Cauchy´s convergence test for Series












1












$begingroup$


Show whith the cauchy's convergence test for series, that the sequence :



$$ b_n = frac{1}{n+1} + frac{1}{n+2} + cdots + frac{1}{2n} $$



converges.



I think it would be not so difficult to use the comparison test, but using the cauchy's test I find it more tricky. Also somehow I used a similar proof to the one used on the harmonic serie and showed that the serie diverges, but there must be an error there. I did:
$$left|sum_{k=2n+1}^{4n} frac{1}{k} right| = frac{1}{2n+1}+frac{1}{2n+2}+cdots+frac{1}{4n}geq 2nfrac{1}{4n}=frac{1}{2}>epsilon $$
Do you find the error in that proof? And how do I show correctly that the cauchy's test actually smaller than every positive real number is?

Thank you for your help!










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    1












    $begingroup$


    Show whith the cauchy's convergence test for series, that the sequence :



    $$ b_n = frac{1}{n+1} + frac{1}{n+2} + cdots + frac{1}{2n} $$



    converges.



    I think it would be not so difficult to use the comparison test, but using the cauchy's test I find it more tricky. Also somehow I used a similar proof to the one used on the harmonic serie and showed that the serie diverges, but there must be an error there. I did:
    $$left|sum_{k=2n+1}^{4n} frac{1}{k} right| = frac{1}{2n+1}+frac{1}{2n+2}+cdots+frac{1}{4n}geq 2nfrac{1}{4n}=frac{1}{2}>epsilon $$
    Do you find the error in that proof? And how do I show correctly that the cauchy's test actually smaller than every positive real number is?

    Thank you for your help!










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      1












      1








      1


      0



      $begingroup$


      Show whith the cauchy's convergence test for series, that the sequence :



      $$ b_n = frac{1}{n+1} + frac{1}{n+2} + cdots + frac{1}{2n} $$



      converges.



      I think it would be not so difficult to use the comparison test, but using the cauchy's test I find it more tricky. Also somehow I used a similar proof to the one used on the harmonic serie and showed that the serie diverges, but there must be an error there. I did:
      $$left|sum_{k=2n+1}^{4n} frac{1}{k} right| = frac{1}{2n+1}+frac{1}{2n+2}+cdots+frac{1}{4n}geq 2nfrac{1}{4n}=frac{1}{2}>epsilon $$
      Do you find the error in that proof? And how do I show correctly that the cauchy's test actually smaller than every positive real number is?

      Thank you for your help!










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      Show whith the cauchy's convergence test for series, that the sequence :



      $$ b_n = frac{1}{n+1} + frac{1}{n+2} + cdots + frac{1}{2n} $$



      converges.



      I think it would be not so difficult to use the comparison test, but using the cauchy's test I find it more tricky. Also somehow I used a similar proof to the one used on the harmonic serie and showed that the serie diverges, but there must be an error there. I did:
      $$left|sum_{k=2n+1}^{4n} frac{1}{k} right| = frac{1}{2n+1}+frac{1}{2n+2}+cdots+frac{1}{4n}geq 2nfrac{1}{4n}=frac{1}{2}>epsilon $$
      Do you find the error in that proof? And how do I show correctly that the cauchy's test actually smaller than every positive real number is?

      Thank you for your help!







      sequences-and-series cauchy-sequences






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Dec 10 '18 at 23:20









      M-S-RM-S-R

      525




      525






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3












          $begingroup$

          The statement
          $$
          left|sum_{k=2n+1}^{4n} frac{1}{k} right| = frac{1}{2n+1}+frac{1}{2n+2}+cdots+frac{1}{4n}geq 2nfrac{1}{4n}=frac{1}{2}>epsilon
          $$
          does not imply that $b_{2n}$ diverges (i.e. does not converge to $textbf{any}$ value), but imply that $b_{2n}$ does not converge to $0$. This is the error in your proof.



