How to prove the series $sumlimits_{n=1}^inftyfrac1nsin(ln n)$ diverges
How to prove the following series is divergent:
$$
sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{1}{n} sin(ln n) ?
$$
What I was thinking is, since $sumlimits_{n=1}^{infty} frac{1}{n}$ diverges, $sin$ is periodical and $(ln (n+p)-ln n)$ converges to $0$ when $n$ goes to infinity for every $p$, maybe I can look for a sum of partial terms within some $(2kpi, 2kpi + pi)$ to be greater than a fixed $epsilon$. But when it comes to the detail, it troubles me. Any hint?
sequences-and-series convergence divergent-series
|
show 2 more comments
How to prove the following series is divergent:
$$
sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{1}{n} sin(ln n) ?
$$
What I was thinking is, since $sumlimits_{n=1}^{infty} frac{1}{n}$ diverges, $sin$ is periodical and $(ln (n+p)-ln n)$ converges to $0$ when $n$ goes to infinity for every $p$, maybe I can look for a sum of partial terms within some $(2kpi, 2kpi + pi)$ to be greater than a fixed $epsilon$. But when it comes to the detail, it troubles me. Any hint?
sequences-and-series convergence divergent-series
Maybe this question helps?
– Sil
Aug 26 at 17:44
@Sil Thank you!
– Edward Wang
Aug 26 at 17:55
You could also use the argument that $sum_{n=1}^{+infty}frac{sin(ln(n))}{n}sim int frac{sin(ln(t))}{t},mathrm{d}t=-cos(ln(x))+C$. But since $-cos(ln(x))+C$ oscillates between $C-1$ and $C+1$, the series must be divergent.
– Jam
Aug 26 at 18:09
@Jam How do you justify the approximation by the integral?
– Clement C.
Aug 26 at 18:24
@ClementC. Truth be told, I'm still figuring that out. But I'm pretty sure there's a justification there somewhere
– Jam
Aug 26 at 18:35
|
show 2 more comments
How to prove the following series is divergent:
$$
sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{1}{n} sin(ln n) ?
$$
What I was thinking is, since $sumlimits_{n=1}^{infty} frac{1}{n}$ diverges, $sin$ is periodical and $(ln (n+p)-ln n)$ converges to $0$ when $n$ goes to infinity for every $p$, maybe I can look for a sum of partial terms within some $(2kpi, 2kpi + pi)$ to be greater than a fixed $epsilon$. But when it comes to the detail, it troubles me. Any hint?
sequences-and-series convergence divergent-series
How to prove the following series is divergent:
$$
sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{1}{n} sin(ln n) ?
$$
What I was thinking is, since $sumlimits_{n=1}^{infty} frac{1}{n}$ diverges, $sin$ is periodical and $(ln (n+p)-ln n)$ converges to $0$ when $n$ goes to infinity for every $p$, maybe I can look for a sum of partial terms within some $(2kpi, 2kpi + pi)$ to be greater than a fixed $epsilon$. But when it comes to the detail, it troubles me. Any hint?
sequences-and-series convergence divergent-series
sequences-and-series convergence divergent-series
edited Aug 26 at 19:14
Did
246k23220454
246k23220454
asked Aug 26 at 17:37
Edward Wang
813512
813512
Maybe this question helps?
– Sil
Aug 26 at 17:44
@Sil Thank you!
– Edward Wang
Aug 26 at 17:55
You could also use the argument that $sum_{n=1}^{+infty}frac{sin(ln(n))}{n}sim int frac{sin(ln(t))}{t},mathrm{d}t=-cos(ln(x))+C$. But since $-cos(ln(x))+C$ oscillates between $C-1$ and $C+1$, the series must be divergent.
– Jam
Aug 26 at 18:09
@Jam How do you justify the approximation by the integral?
– Clement C.
Aug 26 at 18:24
@ClementC. Truth be told, I'm still figuring that out. But I'm pretty sure there's a justification there somewhere
– Jam
Aug 26 at 18:35
|
show 2 more comments
Maybe this question helps?
– Sil
Aug 26 at 17:44
@Sil Thank you!
– Edward Wang
Aug 26 at 17:55
You could also use the argument that $sum_{n=1}^{+infty}frac{sin(ln(n))}{n}sim int frac{sin(ln(t))}{t},mathrm{d}t=-cos(ln(x))+C$. But since $-cos(ln(x))+C$ oscillates between $C-1$ and $C+1$, the series must be divergent.
– Jam
Aug 26 at 18:09
@Jam How do you justify the approximation by the integral?
– Clement C.
Aug 26 at 18:24
@ClementC. Truth be told, I'm still figuring that out. But I'm pretty sure there's a justification there somewhere
– Jam
Aug 26 at 18:35
Maybe this question helps?
– Sil
Aug 26 at 17:44
Maybe this question helps?
