And indeed, we can compare it to a harmonic series:

Vorlage:Einrücken

As the harmonic series k=11k diverges, we also have divergence of the scaled version k=112k=k=1121k and by direct comparison, the series k=112k1 diverges. So our series k=1(1)k2k1 is convergent, but not absolutely convergent.

Example 4

We consider the following quotient of polynomials:

Vorlage:Einrücken

The coefficient sequence is (ak)k with

Vorlage:Einrücken

The two polynomials in the fraction P(k)Q(k) are P(k)=k22k+1 and Q(k)=2k4+6. Its degrees are

Vorlage:Einrücken

which implies absolute convergence by direct comparison: The coefficient sequence scales like k2k4=1k2 for large k. We can therefore bound it from above by C1k2 with C+ . Explicitly, we can do this by increasing the enumerator and decreasing the denominator:

Vorlage:Einrücken

The series k=1121k2=12k=11k2=12π26=π212 converges, so also our series k=1k22k+12k4+6 converges absolutely (and π212 is an upper bound for it).

Example 5

Our last example is another alternating series:

Vorlage:Einrücken

It may be tempting to use the alternating series test, here. However, we should first check whether the sequence of elements is even a null sequence:

Vorlage:Einrücken

Apparently, (|ak|)k is not a null sequence! So we can not apply the alternating series test. However, we instantly know that (ak)k is neither a null sequence and can directly apply the term test. By means of the term test, our series k=1(1)k(kk+1) diverges.

{{#invoke:Mathe für Nicht-Freaks/Seite|unten}}