          In fact Cauchy's test can be done in this way. Observe that
          $$
          0leq b_{n+1}-b_n = frac{1}{2n+1}+frac{1}{2n+2}-frac{1}{n+1} = frac{1}{2n+1}-frac{1}{2n+2}leq frac{1}{4n(n+1)},
          $$
          and hence for $m>ngeq N$,
          $$0leq b_m-b_n= sum_{k=n}^{m-1}(b_{k+1}-b_k)leq sum_{k=n}^{m-1}frac{1}{4}(frac{1}{k}-frac{1}{k+1})leq frac{1}{4}(frac{1}{m}-frac{1}{n+1})leq frac{1}{4N}.$$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            what I tried to do was to show that the sequence does not have the cauchy attribute, hence it cannot converge in $mathbb{R}$. So I started with $$ |b_{2n} - b_n | = left|sum_{k=2n+1}^{4n} frac{1}{k} right | = cdots $$
            $endgroup$
            – M-S-R
            Dec 10 '18 at 23:47












          • $begingroup$
            So what you are missing is that Cauchy attribute means $|b_m-b_n|to 0$ as $m,ntoinfty$. It means their 'difference' goes to zero so that the whole sequence is 'shrinking' to some point.
            $endgroup$
            – Song
            Dec 10 '18 at 23:53






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Oops, then look carefully at how $b_{2n}-b_n$ looks like. What you gave on the RHS is just $b_{2n}$.
            $endgroup$
            – Song
            Dec 10 '18 at 23:56



















          1












          $begingroup$

          If you know some asymptotic approximation for $H_n$ it is no wonder that $b_n=H_{2n}-H_n$ converges to $log 2$. Anyway, let us try to outline some interesting facts here. For instance, $b_n$ is a Riemann sum for $int_{0}^{1}frac{dx}{1+x}$: since $frac{1}{1+x}$ is a convex function on $[0,1]$, Karamata's inequality ensures that ${b_n}_{ngeq 1}$ is increasing. This can be also checked with elementary manipulations:
          $$ b_{n+1}-b_n = frac{1}{2n+2}+frac{1}{2n+1}-frac{1}{n+1} = frac{1}{(2n+1)(2n+2)}>0.$$
          This identity also gives
          $$ lim_{nto +infty}b_n = lim_{nto +infty}sum_{m=0}^nfrac{1}{(2m+1)(2m+2)}=sum_{mgeq 0}frac{1}{(2n+1)(2m+2)}. $$
          $b_n$ has a simple integral representation: since $frac{1}{b+1}=int_{0}^{1}x^{b},dx$,
          $$begin{eqnarray*} b_n = H_{2n}-H_n &=& sum_{m=0}^{n}int_{0}^{1}left(x^{2m}-x^{2m+1}right),dx=int_{0}^{1}frac{1-x^{2m+2}}{1+x},dx\&=&log(2)-int_{0}^{1}x^{2n}frac{x^2 dx}{1+x}.end{eqnarray*}$$
          The error term $log(2)-b_n=int_{0}^{1}x^{2n}frac{x^2,dx}{1+x}$ is trivially non-negative and decreasing to zero (by the dominated convergence theorem), bounded between $frac{1}{4n+6}$ and $frac{1}{2n+3}$, log-convex (and so convex) since it is a moment: the function $f(s)=int_{0}^{1} x^s frac{x^2,dx}{1+x}$ is clearly continuous on $[-1,+infty)$ and the midpoint-log-convexity of $f(s)$ is ensured by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality:



          $$left[int_{0}^{1}x^{frac{s+t}{2}}frac{x^2,dx}{1+x}right]^2 leq int_{0}^{1}x^sfrac{x^2,dx}{1+x}int_{0}^{1}x^tfrac{x^2,dx}{1+x} $$
          is equivalent to $log fleft(frac{s+t}{2}right)leq frac{log f(s)+log f(t)}{2}.$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3034632%2fcauchy%25c2%25b4s-convergence-test-for-series%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            3












            $begingroup$

            The statement
            $$
            left|sum_{k=2n+1}^{4n} frac{1}{k} right| = frac{1}{2n+1}+frac{1}{2n+2}+cdots+frac{1}{4n}geq 2nfrac{1}{4n}=frac{1}{2}>epsilon
            $$
            does not imply that $b_{2n}$ diverges (i.e. does not converge to $textbf{any}$ value), but imply that $b_{2n}$ does not converge to $0$. This is the error in your proof.



            In fact Cauchy's test can be done in this way. Observe that
            $$
            0leq b_{n+1}-b_n = frac{1}{2n+1}+frac{1}{2n+2}-frac{1}{n+1} = frac{1}{2n+1}-frac{1}{2n+2}leq frac{1}{4n(n+1)},
            $$
            and hence for $m>ngeq N$,
            $$0leq b_m-b_n= sum_{k=n}^{m-1}(b_{k+1}-b_k)leq sum_{k=n}^{m-1}frac{1}{4}(frac{1}{k}-frac{1}{k+1})leq frac{1}{4}(frac{1}{m}-frac{1}{n+1})leq frac{1}{4N}.$$






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              what I tried to do was to show that the sequence does not have the cauchy attribute, hence it cannot converge in $mathbb{R}$. So I started with $$ |b_{2n} - b_n | = left|sum_{k=2n+1}^{4n} frac{1}{k} right | = cdots $$
              $endgroup$
              – M-S-R
              Dec 10 '18 at 23:47












            • $begingroup$
              So what you are missing is that Cauchy attribute means $|b_m-b_n|to 0$ as $m,ntoinfty$. It means their 'difference' goes to zero so that the whole sequence is 'shrinking' to some point.
              $endgroup$
              – Song
              Dec 10 '18 at 23:53






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Oops, then look carefully at how $b_{2n}-b_n$ looks like. What you gave on the RHS is just $b_{2n}$.
              $endgroup$
              – Song
              Dec 10 '18 at 23:56
















            3












            $begingroup$

            The statement
            $$
            left|sum_{k=2n+1}^{4n} frac{1}{k} right| = frac{1}{2n+1}+frac{1}{2n+2}+cdots+frac{1}{4n}geq 2nfrac{1}{4n}=frac{1}{2}>epsilon
            $$
            does not imply that $b_{2n}$ diverges (i.e. does not converge to $textbf{any}$ value), but imply that $b_{2n}$ does not converge to $0$. This is the error in your proof.



            In fact Cauchy's test can be done in this way. Observe that
            $$
            0leq b_{n+1}-b_n = frac{1}{2n+1}+frac{1}{2n+2}-frac{1}{n+1} = frac{1}{2n+1}-frac{1}{2n+2}leq frac{1}{4n(n+1)},
            $$
            and hence for $m>ngeq N$,
            $$0leq b_m-b_n= sum_{k=n}^{m-1}(b_{k+1}-b_k)leq sum_{k=n}^{m-1}frac{1}{4}(frac{1}{k}-frac{1}{k+1})leq frac{1}{4}(frac{1}{m}-frac{1}{n+1})leq frac{1}{4N}.$$






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              what I tried to do was to show that the sequence does not have the cauchy attribute, hence it cannot converge in $mathbb{R}$. So I started with $$ |b_{2n} - b_n | = left|sum_{k=2n+1}^{4n} frac{1}{k} right | = cdots $$
              $endgroup$
              – M-S-R
              Dec 10 '18 at 23:47












            • $begingroup$
              So what you are missing is that Cauchy attribute means $|b_m-b_n|to 0$ as $m,ntoinfty$. It means their 'difference' goes to zero so that the whole sequence is 'shrinking' to some point.
              $endgroup$
              – Song
              Dec 10 '18 at 23:53






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Oops, then look carefully at how $b_{2n}-b_n$ looks like. What you gave on the RHS is just $b_{2n}$.
              $endgroup$
              – Song
              Dec 10 '18 at 23:56














            3












            3








            3





            $begingroup$

            The statement
            $$
            left|sum_{k=2n+1}^{4n} frac{1}{k} right| = frac{1}{2n+1}+frac{1}{2n+2}+cdots+frac{1}{4n}geq 2nfrac{1}{4n}=frac{1}{2}>epsilon
            $$
            does not imply that $b_{2n}$ diverges (i.e. does not converge to $textbf{any}$ value), but imply that $b_{2n}$ does not converge to $0$. This is the error in your proof.



