• Want to help us with this year's BoS Trials?
    Let us know before 30 June. See this thread for details
  • Looking for HSC notes and resources?
    Check out our Notes & Resources page

MATH1251 Questions HELP (3 Viewers)

1008

Active Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
229
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
For this question:



What would be the best approach to do this?
 
Last edited:

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
For this question:



What would be the best approach to do this?
You could use induction. Have you tried this? (The statement given is really just equivalent to saying that the sequence is strictly decreasing.)
 
Last edited:

leehuan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2014
Messages
5,805
Gender
Male
HSC
2015




Apparently it is also convergent when x equals to 1/3, or says the answers. But I'm confused as to why this is ok because

 

leehuan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2014
Messages
5,805
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
Oh wait conditional convergence will suffice? Ok thanks, didn't know that
__________________

Best approach to proving this is convergent?

 

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Oh wait conditional convergence will suffice? Ok thanks, didn't know that
__________________

Best approach to proving this is convergent?

Lemma. For all sufficiently large k, ln k < k^{1/6}. (In fact: for any given positive alpha and beta, (ln k)^{beta} will be less than k^{alpha} for all sufficiently large k. And not just less than, but 'little oh' of as k -> oo, in fact.)

Proof. Exercise. (E.g. L'Hôpital's rule to prove the little oh statement, which implies the "power of ln k < power of k" part.)

Now, we can say that for sufficiently large k, the summand (which is positive) is less than 1/(k^{1.5}) (which converges by p-test), so the given series converges by the comparison test.
 
Last edited:

leehuan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2014
Messages
5,805
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
Lemma. For all sufficiently large k, ln k < sqrt(k).

Proof. Exercise.

Now, we can say that for sufficiently large k, the summand (which is positive) is less than 1/(k^{1.5}) (which converges by p-test), so the given series converges by the comparison test.
Aha guess that'll do. That was basically what I was thinking.
______________________

Also a quickie



So if I want to use the formula for radius of convergence



Should I just ignore the (-1)^k or permit R to be negative?
 

Paradoxica

-insert title here-
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
2,556
Location
Outside reality
Gender
Male
HSC
2016
Aha guess that'll do. That was basically what I was thinking.
______________________

Also a quickie



So if I want to use the formula for radius of convergence



Should I just ignore the (-1)^k or permit R to be negative?
Negative radius is fine, didn't you deal with polar forms some time ago?
 

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Aha guess that'll do. That was basically what I was thinking.
______________________

Also a quickie



So if I want to use the formula for radius of convergence



Should I just ignore the (-1)^k or permit R to be negative?
The formula is actually with absolute values around the fraction. So the (-1)^k goes away. The radius of convergence can't be negative, it is by definition either 0, a positive real number, or +oo. (Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radius_of_convergence )
 
Last edited:

1008

Active Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
229
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
You could use induction. Have you tried this? (The statement given is really just equivalent to saying that the sequence is strictly decreasing.)
Sorry for the late reply, figured that one out, thanks :D
 

1008

Active Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
229
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
These as well, please, if anyone could solve these that would be great. I'll be posting more questions up as exams are roughly in a month...





 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)

Top