– Sil
Aug 26 at 17:44
@Sil Thank you!
– Edward Wang
Aug 26 at 17:55
@Sil Thank you!
– Edward Wang
Aug 26 at 17:55
You could also use the argument that $sum_{n=1}^{+infty}frac{sin(ln(n))}{n}sim int frac{sin(ln(t))}{t},mathrm{d}t=-cos(ln(x))+C$. But since $-cos(ln(x))+C$ oscillates between $C-1$ and $C+1$, the series must be divergent.
– Jam
Aug 26 at 18:09
You could also use the argument that $sum_{n=1}^{+infty}frac{sin(ln(n))}{n}sim int frac{sin(ln(t))}{t},mathrm{d}t=-cos(ln(x))+C$. But since $-cos(ln(x))+C$ oscillates between $C-1$ and $C+1$, the series must be divergent.
– Jam
Aug 26 at 18:09
@Jam How do you justify the approximation by the integral?
– Clement C.
Aug 26 at 18:24
@Jam How do you justify the approximation by the integral?
– Clement C.
Aug 26 at 18:24
@ClementC. Truth be told, I'm still figuring that out. But I'm pretty sure there's a justification there somewhere
– Jam
Aug 26 at 18:35
@ClementC. Truth be told, I'm still figuring that out. But I'm pretty sure there's a justification there somewhere
– Jam
Aug 26 at 18:35
|
show 2 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
(2018-11-25) "Amusing" revenge downvote, three months later.
Since it seems that everyone feels compelled to rush to the comparison with an integral, let us present a simpler, low-tech, proof (which, additionally, is the OP's idea).
Start with the elementary fact that $$sin(log n)geqslantfrac12$$ for every $n$ such that $a_kleqslant nleqslant b_k$ for some $k$, with $$a_k=lceil e^{2kpi+pi/6}rceilqquad b_k=lfloor e^{2kpi+5pi/6}rfloor$$
Thus, the slice of the series from $a_k$ to $b_k$ can be lower bounded as follows: $$sum_{n=a_k}^{b_k}frac1nsin(log n)geqslantfrac12sum_{n=a_k}^{b_k}frac1ngeqslantfrac12(b_k-a_k+1)frac1{b_k}$$ Since $a_ktoinfty$ and the RHS above converges to $$frac12(1-e^{-2pi/3})ne0$$ the series of interest diverges.
Yippee... Yet another silent downvote.
– Did
Aug 26 at 20:08
I gave you a +1 to compensate for it. I rarely down-vote, but when I do, I explain it.
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 20:29
1
I don't understand. It seems the proof consists in saying that you can find a sub-series which diverges, and therefore the whole series diverges. But this series has negative terms.
– Jack M
Aug 26 at 20:31
@JackM This is showing that the sequence of partial sums is not Cauchy (and hence diverges).
– Clement C.
Aug 26 at 20:42
@JackM If a series $sum x_n$ converges then the rests converge to zero in the sense that, for every $epsilon>0$ there exists some $N$ such that, for every $ngeqslant mgeqslant N$, $$left|sum_{k=m}^nx_kright|<epsilon$$
– Did
Aug 26 at 21:15
add a comment |
As proved here, you can always apply the integral test to $sum_{n geqslant 1} f(n)$ even if $f$ is not monotone as long as
$$tag{*}int_1^infty|f'(x)| , dx < +infty$$
In this case, $f'(x) = -sin (ln x)/x^2 + cos(ln x)/x^2$. Since $|f'(x)| leqslant 2/x^2$, the condition (*) is met.
It then follows that the series diverges along with the integral $int_1^infty f(x) , dx$.
"Using some technology" as Prof. William Weiss once said in another context.................+1
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 20:27
add a comment |
Let
$$a_n = frac{sin ln n}{n}$$
For $n > 0$, let's take
$$b_n = a_n - int_n^{n+1}frac{sinln x}{x} dx
= int_0^1 left(a_n - frac{sin ln(n+t)}{n+t}right) dt
$$
Since for each $alpha in ]0,1]$, we can apply MVT to find a $c in [0,alpha]$
$$left|a_n - frac{sinln(n+t)}{n+t}right|
= left|frac{sinln(n+c) + sinln(n+c)}{(n+c)^2}right|alpha le frac{sqrt{2}t}{n^2}$$
As a consequence,
$$|b_n| le frac{sqrt{2}}{n^2}int_0^1 alpha dalpha = frac{1}{sqrt{2}n^2}$$
By the $p-$test, $sum frac{1}{sqrt{2}n^2}$ is a convergent series.
So by the comparison test, $sum b_n$ is an absolutely converging series.
