Evaluating ∑ln(n)/n: Bounded Values & n\geq3

  • Thread starter Thread starter negation
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on evaluating the convergence of the series ∑ln(n)/n for n from 0 to ∞. It emphasizes the need to analyze the function ln(n)/n within the bounds of the squeeze theorem, particularly noting that it is not strictly decreasing or positive on the entire interval [1, ∞). The choice of starting the evaluation at n = 3 is justified because ln(n)/n is strictly increasing on (0, e] and strictly decreasing on [e, ∞), allowing for a proper split of the sum. The conclusion drawn is that since ln(n)/n is greater than 1/n for n > 2, and ∑1/n diverges, it follows that ∑ln(n)/n also diverges. The discussion also raises questions about the definitions of strictly positive and the behavior of ln(n)/n in the specified context.
negation
817
0
In determining whether ∑ln(n)/n converges or diverges, where n=[0,∞], ln(n)/n must be evaluated at the upper and lower bound. My notes breezed through this part without much explanation on finding the bounded values for ln(n)/n. I suspect it might have something to do with squeeze theorem.
Or rather, why is n \geq 3 a good value?
(I'm not sure if this should be homework because technically it isn't but some clarification on the question I have would be great!)
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
negation said:
In determining whether ∑ln(n)/n converges or diverges, where n=[0,∞], ln(n)/n must be evaluated at the upper and lower bound. My notes breezed through this part without much explanation on finding the bounded values for ln(n)/n. I suspect it might have something to do with squeeze theorem.
Or rather, why is n \geq 3 a good value?
(I'm not sure if this should be homework because technically it isn't but some clarification on the question I have would be great!)

Let N \in \mathbb{N}. If f : [N, \infty) \to \mathbb{R} is a strictly decreasing strictly positive function, then \sum_{n=N}^M f(n) can be bounded by <br /> \int_{N}^M f(x)\,dx \leq \sum_{n=N}^M f(n) \leq f(N) + \int_{N+1}^M f(x-1)\,dx <br /> = f(N) + \int_N^{M-1} f(x)\,dx. To see this, draw the graphs of f(x), f([x]) and f(x-1), where [x] is the greatest integer less than or equal to x and compare the areas under each. Thus by the squeeze theorem, <br /> \lim_{M \to \infty} \int_{N}^M f(x)\,dx \leq \lim_{M \to \infty}\sum_{n=N}^M f(n) \leq <br /> f(N) + \lim_{M \to \infty} \int_N^{M-1} f(x)\,dx \leq f(N) + \lim_{M \to \infty} \int_N^M f(x)\,dx so that the sum converges if and only if the integral converges.

\ln(x)/x is not strictly decreasing or strictly positive on [1,\infty) and isn't even defined for x = 0. It is strictly increasing on (0, e] and is then strictly decreasing and strictly positive on [e, \infty). Thus we must take N = 3 and split the sum as <br /> \lim_{M \to \infty} \sum_{n=1}^M \frac{\ln(n)}n = \frac{\ln(2)}2 + \lim_{M \to \infty} \sum_{n=3}^M\frac{\ln(n)}n.
 
Last edited:
ln(n)/n > 1/n (n>2). ∑1/n diverges, therefore ∑ln(n)/n diverges.
 
pasmith said:
Let N \in \mathbb{N}. If f : [N, \infty) \to \mathbb{R} is a strictly decreasing strictly positive function, then \sum_{n=N}^M f(n) can be bounded by <br /> \int_{N}^M f(x)\,dx \leq \sum_{n=N}^M f(n) \leq f(N) + \int_{N+1}^M f(x-1)\,dx <br /> = f(N) + \int_N^{M-1} f(x)\,dx. To see this, draw the graphs of f(x), f([x]) and f(x-1), where [x] is the greatest integer less than or equal to x and compare the areas under each. Thus by the squeeze theorem, <br /> \lim_{M \to \infty} \int_{N}^M f(x)\,dx \leq \lim_{M \to \infty}\sum_{n=N}^M f(n) \leq <br /> f(N) + \lim_{M \to \infty} \int_N^{M-1} f(x)\,dx \leq f(N) + \lim_{M \to \infty} \int_N^M f(x)\,dx so that the sum converges if and only if the integral converges.

\ln(x)/x is not strictly decreasing or strictly positive on [1,\infty) and isn't even defined for x = 0. It is strictly increasing on (0, e] and is then strictly decreasing and strictly positive on [e, \infty). Thus we must take N = 3 and split the sum as <br /> \lim_{M \to \infty} \sum_{n=1}^M \frac{\ln(n)}n = \frac{\ln(2)}2 + \lim_{M \to \infty} \sum_{n=3}^M\frac{\ln(n)}n.

Hi

Why isn't ln(x)/x strictly increasing on the domain [1,∞)?
ln(x)/x - ln(x-1)/(x-1) gives a positive increment and continues on as our domain tends towards infinity. Or is it categourically "not strictly decreasing" because it grows too slow?
To begin with, what is the definitition of strictly positive in this context?
 
ln(x)/x is decreasing -> 0.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top