Proving Convergence of $\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{k \, (\log (k+1))^p}$

  • Thread starter devious_
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Convergence
In summary, the problem is to find all values of p greater than or equal to 0 for which the series \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{k \, (\log (k+1))^p} converges. The integral test is a possible approach, but it has not been successful so far. It has been proven that the series converges for p > 1 and diverges for p = 0. By using a useful criterion for log series, it can be shown that the series behaves like the Riemann p-series, thus diverging for p \leq 1 and converging for p > 1. This test only works for nonnegative, decreasing terms
  • #1
devious_
312
3
Find all [itex]p \geq 0[/itex] such that

[tex]\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{k \, (\log (k+1))^p}[/tex]

converges.

It looks like the integral test is the most likely candidate, but I haven't been able to make any progress using it. I'd appreciate a push in the right direction.

Edit:
I've managed to prove that it converges for [itex]p > 1[/itex]. Since it obviously diverges for [itex]p=0[/itex], I'm trying to see what happens when [itex]0 < p \leq 1[/itex].

Edit2:
And now I just proved that it diverges for such p. Problem solved. :smile:
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
out of curiosity, how did u proceed? I used a criterion that is very useful when dealing with log series. it says that [itex]\sum a_n[/itex] converges [itex]\Leftrightarrow \sum 2^n a_{2^n}[/itex] converges.

So compare the [itex]2^n[/itex] serie with the riemann p-serie and you get that the original series behaves just like the riemann p-serie, i.e. diverges for [itex]p \leq 1[/itex] and converges for p>1.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
How on Earth does that test work?

take the sum of (-1)^n/log(n), that converges by the alternating series test, yet the 2^n subseries

2^n(-1)^(2^n)/log(2^n) = 2^n/nlog(2)

does not converge.
 
  • #5
Oh yeah, an must be decreasing non-negative.
 
  • #6
I was just about to add "non-increasing".

For the problem here, you can also use the integral test.
 
  • #7
I used the fact that log is increasing so that [itex]\log (k) < \log (k+1)[/itex], and I used the integral test.
 

FAQ: Proving Convergence of $\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{k \, (\log (k+1))^p}$

What is the definition of convergence for an infinite series?

The definition of convergence for an infinite series is that the partial sums of the series approach a finite limit as the number of terms increases.

How do you prove convergence for a series?

To prove convergence for a series, you must show that the limit of the partial sums exists and is finite. This can be done using various convergence tests, such as the ratio test or the comparison test.

What is the general strategy for proving convergence of a series?

The general strategy for proving convergence of a series is to first identify a known convergence test that can be applied to the series. Then, you must show that the conditions of the convergence test are met, which will prove that the series is convergent.

How do you prove convergence of the series $\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{k \, (\log (k+1))^p}$?

To prove convergence of this series, you can use the integral test. First, take the integral of the series, which will give you $\int_{1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{x \, (\log (x+1))^p} \, dx$. Then, use a u-substitution to simplify the integral and determine if it converges or diverges. If the integral converges, then the series also converges.

What is the role of the parameter p in the series $\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{k \, (\log (k+1))^p}$?

The parameter p determines the rate of convergence for the series. If p is larger, the series will converge faster, and if p is smaller, the series will converge slower or may even diverge. This is because the larger p is, the smaller the terms of the series become, making it easier for the partial sums to approach a finite limit.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
891
Replies
5
Views
596
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top