Let $A = sum b_n < infty$
$$A= lim_{Ntoinfty}left[sum_{n=1}^N a_n - sinln(N+1)right]
$$
Since the limit of $ sinln(N+1)$ oscillates, then the limit of $sum_{n=1}^N a_n$ has to oscillate to maintain a finite $A$. Hence $sum_{n=1}^{infty} a_n$ diverges.
NOTE: Answer was inspired by @achille hui
add a comment |
For $nin Bbb N$ let $log x_n=pi(2n+frac {1}{2}).$ Let $y_n$ be the least integer greater than or equal to $x_n.$
For brevity let $d_n=log y_n-log x_n.$
For $0leq jleq y_n-1$ we have $$pi (2n+frac {1}{2})=log x_nleq log y_nleq$$ $$leq log (j+y_n)<log y_n+log 2=$$ $$=d_n+log x_n+log 2=$$ $$=pi (2n+frac {1}{2})+d_n+log 2.$$
We also have $$0leq d_n=log (1+frac {y_n-x_n}{x_n})<$$ $$<log (1+frac {1}{x_n})<frac {1}{x_n}leq frac {1}{x_1}=e^{-5pi/2}.$$
So for $0leq j<y_n-1$ we have $$sin log (j+y_n)=cos (-E_{n,j})$$ where $0leq E_{n,j}<d_n+log 2 leq e^{-5pi/2}+log 2<pi /4. $
(Note: $ E_{n,j} $ is an ad hoc abbreviation based on the preceding paragraphs.)
So for $0leq j<2y_j-1$ we have $sin log (j+y_n)>cos (pi/4)>1/2.$
Now $y_nto infty$ as $nto infty$ and we have $$sum_{v=y_n}^{2y_n-1}frac {sin log v}{v}=sum_{j=0}^{y_n-1}frac {sin log (j+y_n)}{j+y_n}>sum_{j=0}^{y_n-1}frac {1/2}{2y_n}=frac {1}{4}.$$
So the Cauchy Criterion is not met.
I meant to give a hint but the details of the hint seemed to be difficult to say. As I re-wrote it, it became simpler and simpler, but it also turned into a complete solution
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 20:20
"it also turned into a complete solution" ...which happens to be completely similar (to stay polite) to another answer posted 1 hour earlier.
– Did
Aug 26 at 21:17
1
Which I didn't read in detail. Of course it's similar.
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 21:36
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
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%2f2895288%2fhow-to-prove-the-series-sum-limits-n-1-infty-frac1n-sin-ln-n-diverges%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
(2018-11-25) "Amusing" revenge downvote, three months later.
Since it seems that everyone feels compelled to rush to the comparison with an integral, let us present a simpler, low-tech, proof (which, additionally, is the OP's idea).
Start with the elementary fact that $$sin(log n)geqslantfrac12$$ for every $n$ such that $a_kleqslant nleqslant b_k$ for some $k$, with $$a_k=lceil e^{2kpi+pi/6}rceilqquad b_k=lfloor e^{2kpi+5pi/6}rfloor$$
Thus, the slice of the series from $a_k$ to $b_k$ can be lower bounded as follows: $$sum_{n=a_k}^{b_k}frac1nsin(log n)geqslantfrac12sum_{n=a_k}^{b_k}frac1ngeqslantfrac12(b_k-a_k+1)frac1{b_k}$$ Since $a_ktoinfty$ and the RHS above converges to $$frac12(1-e^{-2pi/3})ne0$$ the series of interest diverges.
Yippee... Yet another silent downvote.
– Did
Aug 26 at 20:08
I gave you a +1 to compensate for it. I rarely down-vote, but when I do, I explain it.
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 20:29
1
I don't understand. It seems the proof consists in saying that you can find a sub-series which diverges, and therefore the whole series diverges. But this series has negative terms.
– Jack M
Aug 26 at 20:31
@JackM This is showing that the sequence of partial sums is not Cauchy (and hence diverges).
– Clement C.
Aug 26 at 20:42
@JackM If a series $sum x_n$ converges then the rests converge to zero in the sense that, for every $epsilon>0$ there exists some $N$ such that, for every $ngeqslant mgeqslant N$, $$left|sum_{k=m}^nx_kright|<epsilon$$
– Did
Aug 26 at 21:15
add a comment |
(2018-11-25) "Amusing" revenge downvote, three months later.
Since it seems that everyone feels compelled to rush to the comparison with an integral, let us present a simpler, low-tech, proof (which, additionally, is the OP's idea).
Start with the elementary fact that $$sin(log n)geqslantfrac12$$ for every $n$ such that $a_kleqslant nleqslant b_k$ for some $k$, with $$a_k=lceil e^{2kpi+pi/6}rceilqquad b_k=lfloor e^{2kpi+5pi/6}rfloor$$
Thus, the slice of the series from $a_k$ to $b_k$ can be lower bounded as follows: $$sum_{n=a_k}^{b_k}frac1nsin(log n)geqslantfrac12sum_{n=a_k}^{b_k}frac1ngeqslantfrac12(b_k-a_k+1)frac1{b_k}$$ Since $a_ktoinfty$ and the RHS above converges to $$frac12(1-e^{-2pi/3})ne0$$ the series of interest diverges.
