Proof in The Integral Test
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Theorem: Assume there is an $Ninmathbb{N}$ so that $f:[N,infty)to mathbb{R}$ is non-negative, continuous and decreasing. Define $a_n=f(n)$ for $nin mathbb{N}$ with $ngeq N$. Then, $sum_{n=N}^{infty}a_n$ converges if and only if $int_{N}^{infty}f(x),dx$ converges.
Proof: Since $f$ is decreasing, we find that
$$
a_{n+1}=f(n+1)leq int_{n}^{n+1}f(x),mathrm{d}xleq f(n)=a_n
$$
for all $ngeq N$. Defining $b_n=int_{n}^{n+1}f(x),mathrm{d}x$ for $ngeq N$, it follows from the Comparison Test that $sum_{n=N}^{infty}a_n$ converges if and only if $sum_{n=N}^{infty}b_n$ converges.
Question: Is $$
sum_{n=N}^{infty}b_n textrm{ converges}implies int_{N}^{infty}f(x),dx textrm{ converges}?
$$
I am asking this, because of the definition
$$
int_{N}^{infty}f(x),dx:=lim_{Atoinfty}int_{N}^{A}f(x),dx
$$
where $A$ is a real number.
Edit: Found something in LINK, on the last page, in particular Lemma 3. Note that
$$
sum_{n=N}^{M}b_n=int_{N}^{M+1}f(x),mathrm{d}x
$$
for all integers $Mgeq N$. So, if $sum_{n=N}^{infty}b_n$ converges, the partial sums of it is bounded above by some positive number $K$. Therefore $int_{N}^{M+1}f(x),mathrm{d}x<K$ for all $Mgeq N$. I am wondering, if this implies $int_{N}^{A+1}f(x),mathrm{d}x<K$ for all real numbers $Ageq N$ ...
real-analysis convergence improper-integrals
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Theorem: Assume there is an $Ninmathbb{N}$ so that $f:[N,infty)to mathbb{R}$ is non-negative, continuous and decreasing. Define $a_n=f(n)$ for $nin mathbb{N}$ with $ngeq N$. Then, $sum_{n=N}^{infty}a_n$ converges if and only if $int_{N}^{infty}f(x),dx$ converges.
Proof: Since $f$ is decreasing, we find that
$$
a_{n+1}=f(n+1)leq int_{n}^{n+1}f(x),mathrm{d}xleq f(n)=a_n
$$
for all $ngeq N$. Defining $b_n=int_{n}^{n+1}f(x),mathrm{d}x$ for $ngeq N$, it follows from the Comparison Test that $sum_{n=N}^{infty}a_n$ converges if and only if $sum_{n=N}^{infty}b_n$ converges.
Question: Is $$
sum_{n=N}^{infty}b_n textrm{ converges}implies int_{N}^{infty}f(x),dx textrm{ converges}?
$$
I am asking this, because of the definition
$$
int_{N}^{infty}f(x),dx:=lim_{Atoinfty}int_{N}^{A}f(x),dx
$$
where $A$ is a real number.
Edit: Found something in LINK, on the last page, in particular Lemma 3. Note that
$$
sum_{n=N}^{M}b_n=int_{N}^{M+1}f(x),mathrm{d}x
$$
for all integers $Mgeq N$. So, if $sum_{n=N}^{infty}b_n$ converges, the partial sums of it is bounded above by some positive number $K$. Therefore $int_{N}^{M+1}f(x),mathrm{d}x<K$ for all $Mgeq N$. I am wondering, if this implies $int_{N}^{A+1}f(x),mathrm{d}x<K$ for all real numbers $Ageq N$ ...
real-analysis convergence improper-integrals
The equality in the edit should be an inequality...
– Michael Burr
Nov 14 at 11:49
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Theorem: Assume there is an $Ninmathbb{N}$ so that $f:[N,infty)to mathbb{R}$ is non-negative, continuous and decreasing. Define $a_n=f(n)$ for $nin mathbb{N}$ with $ngeq N$. Then, $sum_{n=N}^{infty}a_n$ converges if and only if $int_{N}^{infty}f(x),dx$ converges.
Proof: Since $f$ is decreasing, we find that
$$
a_{n+1}=f(n+1)leq int_{n}^{n+1}f(x),mathrm{d}xleq f(n)=a_n
$$
for all $ngeq N$. Defining $b_n=int_{n}^{n+1}f(x),mathrm{d}x$ for $ngeq N$, it follows from the Comparison Test that $sum_{n=N}^{infty}a_n$ converges if and only if $sum_{n=N}^{infty}b_n$ converges.
