# Infinite Series

WatchPage 1 of 1

Go to first unread

Skip to page:

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.

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

reply

Report

#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.

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

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.

**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

reply

(Original post by

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.

**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.

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

reply

Report

#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

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)

**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

reply

(Original post by

If the terms tend to zero and the sum is finite you're correct. However, the first condition is not enough by itself.

**mqb2766**)If the terms tend to zero and the sum is finite you're correct. However, the first condition is not enough by itself.

0

reply

Report

#6

(Original post by

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.

**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.

0

reply

0

reply

X

Page 1 of 1

Go to first unread

Skip to page:

### Quick Reply

Back

to top

to top