Yippee... Yet another silent downvote.
– Did
Aug 26 at 20:08
I gave you a +1 to compensate for it. I rarely down-vote, but when I do, I explain it.
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 20:29
1
I don't understand. It seems the proof consists in saying that you can find a sub-series which diverges, and therefore the whole series diverges. But this series has negative terms.
– Jack M
Aug 26 at 20:31
@JackM This is showing that the sequence of partial sums is not Cauchy (and hence diverges).
– Clement C.
Aug 26 at 20:42
@JackM If a series $sum x_n$ converges then the rests converge to zero in the sense that, for every $epsilon>0$ there exists some $N$ such that, for every $ngeqslant mgeqslant N$, $$left|sum_{k=m}^nx_kright|<epsilon$$
– Did
Aug 26 at 21:15
add a comment |
(2018-11-25) "Amusing" revenge downvote, three months later.
Since it seems that everyone feels compelled to rush to the comparison with an integral, let us present a simpler, low-tech, proof (which, additionally, is the OP's idea).
Start with the elementary fact that $$sin(log n)geqslantfrac12$$ for every $n$ such that $a_kleqslant nleqslant b_k$ for some $k$, with $$a_k=lceil e^{2kpi+pi/6}rceilqquad b_k=lfloor e^{2kpi+5pi/6}rfloor$$
Thus, the slice of the series from $a_k$ to $b_k$ can be lower bounded as follows: $$sum_{n=a_k}^{b_k}frac1nsin(log n)geqslantfrac12sum_{n=a_k}^{b_k}frac1ngeqslantfrac12(b_k-a_k+1)frac1{b_k}$$ Since $a_ktoinfty$ and the RHS above converges to $$frac12(1-e^{-2pi/3})ne0$$ the series of interest diverges.
(2018-11-25) "Amusing" revenge downvote, three months later.
Since it seems that everyone feels compelled to rush to the comparison with an integral, let us present a simpler, low-tech, proof (which, additionally, is the OP's idea).
Start with the elementary fact that $$sin(log n)geqslantfrac12$$ for every $n$ such that $a_kleqslant nleqslant b_k$ for some $k$, with $$a_k=lceil e^{2kpi+pi/6}rceilqquad b_k=lfloor e^{2kpi+5pi/6}rfloor$$
Thus, the slice of the series from $a_k$ to $b_k$ can be lower bounded as follows: $$sum_{n=a_k}^{b_k}frac1nsin(log n)geqslantfrac12sum_{n=a_k}^{b_k}frac1ngeqslantfrac12(b_k-a_k+1)frac1{b_k}$$ Since $a_ktoinfty$ and the RHS above converges to $$frac12(1-e^{-2pi/3})ne0$$ the series of interest diverges.
edited Nov 25 at 17:57
answered Aug 26 at 19:07
Did
246k23220454
246k23220454
Yippee... Yet another silent downvote.
– Did
Aug 26 at 20:08
I gave you a +1 to compensate for it. I rarely down-vote, but when I do, I explain it.
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 20:29
1
I don't understand. It seems the proof consists in saying that you can find a sub-series which diverges, and therefore the whole series diverges. But this series has negative terms.
– Jack M
Aug 26 at 20:31
@JackM This is showing that the sequence of partial sums is not Cauchy (and hence diverges).
– Clement C.
Aug 26 at 20:42
@JackM If a series $sum x_n$ converges then the rests converge to zero in the sense that, for every $epsilon>0$ there exists some $N$ such that, for every $ngeqslant mgeqslant N$, $$left|sum_{k=m}^nx_kright|<epsilon$$
– Did
Aug 26 at 21:15
add a comment |
Yippee... Yet another silent downvote.
– Did
Aug 26 at 20:08
I gave you a +1 to compensate for it. I rarely down-vote, but when I do, I explain it.
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 20:29
1
I don't understand. It seems the proof consists in saying that you can find a sub-series which diverges, and therefore the whole series diverges. But this series has negative terms.
– Jack M
Aug 26 at 20:31
@JackM This is showing that the sequence of partial sums is not Cauchy (and hence diverges).
– Clement C.
Aug 26 at 20:42
@JackM If a series $sum x_n$ converges then the rests converge to zero in the sense that, for every $epsilon>0$ there exists some $N$ such that, for every $ngeqslant mgeqslant N$, $$left|sum_{k=m}^nx_kright|<epsilon$$
– Did
Aug 26 at 21:15
Yippee... Yet another silent downvote.
