You are Here: Home >< Maths

# Analysis on Sequences watch

1. Doing these questions and would appreciate for someone to check my answers and/or guide me through the one's I don't understand.

B1: if, and only if, s.t.

B2: Here I am unsure. The only thing about this in my notes is the d'Alembert's ratio test but that seems to explain the behaviour of as differs under 5 different scenarios. It doesn't look like a "definition" to me. :/

The only thing I can think of is to go the other way such as "If then it implies that for " assuming the converse of these statements is true.

B3: and

B4: Part 5 of d'Alembert's ratio tests says "If we get no information"

and since by the constant multiple rule. This concludes that and we get no further information about the sequence's divergence/convergence??? Which is strange because it should should be greater than 1 for to tend to infinity. So I'm confused.

Similarly for so this implies that which again I am confused about as there's a contradiction.

Spoiler:
Show
2. (Original post by RDKGames)
Doing these questions and would appreciate for someone to check my answers and/or guide me through the one's I don't understand.

B1: if, and only if, s.t.

B2: Here I am unsure. The only thing about this in my notes is the d'Alembert's ratio test but that seems to explain the behaviour of as differs under 5 different scenarios. It doesn't look like a "definition" to me. :/

The only thing I can think of is to go the other way such as "If then it implies that for " assuming the converse of these statements is true.

B3: and

B4: Part 5 of d'Alembert's ratio tests says "If we get no information"

and since by the constant multiple rule. This concludes that and we get no further information about the sequence's divergence/convergence??? Which is strange because it should should be greater than 1 for to tend to infinity. So I'm confused.

Similarly for so this implies that which again I am confused about as there's a contradiction.

Spoiler:
Show
B3 is right, and B4 looks okay to me too. I'm not sure about the definitions, you should have those in your course notes.

For the ratio test for an, yeah it should be >1 for it tending to infinity, but as it =1 we don't know what the sequence does.

I think this question is just trying to show you examples of where the ratio test fails.
3. (Original post by RDKGames)
B2: Here I am unsure. The only thing about this in my notes is the d'Alembert's ratio test but that seems to explain the behaviour of as differs under 5 different scenarios. It doesn't look like a "definition" to me. :/

The only thing I can think of is to go the other way such as "If then it implies that for " assuming the converse of these statements is true.
This is just a standrd bookwork "definition of a limit", it might make it more concrete if you write then you want to write down what it means for . In particular, it just means that for all positive real there exists a natural such that whenever we have .

You can then 'back-substitute' for .

On a stylistic note, by the way - it's much more lucid and readable if you write your definitions in terms of actual words instead of overusing the notation definition - I know you've just learnt it and that sort of unconsciously makes you want to use it more, but you'll find that it's much more readable when done in mainly words.
4. (Original post by RDKGames)
B4: Part 5 of d'Alembert's ratio tests says "If we get no information"

and since by the constant multiple rule. This concludes that and we get no further information about the sequence's divergence/convergence??? Which is strange because it should should be greater than 1 for to tend to infinity. So I'm confused.

Similarly for so this implies that which again I am confused about as there's a contradiction.
For this part, I'm doing it in a separate post to make it more lucid, there's no contradiction. You're misunderstanding the ratio test.

The ratio test says that: IF THEN it diverges. It doesn't say IF it diverges THEN . Those are two seperate statements that mean two very different things. So a sequence could still diverge but have (in particular ).

In particular, the 'weak point' of the ratio test is that means absolutely nothing, the sequence could diverge, the sequence could converge, you just don't know - the ratio test essentially spatters out "use another test, I'm not useful here.".
5. (Original post by Zacken)
This is just a standrd bookwork "definition of a limit", it might make it more concrete if you write then you want to write down what it means for . In particular, it just means that for all positive real there exists a natural such that whenever we have .

You can then 'back-substitute' for .
Ah yes, that form with the help of substitution makes it much clearer and I found the notes on that.

Just for verification, so if I was to rewrite the definition for it, would this be the correct way? And I assume I could always just skip the substitution for the sake of the final definition? I think I'd write this full of symbols but I'll keep it in words here, as it's very similar to what you've said.

Let then it follows that if, and only if, for all there exists in the naturals, such that for all we have

On a stylistic note, by the way - it's much more lucid and readable if you write your definitions in terms of actual words instead of overusing the notation definition - I know you've just learnt it and that sort of unconsciously makes you want to use it more, but you'll find that it's much more readable when done in mainly words.
I see. I've gotten too used to using these symbols and while the output is much more concise, it may not always be clear. I'll try to tone down on it.

Our lecturer wanted us to get used to all the notation in the first few weeks so what better way than to throw it around

For this part, I'm doing it in a separate post to make it more lucid, there's no contradiction. You're misunderstanding the ratio test.

The ratio test says that: IF THEN it diverges. It doesn't say IF it diverges THEN . Those are two seperate statements that mean two very different things. So a sequence could still diverge but have (in particular ).

In particular, the 'weak point' of the ratio test is that means absolutely nothing, the sequence could diverge, the sequence could converge, you just don't know - the ratio test essentially spatters out "use another test, I'm not useful here.".
Ah right - yeah I misunderstood it slightly. So just as said by rayquaza17, this part is most likely showcasing an example of when this test fails and I assume this is what we're expected to pick up upon.

Thanks for the help!
6. (Original post by RDKGames)
Ah yes, that form with the help of substitution makes it much clearer and I found the notes on that.

Just for verification, so if I was to rewrite the definition for it, would this be the correct way? And I assume I could always just skip the substitution for the sake of the final definition? I think I'd write this full of symbols but I'll keep it in words here, as it's very similar to what you've said.

Let then it follows that if, and only if, for all there exists in the naturals, such that for all we have
Yep, that's a good way of saying it - not quite the final definition though. You want the inequality to be which you can simplify a little.

Ah right - yeah I misunderstood it slightly. So just as said by rayquaza17, this part is most likely showcasing an example of when this test fails and I assume this is what we're expected to pick up upon.
I presume so, yes - I guess it's also an exposition of the essential difference between a theorem and it's converse.
7. (Original post by Zacken)

In particular, the 'weak point' of the ratio test is that means absolutely nothing, the sequence could diverge, the sequence could converge, you just don't know - the ratio test essentially spatters out "use another test, I'm not useful here.".
Just to amplify this, the "point" of them asking you about the ratio limit of those sequences is to emphasise that you *really* get no information when l=1. That is, it's not just that the theorem gives no information (which leaves open the possibility that some 'cleverer' theorem might do better). It's that there are both divergent and convergent series with l=1.

### Related university courses

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: November 5, 2016
The home of Results and Clearing

### 2,343

people online now

### 1,567,000

students helped last year
Today on TSR

### University open days

1. Keele University
Sun, 19 Aug '18
2. University of Melbourne
Sun, 19 Aug '18
3. Sheffield Hallam University
Tue, 21 Aug '18
Poll
Useful resources

### Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

### How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

### Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams