# Infinite Series

Watch
#1
In my notes it says (*)if the limit of the partial sums is S, then the infinite series converges to S.; i.e Next it says (**) if the series converges to S, then The converse is false.

But if the converse is false wouldn't that mean that the first statement (*) is false, because you would have the limit of partial sums as S, so the series should converge to S?

The harmonic series is used as an example with , but I don't understand what this is implying.

Note, we are working in the complex plane.
0
1 year ago
#2
The Harmonix series is probably the most famous example where the terms tend to zero, but their sum is infinite. I take it you understand the bracketing proof?
So what your notes are saying is that itiis necessary for the terms to converge to zero for the the sum to be finite, but this not sufficient, as the above example shows.
(Original post by NotNotBatman)
In my notes it says (*)if the limit of the partial sums is S, then the infinite series converges to S.; i.e Next it says (**) if the series converges to S, then The converse is false.

But if the converse is false wouldn't that mean that the first statement (*) is false, because you would have the limit of partial sums as S, so the series should converge to S?

The harmonic series is used as an example with , but I don't understand what this is implying.

Note, we are working in the complex plane.
0
#3
(Original post by mqb2766)
The Harmonix series is probably the most famous example where the terms tend to zero, but their sum is infinite. I take it you understand the bracketing proof?
So what your notes are saying is that itiis necessary for the terms to converge to zero for the the sum to be finite, but this not sufficient, as the above example shows.
I get that all the brackets are bigger than 1/2 so it's bigger than a divergent series, so it's divergent.

However, i still dont understand, because if s_n -s_n-1 tends to 0, then they have the same limit, so lim(s_n) = sum of a_k by the first fact and the sum is finite, so it's sufficient?
(Apologies for formatting)
0
1 year ago
#4
If the terms tend to zero and the sum is finite you're correct. However, the first condition is not enough by itself.
(Original post by NotNotBatman)
I get that all the brackets are bigger than 1/2 so it's bigger than a divergent series, so it's divergent.

However, i still dont understand, because if s_n -s_n-1 tends to 0, then they have the same limit, so lim(s_n) = sum of a_k by the first fact and the sum is finite, so it's sufficient?
(Apologies for formatting)
0
#5
(Original post by mqb2766)
If the terms tend to zero and the sum is finite you're correct. However, the first condition is not enough by itself.
I'm reading that as "if the terms tend to 0 and the series is convergent, then the series is convergent", which is circular reasoning. I'm probably interpreting it incorrectly.
0
1 year ago
#6
(Original post by NotNotBatman)
I'm reading that as "if the terms tend to 0 and the series is convergent, then the series is convergent", which is circular reasoning. I'm probably interpreting it incorrectly.
You could have and you could still have .
0
#7
Right, I see what you mean.
0
X

new posts Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

### Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

see more

### See more of what you like onThe Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

### Poll

Join the discussion

#### How are you feeling ahead of results day?

Very Confident (4)
12.12%
Confident (6)
18.18%
Indifferent (3)
9.09%
Unsure (10)
30.3%
Worried (10)
30.3%