– Did
Aug 26 at 20:08
Yippee... Yet another silent downvote.
– Did
Aug 26 at 20:08
I gave you a +1 to compensate for it. I rarely down-vote, but when I do, I explain it.
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 20:29
I gave you a +1 to compensate for it. I rarely down-vote, but when I do, I explain it.
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 20:29
1
1
I don't understand. It seems the proof consists in saying that you can find a sub-series which diverges, and therefore the whole series diverges. But this series has negative terms.
– Jack M
Aug 26 at 20:31
I don't understand. It seems the proof consists in saying that you can find a sub-series which diverges, and therefore the whole series diverges. But this series has negative terms.
– Jack M
Aug 26 at 20:31
@JackM This is showing that the sequence of partial sums is not Cauchy (and hence diverges).
– Clement C.
Aug 26 at 20:42
@JackM This is showing that the sequence of partial sums is not Cauchy (and hence diverges).
– Clement C.
Aug 26 at 20:42
@JackM If a series $sum x_n$ converges then the rests converge to zero in the sense that, for every $epsilon>0$ there exists some $N$ such that, for every $ngeqslant mgeqslant N$, $$left|sum_{k=m}^nx_kright|<epsilon$$
– Did
Aug 26 at 21:15
@JackM If a series $sum x_n$ converges then the rests converge to zero in the sense that, for every $epsilon>0$ there exists some $N$ such that, for every $ngeqslant mgeqslant N$, $$left|sum_{k=m}^nx_kright|<epsilon$$
– Did
Aug 26 at 21:15
add a comment |
As proved here, you can always apply the integral test to $sum_{n geqslant 1} f(n)$ even if $f$ is not monotone as long as
$$tag{*}int_1^infty|f'(x)| , dx < +infty$$
In this case, $f'(x) = -sin (ln x)/x^2 + cos(ln x)/x^2$. Since $|f'(x)| leqslant 2/x^2$, the condition (*) is met.
It then follows that the series diverges along with the integral $int_1^infty f(x) , dx$.
"Using some technology" as Prof. William Weiss once said in another context.................+1
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 20:27
add a comment |
As proved here, you can always apply the integral test to $sum_{n geqslant 1} f(n)$ even if $f$ is not monotone as long as
$$tag{*}int_1^infty|f'(x)| , dx < +infty$$
In this case, $f'(x) = -sin (ln x)/x^2 + cos(ln x)/x^2$. Since $|f'(x)| leqslant 2/x^2$, the condition (*) is met.
It then follows that the series diverges along with the integral $int_1^infty f(x) , dx$.
"Using some technology" as Prof. William Weiss once said in another context.................+1
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 20:27
add a comment |
As proved here, you can always apply the integral test to $sum_{n geqslant 1} f(n)$ even if $f$ is not monotone as long as
$$tag{*}int_1^infty|f'(x)| , dx < +infty$$
In this case, $f'(x) = -sin (ln x)/x^2 + cos(ln x)/x^2$. Since $|f'(x)| leqslant 2/x^2$, the condition (*) is met.
It then follows that the series diverges along with the integral $int_1^infty f(x) , dx$.
As proved here, you can always apply the integral test to $sum_{n geqslant 1} f(n)$ even if $f$ is not monotone as long as
$$tag{*}int_1^infty|f'(x)| , dx < +infty$$
In this case, $f'(x) = -sin (ln x)/x^2 + cos(ln x)/x^2$. Since $|f'(x)| leqslant 2/x^2$, the condition (*) is met.
It then follows that the series diverges along with the integral $int_1^infty f(x) , dx$.
answered Aug 26 at 18:58
RRL
48.6k42573
48.6k42573
"Using some technology" as Prof. William Weiss once said in another context.................+1
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 20:27
add a comment |
"Using some technology" as Prof. William Weiss once said in another context.................+1
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 20:27
"Using some technology" as Prof. William Weiss once said in another context.................+1
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 20:27
"Using some technology" as Prof. William Weiss once said in another context.................+1
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 20:27
add a comment |
Let
$$a_n = frac{sin ln n}{n}$$
For $n > 0$, let's take
$$b_n = a_n - int_n^{n+1}frac{sinln x}{x} dx
= int_0^1 left(a_n - frac{sin ln(n+t)}{n+t}right) dt
$$
Since for each $alpha in ]0,1]$, we can apply MVT to find a $c in [0,alpha]$
$$left|a_n - frac{sinln(n+t)}{n+t}right|
= left|frac{sinln(n+c) + sinln(n+c)}{(n+c)^2}right|alpha le frac{sqrt{2}t}{n^2}$$
As a consequence,
$$|b_n| le frac{sqrt{2}}{n^2}int_0^1 alpha dalpha = frac{1}{sqrt{2}n^2}$$
By the $p-$test, $sum frac{1}{sqrt{2}n^2}$ is a convergent series.