Question: Is $$
sum_{n=N}^{infty}b_n textrm{ converges}implies int_{N}^{infty}f(x),dx textrm{ converges}?
$$
I am asking this, because of the definition
$$
int_{N}^{infty}f(x),dx:=lim_{Atoinfty}int_{N}^{A}f(x),dx
$$
where $A$ is a real number.
Edit: Found something in LINK, on the last page, in particular Lemma 3. Note that
$$
sum_{n=N}^{M}b_n=int_{N}^{M+1}f(x),mathrm{d}x
$$
for all integers $Mgeq N$. So, if $sum_{n=N}^{infty}b_n$ converges, the partial sums of it is bounded above by some positive number $K$. Therefore $int_{N}^{M+1}f(x),mathrm{d}x<K$ for all $Mgeq N$. I am wondering, if this implies $int_{N}^{A+1}f(x),mathrm{d}x<K$ for all real numbers $Ageq N$ ...
real-analysis convergence improper-integrals
Theorem: Assume there is an $Ninmathbb{N}$ so that $f:[N,infty)to mathbb{R}$ is non-negative, continuous and decreasing. Define $a_n=f(n)$ for $nin mathbb{N}$ with $ngeq N$. Then, $sum_{n=N}^{infty}a_n$ converges if and only if $int_{N}^{infty}f(x),dx$ converges.
Proof: Since $f$ is decreasing, we find that
$$
a_{n+1}=f(n+1)leq int_{n}^{n+1}f(x),mathrm{d}xleq f(n)=a_n
$$
for all $ngeq N$. Defining $b_n=int_{n}^{n+1}f(x),mathrm{d}x$ for $ngeq N$, it follows from the Comparison Test that $sum_{n=N}^{infty}a_n$ converges if and only if $sum_{n=N}^{infty}b_n$ converges.
Question: Is $$
sum_{n=N}^{infty}b_n textrm{ converges}implies int_{N}^{infty}f(x),dx textrm{ converges}?
$$
I am asking this, because of the definition
$$
int_{N}^{infty}f(x),dx:=lim_{Atoinfty}int_{N}^{A}f(x),dx
$$
where $A$ is a real number.
Edit: Found something in LINK, on the last page, in particular Lemma 3. Note that
$$
sum_{n=N}^{M}b_n=int_{N}^{M+1}f(x),mathrm{d}x
$$
for all integers $Mgeq N$. So, if $sum_{n=N}^{infty}b_n$ converges, the partial sums of it is bounded above by some positive number $K$. Therefore $int_{N}^{M+1}f(x),mathrm{d}x<K$ for all $Mgeq N$. I am wondering, if this implies $int_{N}^{A+1}f(x),mathrm{d}x<K$ for all real numbers $Ageq N$ ...
real-analysis convergence improper-integrals
real-analysis convergence improper-integrals
edited Nov 13 at 21:36
asked Nov 13 at 16:50
UnknownW
958822
958822
The equality in the edit should be an inequality...
– Michael Burr
Nov 14 at 11:49
add a comment |
The equality in the edit should be an inequality...
– Michael Burr
Nov 14 at 11:49
The equality in the edit should be an inequality...
– Michael Burr
Nov 14 at 11:49
The equality in the edit should be an inequality...
– Michael Burr
Nov 14 at 11:49
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
(1) For your second question in the edit: suppose there is a real number $A geq N$ such that
$$
int_N^{A+1} f(x), dx geq K.
$$
Since $f$ is non-negative, the integral of $f$ from $A+1$ to $lceil A+1 rceil$ is non-negative as well. Therefore
$$
int_N^{lceil A+1rceil} f(x), dx = int_N^{A+1} f(x), dx + int_{A+1}^{lceil A+1rceil} f(x), dx geq K + int_{A+1}^{lceil A+1rceil} f(x), dx geq K.
$$
But since $lceil A+1 rceil$ is a natural number, we have a contradiction.
(2) Now let's prove your original question. Assume the series converges to $L$. The argument in paragraph (1) shows that $L- int_N^{x+1}f(x),dx geq 0$ for every real $x$. Take $epsilon > 0$ arbitrary. Since the series converges, there is a natural number $M geq N$ such that
$$
L - int_N^{M+1} f(x),dx = L- sum_{n=N}^M b_n < epsilon.
$$
Note that the function $int_N^{x+1} f(x),dx$ is increasing since $f$ is non-negative. Therefore we have for every $xgeq M$ that
$$
L - int_N^{x+1} f(x),dx leq L - int_N^{M+1} f(x),dx < epsilon.
$$
Thanks for your answer! Could you please show me how my original question follows from Lemma 2? Nice with proof by contradiction ...
