n → ∞ lim r = 1 ∑ n n 2 + n + r r = ?
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
@Pi Han Goh
@AYUSH JAIN
what I thought is to replace all
n
r
by
x
:
n
→
∞
lim
n
1
r
=
1
∑
n
1
+
n
1
+
n
2
r
n
r
=
n
→
∞
lim
∫
0
1
1
+
n
1
+
n
x
x
d
x
=
∫
0
1
x
d
x
I am not sure if this logic is flawed.
Log in to reply
The first equality is fine.
However, you cannot randomly interchange the limits with the integration sign. In particular, you need to justify the claim that:
n → ∞ lim ∫ 0 1 1 + n 1 + n x x d x = ∫ 0 1 n → ∞ lim 1 + n 1 + n x x d x .
In order to justify the interchange of limits (because integration is essentially a limit calculation), you need to apply a theorem like dominated convergence theorem or monotone convergence theorem .
We can approach this step by taking the integral and applying the limits:
n → ∞ lim ∫ 0 1 1 + n 1 + n x x d x = n → ∞ lim n [ ( n + 1 ) lo g ( n + 1 ) − ( n + 1 ) lo g ( n + 2 ) + 1 ]
Exactly the same!
Log in to reply
Another approach:
n
→
∞
lim
r
=
1
∑
n
n
2
+
n
+
r
r
=
n
→
∞
lim
n
1
r
=
1
∑
n
1
+
n
1
+
n
2
r
n
r
=
∫
0
1
1
x
d
x
=
2
1
Log in to reply
Your "another approach" is incorrect. Why does r / n changes to x while r / n 2 changes to 1? There is some inconsistency here.
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – As n tends to infinity , r(which ranges from 0 to infinity) divided by n^2 tends to zero not 1. Even when r tends to infinity then also r is small in comparison to n^2 ( n tends to infinity) . r divided by n cannot become 0 as when r tends to infinity then r by n is comparable. Please correct me if I am wrong
Log in to reply
@Ayush Jain – .
r divided by n cannot become 0 as when r tends to infinity then r by n is comparable
This makes no sense.
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – Please elaborate why it does not make sense . What I am trying to say is r divided by n has been let x while r divided by n^2 will tend to zero . what I mean to say is r by n will not tend to zero because r ranges from 1 to infinity which we cannot say that it will always tend to 0.
@Pi Han Goh – Typo instead of become it should be tend to.
Can you elaborate how it converts to integral
Sandwich theorem proves it to be 1/2.
1/3 +1/4+1/5+.......+1/infinitely = 1/2
I thought what you said in your solution was a harmonic series and it doesn't converge, but diverges... Please CMIIW, thank you.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
r = 1 ∑ n n 2 + 2 n r ≤ r = 1 ∑ n n 2 + n + r r ≤ r = 1 ∑ n n 2 + n r
2 1 n + 2 n + 1 ≤ r = 1 ∑ n n 2 + n + r r ≤ 2 1
2 1 = n → ∞ lim 2 1 n + 2 n + 1 ≤ n → ∞ lim r = 1 ∑ n n 2 + n + r r ≤ 2 1
By sandwich theorem n → ∞ lim r = 1 ∑ n n 2 + n + r r = 2 1