So by the comparison test, $sum b_n$ is an absolutely converging series.
Let $A = sum b_n < infty$
$$A= lim_{Ntoinfty}left[sum_{n=1}^N a_n - sinln(N+1)right]
$$
Since the limit of $ sinln(N+1)$ oscillates, then the limit of $sum_{n=1}^N a_n$ has to oscillate to maintain a finite $A$. Hence $sum_{n=1}^{infty} a_n$ diverges.
NOTE: Answer was inspired by @achille hui
add a comment |
Let
$$a_n = frac{sin ln n}{n}$$
For $n > 0$, let's take
$$b_n = a_n - int_n^{n+1}frac{sinln x}{x} dx
= int_0^1 left(a_n - frac{sin ln(n+t)}{n+t}right) dt
$$
Since for each $alpha in ]0,1]$, we can apply MVT to find a $c in [0,alpha]$
$$left|a_n - frac{sinln(n+t)}{n+t}right|
= left|frac{sinln(n+c) + sinln(n+c)}{(n+c)^2}right|alpha le frac{sqrt{2}t}{n^2}$$
As a consequence,
$$|b_n| le frac{sqrt{2}}{n^2}int_0^1 alpha dalpha = frac{1}{sqrt{2}n^2}$$
By the $p-$test, $sum frac{1}{sqrt{2}n^2}$ is a convergent series.
So by the comparison test, $sum b_n$ is an absolutely converging series.
Let $A = sum b_n < infty$
$$A= lim_{Ntoinfty}left[sum_{n=1}^N a_n - sinln(N+1)right]
$$
Since the limit of $ sinln(N+1)$ oscillates, then the limit of $sum_{n=1}^N a_n$ has to oscillate to maintain a finite $A$. Hence $sum_{n=1}^{infty} a_n$ diverges.
NOTE: Answer was inspired by @achille hui
add a comment |
Let
$$a_n = frac{sin ln n}{n}$$
For $n > 0$, let's take
$$b_n = a_n - int_n^{n+1}frac{sinln x}{x} dx
= int_0^1 left(a_n - frac{sin ln(n+t)}{n+t}right) dt
$$
Since for each $alpha in ]0,1]$, we can apply MVT to find a $c in [0,alpha]$
$$left|a_n - frac{sinln(n+t)}{n+t}right|
= left|frac{sinln(n+c) + sinln(n+c)}{(n+c)^2}right|alpha le frac{sqrt{2}t}{n^2}$$
As a consequence,
$$|b_n| le frac{sqrt{2}}{n^2}int_0^1 alpha dalpha = frac{1}{sqrt{2}n^2}$$
By the $p-$test, $sum frac{1}{sqrt{2}n^2}$ is a convergent series.
So by the comparison test, $sum b_n$ is an absolutely converging series.
Let $A = sum b_n < infty$
$$A= lim_{Ntoinfty}left[sum_{n=1}^N a_n - sinln(N+1)right]
$$
Since the limit of $ sinln(N+1)$ oscillates, then the limit of $sum_{n=1}^N a_n$ has to oscillate to maintain a finite $A$. Hence $sum_{n=1}^{infty} a_n$ diverges.
NOTE: Answer was inspired by @achille hui
Let
$$a_n = frac{sin ln n}{n}$$
For $n > 0$, let's take
$$b_n = a_n - int_n^{n+1}frac{sinln x}{x} dx
= int_0^1 left(a_n - frac{sin ln(n+t)}{n+t}right) dt
$$
Since for each $alpha in ]0,1]$, we can apply MVT to find a $c in [0,alpha]$
$$left|a_n - frac{sinln(n+t)}{n+t}right|
= left|frac{sinln(n+c) + sinln(n+c)}{(n+c)^2}right|alpha le frac{sqrt{2}t}{n^2}$$
As a consequence,
$$|b_n| le frac{sqrt{2}}{n^2}int_0^1 alpha dalpha = frac{1}{sqrt{2}n^2}$$
By the $p-$test, $sum frac{1}{sqrt{2}n^2}$ is a convergent series.
So by the comparison test, $sum b_n$ is an absolutely converging series.
Let $A = sum b_n < infty$
$$A= lim_{Ntoinfty}left[sum_{n=1}^N a_n - sinln(N+1)right]
$$
Since the limit of $ sinln(N+1)$ oscillates, then the limit of $sum_{n=1}^N a_n$ has to oscillate to maintain a finite $A$. Hence $sum_{n=1}^{infty} a_n$ diverges.