            In fact Cauchy's test can be done in this way. Observe that
            $$
            0leq b_{n+1}-b_n = frac{1}{2n+1}+frac{1}{2n+2}-frac{1}{n+1} = frac{1}{2n+1}-frac{1}{2n+2}leq frac{1}{4n(n+1)},
            $$
            and hence for $m>ngeq N$,
            $$0leq b_m-b_n= sum_{k=n}^{m-1}(b_{k+1}-b_k)leq sum_{k=n}^{m-1}frac{1}{4}(frac{1}{k}-frac{1}{k+1})leq frac{1}{4}(frac{1}{m}-frac{1}{n+1})leq frac{1}{4N}.$$






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            The statement
            $$
            left|sum_{k=2n+1}^{4n} frac{1}{k} right| = frac{1}{2n+1}+frac{1}{2n+2}+cdots+frac{1}{4n}geq 2nfrac{1}{4n}=frac{1}{2}>epsilon
            $$
            does not imply that $b_{2n}$ diverges (i.e. does not converge to $textbf{any}$ value), but imply that $b_{2n}$ does not converge to $0$. This is the error in your proof.



            In fact Cauchy's test can be done in this way. Observe that
            $$
            0leq b_{n+1}-b_n = frac{1}{2n+1}+frac{1}{2n+2}-frac{1}{n+1} = frac{1}{2n+1}-frac{1}{2n+2}leq frac{1}{4n(n+1)},
            $$
            and hence for $m>ngeq N$,
            $$0leq b_m-b_n= sum_{k=n}^{m-1}(b_{k+1}-b_k)leq sum_{k=n}^{m-1}frac{1}{4}(frac{1}{k}-frac{1}{k+1})leq frac{1}{4}(frac{1}{m}-frac{1}{n+1})leq frac{1}{4N}.$$







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Dec 10 '18 at 23:40









            SongSong

            11.1k628




            11.1k628












            • $begingroup$
              what I tried to do was to show that the sequence does not have the cauchy attribute, hence it cannot converge in $mathbb{R}$. So I started with $$ |b_{2n} - b_n | = left|sum_{k=2n+1}^{4n} frac{1}{k} right | = cdots $$
              $endgroup$
              – M-S-R
              Dec 10 '18 at 23:47












            • $begingroup$
              So what you are missing is that Cauchy attribute means $|b_m-b_n|to 0$ as $m,ntoinfty$. It means their 'difference' goes to zero so that the whole sequence is 'shrinking' to some point.
              $endgroup$
              – Song
              Dec 10 '18 at 23:53






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Oops, then look carefully at how $b_{2n}-b_n$ looks like. What you gave on the RHS is just $b_{2n}$.
              $endgroup$
              – Song
              Dec 10 '18 at 23:56


















            • $begingroup$
              what I tried to do was to show that the sequence does not have the cauchy attribute, hence it cannot converge in $mathbb{R}$. So I started with $$ |b_{2n} - b_n | = left|sum_{k=2n+1}^{4n} frac{1}{k} right | = cdots $$
              $endgroup$
              – M-S-R
              Dec 10 '18 at 23:47












            • $begingroup$
              So what you are missing is that Cauchy attribute means $|b_m-b_n|to 0$ as $m,ntoinfty$. It means their 'difference' goes to zero so that the whole sequence is 'shrinking' to some point.
              $endgroup$
              – Song
              Dec 10 '18 at 23:53






