How to prove the series $sumlimits_{n=1}^inftyfrac1nsin(ln n)$ diverges












8















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?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • 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
















8















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?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • 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














8












8








8


2






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?










share|cite|improve this question
















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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








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


















  • 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










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















5















(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.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • 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





















5














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 $int_1^infty f(x) , dx$.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • "Using some technology" as Prof. William Weiss once said in another context.................+1
    – DanielWainfleet
    Aug 26 at 20:27





















1














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






share|cite|improve this answer































    1














    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • 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











    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%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









    5















    (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.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • 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


















    5















    (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.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • 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
















    5












    5








    5







    (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.






    share|cite|improve this answer















    (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.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    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




















    • 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













    5














    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 $int_1^infty f(x) , dx$.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • "Using some technology" as Prof. William Weiss once said in another context.................+1
      – DanielWainfleet
      Aug 26 at 20:27


















    5














    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 $int_1^infty f(x) , dx$.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • "Using some technology" as Prof. William Weiss once said in another context.................+1
      – DanielWainfleet
      Aug 26 at 20:27
















    5












    5








    5






    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 $int_1^infty f(x) , dx$.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    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 $int_1^infty f(x) , dx$.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    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




















    • "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













    1














    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






    share|cite|improve this answer




























      1














      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






      share|cite|improve this answer


























        1












        1








        1






        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






        share|cite|improve this answer














        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







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Aug 26 at 18:26

























        answered Aug 26 at 18:20









        Ahmad Bazzi

        7,6962724




        7,6962724























            1














            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • 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
















            1














            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • 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














            1












            1








            1






            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            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.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            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


















            • 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


















            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.





            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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

            Mont Emei

            Province de Neuquén

            Journaliste