NOTE: Answer was inspired by @achille hui
edited Aug 26 at 18:26
answered Aug 26 at 18:20
Ahmad Bazzi
7,6962724
7,6962724
add a comment |
add a comment |
For $nin Bbb N$ let $log x_n=pi(2n+frac {1}{2}).$ Let $y_n$ be the least integer greater than or equal to $x_n.$
For brevity let $d_n=log y_n-log x_n.$
For $0leq jleq y_n-1$ we have $$pi (2n+frac {1}{2})=log x_nleq log y_nleq$$ $$leq log (j+y_n)<log y_n+log 2=$$ $$=d_n+log x_n+log 2=$$ $$=pi (2n+frac {1}{2})+d_n+log 2.$$
We also have $$0leq d_n=log (1+frac {y_n-x_n}{x_n})<$$ $$<log (1+frac {1}{x_n})<frac {1}{x_n}leq frac {1}{x_1}=e^{-5pi/2}.$$
So for $0leq j<y_n-1$ we have $$sin log (j+y_n)=cos (-E_{n,j})$$ where $0leq E_{n,j}<d_n+log 2 leq e^{-5pi/2}+log 2<pi /4. $
(Note: $ E_{n,j} $ is an ad hoc abbreviation based on the preceding paragraphs.)
So for $0leq j<2y_j-1$ we have $sin log (j+y_n)>cos (pi/4)>1/2.$
Now $y_nto infty$ as $nto infty$ and we have $$sum_{v=y_n}^{2y_n-1}frac {sin log v}{v}=sum_{j=0}^{y_n-1}frac {sin log (j+y_n)}{j+y_n}>sum_{j=0}^{y_n-1}frac {1/2}{2y_n}=frac {1}{4}.$$
So the Cauchy Criterion is not met.
I meant to give a hint but the details of the hint seemed to be difficult to say. As I re-wrote it, it became simpler and simpler, but it also turned into a complete solution
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 20:20
"it also turned into a complete solution" ...which happens to be completely similar (to stay polite) to another answer posted 1 hour earlier.
– Did
Aug 26 at 21:17
1
Which I didn't read in detail. Of course it's similar.
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 21:36
add a comment |
For $nin Bbb N$ let $log x_n=pi(2n+frac {1}{2}).$ Let $y_n$ be the least integer greater than or equal to $x_n.$
For brevity let $d_n=log y_n-log x_n.$
For $0leq jleq y_n-1$ we have $$pi (2n+frac {1}{2})=log x_nleq log y_nleq$$ $$leq log (j+y_n)<log y_n+log 2=$$ $$=d_n+log x_n+log 2=$$ $$=pi (2n+frac {1}{2})+d_n+log 2.$$
We also have $$0leq d_n=log (1+frac {y_n-x_n}{x_n})<$$ $$<log (1+frac {1}{x_n})<frac {1}{x_n}leq frac {1}{x_1}=e^{-5pi/2}.$$
So for $0leq j<y_n-1$ we have $$sin log (j+y_n)=cos (-E_{n,j})$$ where $0leq E_{n,j}<d_n+log 2 leq e^{-5pi/2}+log 2<pi /4. $
(Note: $ E_{n,j} $ is an ad hoc abbreviation based on the preceding paragraphs.)
So for $0leq j<2y_j-1$ we have $sin log (j+y_n)>cos (pi/4)>1/2.$
Now $y_nto infty$ as $nto infty$ and we have $$sum_{v=y_n}^{2y_n-1}frac {sin log v}{v}=sum_{j=0}^{y_n-1}frac {sin log (j+y_n)}{j+y_n}>sum_{j=0}^{y_n-1}frac {1/2}{2y_n}=frac {1}{4}.$$
So the Cauchy Criterion is not met.
I meant to give a hint but the details of the hint seemed to be difficult to say. As I re-wrote it, it became simpler and simpler, but it also turned into a complete solution
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 20:20
"it also turned into a complete solution" ...which happens to be completely similar (to stay polite) to another answer posted 1 hour earlier.
– Did
Aug 26 at 21:17
1
Which I didn't read in detail. Of course it's similar.
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 21:36
add a comment |
For $nin Bbb N$ let $log x_n=pi(2n+frac {1}{2}).$ Let $y_n$ be the least integer greater than or equal to $x_n.$
For brevity let $d_n=log y_n-log x_n.$
For $0leq jleq y_n-1$ we have $$pi (2n+frac {1}{2})=log x_nleq log y_nleq$$ $$leq log (j+y_n)<log y_n+log 2=$$ $$=d_n+log x_n+log 2=$$ $$=pi (2n+frac {1}{2})+d_n+log 2.$$
We also have $$0leq d_n=log (1+frac {y_n-x_n}{x_n})<$$ $$<log (1+frac {1}{x_n})<frac {1}{x_n}leq frac {1}{x_1}=e^{-5pi/2}.$$
So for $0leq j<y_n-1$ we have $$sin log (j+y_n)=cos (-E_{n,j})$$ where $0leq E_{n,j}<d_n+log 2 leq e^{-5pi/2}+log 2<pi /4. $
(Note: $ E_{n,j} $ is an ad hoc abbreviation based on the preceding paragraphs.)