– UnknownW
Nov 14 at 2:25
You're welcome. I have added the explanation in the answer.
– Ernie060
Nov 14 at 11:21
Thanks for your time ... I have thought similar to it. I will explain why I didn't follow this path. Lemma 2 tells us that if $lim_{xtoinfty} g(x)$ exists in $mathbb{R}$, let us call the limit $L$, then $lim_{mtoinfty}c_m=L$. This shows that if $int_{N}^{infty}f(x) dx$ converges, then $sum_{n=N}^{infty}b_n$ converges. That's the way I understand it. What I actually needed is to show the converse direction. That's why I picked Lemma 3, and then I would conclude by using Lemma 2. Unfortunately, I am stuck at "proving" if $g$ is in fact increasing before I could use Lemma 3.
– UnknownW
Nov 14 at 16:08
I see the problem. I assumed Lemma 2 was an equivalence, but it is indeed formulated as a one direction implication. I've adjusted my question, without using any result of the link.
– Ernie060
Nov 14 at 19:28
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
(1) For your second question in the edit: suppose there is a real number $A geq N$ such that
$$
int_N^{A+1} f(x), dx geq K.
$$
Since $f$ is non-negative, the integral of $f$ from $A+1$ to $lceil A+1 rceil$ is non-negative as well. Therefore
$$
int_N^{lceil A+1rceil} f(x), dx = int_N^{A+1} f(x), dx + int_{A+1}^{lceil A+1rceil} f(x), dx geq K + int_{A+1}^{lceil A+1rceil} f(x), dx geq K.
$$
But since $lceil A+1 rceil$ is a natural number, we have a contradiction.
(2) Now let's prove your original question. Assume the series converges to $L$. The argument in paragraph (1) shows that $L- int_N^{x+1}f(x),dx geq 0$ for every real $x$. Take $epsilon > 0$ arbitrary. Since the series converges, there is a natural number $M geq N$ such that
$$
L - int_N^{M+1} f(x),dx = L- sum_{n=N}^M b_n < epsilon.
$$
Note that the function $int_N^{x+1} f(x),dx$ is increasing since $f$ is non-negative. Therefore we have for every $xgeq M$ that
$$
L - int_N^{x+1} f(x),dx leq L - int_N^{M+1} f(x),dx < epsilon.
$$
Thanks for your answer! Could you please show me how my original question follows from Lemma 2? Nice with proof by contradiction ...
– UnknownW
Nov 14 at 2:25
You're welcome. I have added the explanation in the answer.
– Ernie060
Nov 14 at 11:21
Thanks for your time ... I have thought similar to it. I will explain why I didn't follow this path. Lemma 2 tells us that if $lim_{xtoinfty} g(x)$ exists in $mathbb{R}$, let us call the limit $L$, then $lim_{mtoinfty}c_m=L$. This shows that if $int_{N}^{infty}f(x) dx$ converges, then $sum_{n=N}^{infty}b_n$ converges. That's the way I understand it. What I actually needed is to show the converse direction. That's why I picked Lemma 3, and then I would conclude by using Lemma 2. Unfortunately, I am stuck at "proving" if $g$ is in fact increasing before I could use Lemma 3.
– UnknownW
Nov 14 at 16:08
I see the problem. I assumed Lemma 2 was an equivalence, but it is indeed formulated as a one direction implication. I've adjusted my question, without using any result of the link.
– Ernie060
Nov 14 at 19:28
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
(1) For your second question in the edit: suppose there is a real number $A geq N$ such that
$$
int_N^{A+1} f(x), dx geq K.
$$
Since $f$ is non-negative, the integral of $f$ from $A+1$ to $lceil A+1 rceil$ is non-negative as well. Therefore
$$
int_N^{lceil A+1rceil} f(x), dx = int_N^{A+1} f(x), dx + int_{A+1}^{lceil A+1rceil} f(x), dx geq K + int_{A+1}^{lceil A+1rceil} f(x), dx geq K.
$$
But since $lceil A+1 rceil$ is a natural number, we have a contradiction.