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Oops, then look carefully at how $b_{2n}-b_n$ looks like. What you gave on the RHS is just $b_{2n}$.
              $endgroup$
              – Song
              Dec 10 '18 at 23:56
















            $begingroup$
            what I tried to do was to show that the sequence does not have the cauchy attribute, hence it cannot converge in $mathbb{R}$. So I started with $$ |b_{2n} - b_n | = left|sum_{k=2n+1}^{4n} frac{1}{k} right | = cdots $$
            $endgroup$
            – M-S-R
            Dec 10 '18 at 23:47






            $begingroup$
            what I tried to do was to show that the sequence does not have the cauchy attribute, hence it cannot converge in $mathbb{R}$. So I started with $$ |b_{2n} - b_n | = left|sum_{k=2n+1}^{4n} frac{1}{k} right | = cdots $$
            $endgroup$
            – M-S-R
            Dec 10 '18 at 23:47














            $begingroup$
            So what you are missing is that Cauchy attribute means $|b_m-b_n|to 0$ as $m,ntoinfty$. It means their 'difference' goes to zero so that the whole sequence is 'shrinking' to some point.
            $endgroup$
            – Song
            Dec 10 '18 at 23:53




            $begingroup$
            So what you are missing is that Cauchy attribute means $|b_m-b_n|to 0$ as $m,ntoinfty$. It means their 'difference' goes to zero so that the whole sequence is 'shrinking' to some point.
            $endgroup$
            – Song
            Dec 10 '18 at 23:53




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            Oops, then look carefully at how $b_{2n}-b_n$ looks like. What you gave on the RHS is just $b_{2n}$.
            $endgroup$
            – Song
            Dec 10 '18 at 23:56




            $begingroup$
            Oops, then look carefully at how $b_{2n}-b_n$ looks like. What you gave on the RHS is just $b_{2n}$.
            $endgroup$
            – Song
            Dec 10 '18 at 23:56











            1












            $begingroup$

            If you know some asymptotic approximation for $H_n$ it is no wonder that $b_n=H_{2n}-H_n$ converges to $log 2$. Anyway, let us try to outline some interesting facts here. For instance, $b_n$ is a Riemann sum for $int_{0}^{1}frac{dx}{1+x}$: since $frac{1}{1+x}$ is a convex function on $[0,1]$, Karamata's inequality ensures that ${b_n}_{ngeq 1}$ is increasing. This can be also checked with elementary manipulations:
            $$ b_{n+1}-b_n = frac{1}{2n+2}+frac{1}{2n+1}-frac{1}{n+1} = frac{1}{(2n+1)(2n+2)}>0.$$
            This identity also gives
            $$ lim_{nto +infty}b_n = lim_{nto +infty}sum_{m=0}^nfrac{1}{(2m+1)(2m+2)}=sum_{mgeq 0}frac{1}{(2n+1)(2m+2)}. $$
            $b_n$ has a simple integral representation: since $frac{1}{b+1}=int_{0}^{1}x^{b},dx$,
            $$begin{eqnarray*} b_n = H_{2n}-H_n &=& sum_{m=0}^{n}int_{0}^{1}left(x^{2m}-x^{2m+1}right),dx=int_{0}^{1}frac{1-x^{2m+2}}{1+x},dx\&=&log(2)-int_{0}^{1}x^{2n}frac{x^2 dx}{1+x}.end{eqnarray*}$$
            The error term $log(2)-b_n=int_{0}^{1}x^{2n}frac{x^2,dx}{1+x}$ is trivially non-negative and decreasing to zero (by the dominated convergence theorem), bounded between $frac{1}{4n+6}$ and $frac{1}{2n+3}$, log-convex (and so convex) since it is a moment: the function $f(s)=int_{0}^{1} x^s frac{x^2,dx}{1+x}$ is clearly continuous on $[-1,+infty)$ and the midpoint-log-convexity of $f(s)$ is ensured by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality:



            $$left[int_{0}^{1}x^{frac{s+t}{2}}frac{x^2,dx}{1+x}right]^2 leq int_{0}^{1}x^sfrac{x^2,dx}{1+x}int_{0}^{1}x^tfrac{x^2,dx}{1+x} $$
            is equivalent to $log fleft(frac{s+t}{2}right)leq frac{log f(s)+log f(t)}{2}.$