So for $0leq j<2y_j-1$ we have $sin log (j+y_n)>cos (pi/4)>1/2.$
Now $y_nto infty$ as $nto infty$ and we have $$sum_{v=y_n}^{2y_n-1}frac {sin log v}{v}=sum_{j=0}^{y_n-1}frac {sin log (j+y_n)}{j+y_n}>sum_{j=0}^{y_n-1}frac {1/2}{2y_n}=frac {1}{4}.$$
So the Cauchy Criterion is not met.
For $nin Bbb N$ let $log x_n=pi(2n+frac {1}{2}).$ Let $y_n$ be the least integer greater than or equal to $x_n.$
For brevity let $d_n=log y_n-log x_n.$
For $0leq jleq y_n-1$ we have $$pi (2n+frac {1}{2})=log x_nleq log y_nleq$$ $$leq log (j+y_n)<log y_n+log 2=$$ $$=d_n+log x_n+log 2=$$ $$=pi (2n+frac {1}{2})+d_n+log 2.$$
We also have $$0leq d_n=log (1+frac {y_n-x_n}{x_n})<$$ $$<log (1+frac {1}{x_n})<frac {1}{x_n}leq frac {1}{x_1}=e^{-5pi/2}.$$
So for $0leq j<y_n-1$ we have $$sin log (j+y_n)=cos (-E_{n,j})$$ where $0leq E_{n,j}<d_n+log 2 leq e^{-5pi/2}+log 2<pi /4. $
(Note: $ E_{n,j} $ is an ad hoc abbreviation based on the preceding paragraphs.)
So for $0leq j<2y_j-1$ we have $sin log (j+y_n)>cos (pi/4)>1/2.$
Now $y_nto infty$ as $nto infty$ and we have $$sum_{v=y_n}^{2y_n-1}frac {sin log v}{v}=sum_{j=0}^{y_n-1}frac {sin log (j+y_n)}{j+y_n}>sum_{j=0}^{y_n-1}frac {1/2}{2y_n}=frac {1}{4}.$$
So the Cauchy Criterion is not met.
edited Aug 26 at 20:16
answered Aug 26 at 20:09
DanielWainfleet
34k31647
34k31647
I meant to give a hint but the details of the hint seemed to be difficult to say. As I re-wrote it, it became simpler and simpler, but it also turned into a complete solution
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 20:20
"it also turned into a complete solution" ...which happens to be completely similar (to stay polite) to another answer posted 1 hour earlier.
– Did
Aug 26 at 21:17
1
Which I didn't read in detail. Of course it's similar.
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 21:36
add a comment |
I meant to give a hint but the details of the hint seemed to be difficult to say. As I re-wrote it, it became simpler and simpler, but it also turned into a complete solution
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 20:20
"it also turned into a complete solution" ...which happens to be completely similar (to stay polite) to another answer posted 1 hour earlier.
– Did
Aug 26 at 21:17
1
Which I didn't read in detail. Of course it's similar.
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 21:36
I meant to give a hint but the details of the hint seemed to be difficult to say. As I re-wrote it, it became simpler and simpler, but it also turned into a complete solution
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 20:20
I meant to give a hint but the details of the hint seemed to be difficult to say. As I re-wrote it, it became simpler and simpler, but it also turned into a complete solution
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 20:20
"it also turned into a complete solution" ...which happens to be completely similar (to stay polite) to another answer posted 1 hour earlier.
– Did
Aug 26 at 21:17
"it also turned into a complete solution" ...which happens to be completely similar (to stay polite) to another answer posted 1 hour earlier.
– Did
Aug 26 at 21:17
1
1
Which I didn't read in detail. Of course it's similar.
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 21:36
Which I didn't read in detail. Of course it's similar.
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 26 at 21:36
add a comment |
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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%2f2895288%2fhow-to-prove-the-series-sum-limits-n-1-infty-frac1n-sin-ln-n-diverges%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
Maybe this question helps?
– Sil
Aug 26 at 17:44
@Sil Thank you!
– Edward Wang
Aug 26 at 17:55
You could also use the argument that $sum_{n=1}^{+infty}frac{sin(ln(n))}{n}sim int frac{sin(ln(t))}{t},mathrm{d}t=-cos(ln(x))+C$. But since $-cos(ln(x))+C$ oscillates between $C-1$ and $C+1$, the series must be divergent.
– Jam
Aug 26 at 18:09
@Jam How do you justify the approximation by the integral?
– Clement C.
Aug 26 at 18:24
@ClementC. Truth be told, I'm still figuring that out. But I'm pretty sure there's a justification there somewhere
– Jam
Aug 26 at 18:35