(2) Now let's prove your original question. Assume the series converges to $L$. The argument in paragraph (1) shows that $L- int_N^{x+1}f(x),dx geq 0$ for every real $x$. Take $epsilon > 0$ arbitrary. Since the series converges, there is a natural number $M geq N$ such that
$$
L - int_N^{M+1} f(x),dx = L- sum_{n=N}^M b_n < epsilon.
$$
Note that the function $int_N^{x+1} f(x),dx$ is increasing since $f$ is non-negative. Therefore we have for every $xgeq M$ that
$$
L - int_N^{x+1} f(x),dx leq L - int_N^{M+1} f(x),dx < epsilon.
$$
Thanks for your answer! Could you please show me how my original question follows from Lemma 2? Nice with proof by contradiction ...
– UnknownW
Nov 14 at 2:25
You're welcome. I have added the explanation in the answer.
– Ernie060
Nov 14 at 11:21
Thanks for your time ... I have thought similar to it. I will explain why I didn't follow this path. Lemma 2 tells us that if $lim_{xtoinfty} g(x)$ exists in $mathbb{R}$, let us call the limit $L$, then $lim_{mtoinfty}c_m=L$. This shows that if $int_{N}^{infty}f(x) dx$ converges, then $sum_{n=N}^{infty}b_n$ converges. That's the way I understand it. What I actually needed is to show the converse direction. That's why I picked Lemma 3, and then I would conclude by using Lemma 2. Unfortunately, I am stuck at "proving" if $g$ is in fact increasing before I could use Lemma 3.
– UnknownW
Nov 14 at 16:08
I see the problem. I assumed Lemma 2 was an equivalence, but it is indeed formulated as a one direction implication. I've adjusted my question, without using any result of the link.
– Ernie060
Nov 14 at 19:28
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
(1) For your second question in the edit: suppose there is a real number $A geq N$ such that
$$
int_N^{A+1} f(x), dx geq K.
$$
Since $f$ is non-negative, the integral of $f$ from $A+1$ to $lceil A+1 rceil$ is non-negative as well. Therefore
$$
int_N^{lceil A+1rceil} f(x), dx = int_N^{A+1} f(x), dx + int_{A+1}^{lceil A+1rceil} f(x), dx geq K + int_{A+1}^{lceil A+1rceil} f(x), dx geq K.
$$
But since $lceil A+1 rceil$ is a natural number, we have a contradiction.
(2) Now let's prove your original question. Assume the series converges to $L$. The argument in paragraph (1) shows that $L- int_N^{x+1}f(x),dx geq 0$ for every real $x$. Take $epsilon > 0$ arbitrary. Since the series converges, there is a natural number $M geq N$ such that
$$
L - int_N^{M+1} f(x),dx = L- sum_{n=N}^M b_n < epsilon.
$$
Note that the function $int_N^{x+1} f(x),dx$ is increasing since $f$ is non-negative. Therefore we have for every $xgeq M$ that
$$
L - int_N^{x+1} f(x),dx leq L - int_N^{M+1} f(x),dx < epsilon.
$$
(1) For your second question in the edit: suppose there is a real number $A geq N$ such that
$$
int_N^{A+1} f(x), dx geq K.
$$
Since $f$ is non-negative, the integral of $f$ from $A+1$ to $lceil A+1 rceil$ is non-negative as well. Therefore
$$
int_N^{lceil A+1rceil} f(x), dx = int_N^{A+1} f(x), dx + int_{A+1}^{lceil A+1rceil} f(x), dx geq K + int_{A+1}^{lceil A+1rceil} f(x), dx geq K.
$$
But since $lceil A+1 rceil$ is a natural number, we have a contradiction.
(2) Now let's prove your original question. Assume the series converges to $L$. The argument in paragraph (1) shows that $L- int_N^{x+1}f(x),dx geq 0$ for every real $x$. Take $epsilon > 0$ arbitrary. Since the series converges, there is a natural number $M geq N$ such that
$$
L - int_N^{M+1} f(x),dx = L- sum_{n=N}^M b_n < epsilon.
$$
Note that the function $int_N^{x+1} f(x),dx$ is increasing since $f$ is non-negative. Therefore we have for every $xgeq M$ that
$$
L - int_N^{x+1} f(x),dx leq L - int_N^{M+1} f(x),dx < epsilon.
$$
edited Nov 14 at 19:26
answered Nov 13 at 22:56
Ernie060
2,520319
2,520319
Thanks for your answer! Could you please show me how my original question follows from Lemma 2? Nice with proof by contradiction ...
– UnknownW
Nov 14 at 2:25
You're welcome. I have added the explanation in the answer.