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              1












              $begingroup$

              If you know some asymptotic approximation for $H_n$ it is no wonder that $b_n=H_{2n}-H_n$ converges to $log 2$. Anyway, let us try to outline some interesting facts here. For instance, $b_n$ is a Riemann sum for $int_{0}^{1}frac{dx}{1+x}$: since $frac{1}{1+x}$ is a convex function on $[0,1]$, Karamata's inequality ensures that ${b_n}_{ngeq 1}$ is increasing. This can be also checked with elementary manipulations:
              $$ b_{n+1}-b_n = frac{1}{2n+2}+frac{1}{2n+1}-frac{1}{n+1} = frac{1}{(2n+1)(2n+2)}>0.$$
              This identity also gives
              $$ lim_{nto +infty}b_n = lim_{nto +infty}sum_{m=0}^nfrac{1}{(2m+1)(2m+2)}=sum_{mgeq 0}frac{1}{(2n+1)(2m+2)}. $$
              $b_n$ has a simple integral representation: since $frac{1}{b+1}=int_{0}^{1}x^{b},dx$,
              $$begin{eqnarray*} b_n = H_{2n}-H_n &=& sum_{m=0}^{n}int_{0}^{1}left(x^{2m}-x^{2m+1}right),dx=int_{0}^{1}frac{1-x^{2m+2}}{1+x},dx\&=&log(2)-int_{0}^{1}x^{2n}frac{x^2 dx}{1+x}.end{eqnarray*}$$
              The error term $log(2)-b_n=int_{0}^{1}x^{2n}frac{x^2,dx}{1+x}$ is trivially non-negative and decreasing to zero (by the dominated convergence theorem), bounded between $frac{1}{4n+6}$ and $frac{1}{2n+3}$, log-convex (and so convex) since it is a moment: the function $f(s)=int_{0}^{1} x^s frac{x^2,dx}{1+x}$ is clearly continuous on $[-1,+infty)$ and the midpoint-log-convexity of $f(s)$ is ensured by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality:



              $$left[int_{0}^{1}x^{frac{s+t}{2}}frac{x^2,dx}{1+x}right]^2 leq int_{0}^{1}x^sfrac{x^2,dx}{1+x}int_{0}^{1}x^tfrac{x^2,dx}{1+x} $$
              is equivalent to $log fleft(frac{s+t}{2}right)leq frac{log f(s)+log f(t)}{2}.$






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                1












                1








                1





                $begingroup$

                If you know some asymptotic approximation for $H_n$ it is no wonder that $b_n=H_{2n}-H_n$ converges to $log 2$. Anyway, let us try to outline some interesting facts here. For instance, $b_n$ is a Riemann sum for $int_{0}^{1}frac{dx}{1+x}$: since $frac{1}{1+x}$ is a convex function on $[0,1]$, Karamata's inequality ensures that ${b_n}_{ngeq 1}$ is increasing. This can be also checked with elementary manipulations:
                $$ b_{n+1}-b_n = frac{1}{2n+2}+frac{1}{2n+1}-frac{1}{n+1} = frac{1}{(2n+1)(2n+2)}>0.$$
                This identity also gives
                $$ lim_{nto +infty}b_n = lim_{nto +infty}sum_{m=0}^nfrac{1}{(2m+1)(2m+2)}=sum_{mgeq 0}frac{1}{(2n+1)(2m+2)}. $$
                $b_n$ has a simple integral representation: since $frac{1}{b+1}=int_{0}^{1}x^{b},dx$,
                $$begin{eqnarray*} b_n = H_{2n}-H_n &=& sum_{m=0}^{n}int_{0}^{1}left(x^{2m}-x^{2m+1}right),dx=int_{0}^{1}frac{1-x^{2m+2}}{1+x},dx\&=&log(2)-int_{0}^{1}x^{2n}frac{x^2 dx}{1+x}.end{eqnarray*}$$
                The error term $log(2)-b_n=int_{0}^{1}x^{2n}frac{x^2,dx}{1+x}$ is trivially non-negative and decreasing to zero (by the dominated convergence theorem), bounded between $frac{1}{4n+6}$ and $frac{1}{2n+3}$, log-convex (and so convex) since it is a moment: the function $f(s)=int_{0}^{1} x^s frac{x^2,dx}{1+x}$ is clearly continuous on $[-1,+infty)$ and the midpoint-log-convexity of $f(s)$ is ensured by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality:



                $$left[int_{0}^{1}x^{frac{s+t}{2}}frac{x^2,dx}{1+x}right]^2 leq int_{0}^{1}x^sfrac{x^2,dx}{1+x}int_{0}^{1}x^tfrac{x^2,dx}{1+x} $$
                is equivalent to $log fleft(frac{s+t}{2}right)leq frac{log f(s)+log f(t)}{2}.$






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                If you know some asymptotic approximation for $H_n$ it is no wonder that $b_n=H_{2n}-H_n$ converges to $log 2$. Anyway, let us try to outline some interesting facts here. For instance, $b_n$ is a Riemann sum for $int_{0}^{1}frac{dx}{1+x}$: since $frac{1}{1+x}$ is a convex function on $[0,1]$, Karamata's inequality ensures that ${b_n}_{ngeq 1}$ is increasing. This can be also checked with elementary manipulations:
                $$ b_{n+1}-b_n = frac{1}{2n+2}+frac{1}{2n+1}-frac{1}{n+1} = frac{1}{(2n+1)(2n+2)}>0.$$
                This identity also gives
                $$ lim_{nto +infty}b_n = lim_{nto +infty}sum_{m=0}^nfrac{1}{(2m+1)(2m+2)}=sum_{mgeq 0}frac{1}{(2n+1)(2m+2)}. $$
                $b_n$ has a simple integral representation: since $frac{1}{b+1}=int_{0}^{1}x^{b},dx$,
                $$begin{eqnarray*} b_n = H_{2n}-H_n &=& sum_{m=0}^{n}int_{0}^{1}left(x^{2m}-x^{2m+1}right),dx=int_{0}^{1}frac{1-x^{2m+2}}{1+x},dx\&=&log(2)-int_{0}^{1}x^{2n}frac{x^2 dx}{1+x}.end{eqnarray*}$$
                The error term $log(2)-b_n=int_{0}^{1}x^{2n}frac{x^2,dx}{1+x}$ is trivially non-negative and decreasing to zero (by the dominated convergence theorem), bounded between $frac{1}{4n+6}$ and $frac{1}{2n+3}$, log-convex (and so convex) since it is a moment: the function $f(s)=int_{0}^{1} x^s frac{x^2,dx}{1+x}$ is clearly continuous on $[-1,+infty)$ and the midpoint-log-convexity of $f(s)$ is ensured by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality:



                $$left[int_{0}^{1}x^{frac{s+t}{2}}frac{x^2,dx}{1+x}right]^2 leq int_{0}^{1}x^sfrac{x^2,dx}{1+x}int_{0}^{1}x^tfrac{x^2,dx}{1+x} $$
                is equivalent to $log fleft(frac{s+t}{2}right)leq frac{log f(s)+log f(t)}{2}.$







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Dec 11 '18 at 0:45









                Jack D'AurizioJack D'Aurizio

                1




                1






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3034632%2fcauchy%25c2%25b4s-convergence-test-for-series%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    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







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Wiesbaden

                    Marschland

                    Dieringhausen