– Ernie060
Nov 14 at 11:21
Thanks for your time ... I have thought similar to it. I will explain why I didn't follow this path. Lemma 2 tells us that if $lim_{xtoinfty} g(x)$ exists in $mathbb{R}$, let us call the limit $L$, then $lim_{mtoinfty}c_m=L$. This shows that if $int_{N}^{infty}f(x) dx$ converges, then $sum_{n=N}^{infty}b_n$ converges. That's the way I understand it. What I actually needed is to show the converse direction. That's why I picked Lemma 3, and then I would conclude by using Lemma 2. Unfortunately, I am stuck at "proving" if $g$ is in fact increasing before I could use Lemma 3.
– UnknownW
Nov 14 at 16:08
I see the problem. I assumed Lemma 2 was an equivalence, but it is indeed formulated as a one direction implication. I've adjusted my question, without using any result of the link.
– Ernie060
Nov 14 at 19:28
add a comment |
Thanks for your answer! Could you please show me how my original question follows from Lemma 2? Nice with proof by contradiction ...
– UnknownW
Nov 14 at 2:25
You're welcome. I have added the explanation in the answer.
– Ernie060
Nov 14 at 11:21
Thanks for your time ... I have thought similar to it. I will explain why I didn't follow this path. Lemma 2 tells us that if $lim_{xtoinfty} g(x)$ exists in $mathbb{R}$, let us call the limit $L$, then $lim_{mtoinfty}c_m=L$. This shows that if $int_{N}^{infty}f(x) dx$ converges, then $sum_{n=N}^{infty}b_n$ converges. That's the way I understand it. What I actually needed is to show the converse direction. That's why I picked Lemma 3, and then I would conclude by using Lemma 2. Unfortunately, I am stuck at "proving" if $g$ is in fact increasing before I could use Lemma 3.
– UnknownW
Nov 14 at 16:08
I see the problem. I assumed Lemma 2 was an equivalence, but it is indeed formulated as a one direction implication. I've adjusted my question, without using any result of the link.
– Ernie060
Nov 14 at 19:28
Thanks for your answer! Could you please show me how my original question follows from Lemma 2? Nice with proof by contradiction ...
– UnknownW
Nov 14 at 2:25
Thanks for your answer! Could you please show me how my original question follows from Lemma 2? Nice with proof by contradiction ...
– UnknownW
Nov 14 at 2:25
You're welcome. I have added the explanation in the answer.
– Ernie060
Nov 14 at 11:21
You're welcome. I have added the explanation in the answer.
– Ernie060
Nov 14 at 11:21
Thanks for your time ... I have thought similar to it. I will explain why I didn't follow this path. Lemma 2 tells us that if $lim_{xtoinfty} g(x)$ exists in $mathbb{R}$, let us call the limit $L$, then $lim_{mtoinfty}c_m=L$. This shows that if $int_{N}^{infty}f(x) dx$ converges, then $sum_{n=N}^{infty}b_n$ converges. That's the way I understand it. What I actually needed is to show the converse direction. That's why I picked Lemma 3, and then I would conclude by using Lemma 2. Unfortunately, I am stuck at "proving" if $g$ is in fact increasing before I could use Lemma 3.
– UnknownW
Nov 14 at 16:08
Thanks for your time ... I have thought similar to it. I will explain why I didn't follow this path. Lemma 2 tells us that if $lim_{xtoinfty} g(x)$ exists in $mathbb{R}$, let us call the limit $L$, then $lim_{mtoinfty}c_m=L$. This shows that if $int_{N}^{infty}f(x) dx$ converges, then $sum_{n=N}^{infty}b_n$ converges. That's the way I understand it. What I actually needed is to show the converse direction. That's why I picked Lemma 3, and then I would conclude by using Lemma 2. Unfortunately, I am stuck at "proving" if $g$ is in fact increasing before I could use Lemma 3.
– UnknownW
Nov 14 at 16:08
I see the problem. I assumed Lemma 2 was an equivalence, but it is indeed formulated as a one direction implication. I've adjusted my question, without using any result of the link.
– Ernie060
Nov 14 at 19:28
I see the problem. I assumed Lemma 2 was an equivalence, but it is indeed formulated as a one direction implication. I've adjusted my question, without using any result of the link.
– Ernie060
Nov 14 at 19:28
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2996978%2fproof-in-the-integral-test%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
The equality in the edit should be an inequality...
– Michael Burr
Nov 14 at 11:49