Prove that if $sum u_n$ is convergent, then $sumsqrt[n]n,u_n$ is also convergent [closed]

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












If $sum u_n$ is a convergent series then can it be concluded that
$sumsqrt[n]n,u_n$ is also convergent



I think that by abels theorem since $sqrt[n]n$ is monotone bounded hence the above theorem holds true



Please help from there







share|cite|improve this question














closed as off-topic by flawr, Siong Thye Goh, Nosrati, amWhy, stressed out Aug 12 at 20:41


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Nosrati, amWhy, stressed out
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.












  • Yes it is a consequence of Abel's theorem, but not applied to $n^1/n$ since it is not monotone. You need to skip a finite number of terms from the beginning since what it really is is eventually decreasing and bounded by $1$ from below.
    – user583012
    Aug 11 at 14:47










  • Please also show the index: $nge?$
    – Szeto
    Aug 11 at 15:21






  • 2




    It is more often called an "Abel Test," not Abel's Theorem, which is different.
    – Mark Viola
    Aug 11 at 16:45














up vote
1
down vote

favorite












If $sum u_n$ is a convergent series then can it be concluded that
$sumsqrt[n]n,u_n$ is also convergent



I think that by abels theorem since $sqrt[n]n$ is monotone bounded hence the above theorem holds true



Please help from there







share|cite|improve this question














closed as off-topic by flawr, Siong Thye Goh, Nosrati, amWhy, stressed out Aug 12 at 20:41


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Nosrati, amWhy, stressed out
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.












  • Yes it is a consequence of Abel's theorem, but not applied to $n^1/n$ since it is not monotone. You need to skip a finite number of terms from the beginning since what it really is is eventually decreasing and bounded by $1$ from below.
    – user583012
    Aug 11 at 14:47










  • Please also show the index: $nge?$
    – Szeto
    Aug 11 at 15:21






  • 2




    It is more often called an "Abel Test," not Abel's Theorem, which is different.
    – Mark Viola
    Aug 11 at 16:45












up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











If $sum u_n$ is a convergent series then can it be concluded that
$sumsqrt[n]n,u_n$ is also convergent



I think that by abels theorem since $sqrt[n]n$ is monotone bounded hence the above theorem holds true



Please help from there







share|cite|improve this question














If $sum u_n$ is a convergent series then can it be concluded that
$sumsqrt[n]n,u_n$ is also convergent



I think that by abels theorem since $sqrt[n]n$ is monotone bounded hence the above theorem holds true



Please help from there









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 12 at 7:11









Sil

5,14121443




5,14121443










asked Aug 11 at 14:36









Soham Mukherjee

92




92




closed as off-topic by flawr, Siong Thye Goh, Nosrati, amWhy, stressed out Aug 12 at 20:41


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Nosrati, amWhy, stressed out
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.




closed as off-topic by flawr, Siong Thye Goh, Nosrati, amWhy, stressed out Aug 12 at 20:41


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Nosrati, amWhy, stressed out
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.











  • Yes it is a consequence of Abel's theorem, but not applied to $n^1/n$ since it is not monotone. You need to skip a finite number of terms from the beginning since what it really is is eventually decreasing and bounded by $1$ from below.
    – user583012
    Aug 11 at 14:47










  • Please also show the index: $nge?$
    – Szeto
    Aug 11 at 15:21






  • 2




    It is more often called an "Abel Test," not Abel's Theorem, which is different.
    – Mark Viola
    Aug 11 at 16:45
















  • Yes it is a consequence of Abel's theorem, but not applied to $n^1/n$ since it is not monotone. You need to skip a finite number of terms from the beginning since what it really is is eventually decreasing and bounded by $1$ from below.
    – user583012
    Aug 11 at 14:47










  • Please also show the index: $nge?$
    – Szeto
    Aug 11 at 15:21






  • 2




    It is more often called an "Abel Test," not Abel's Theorem, which is different.
    – Mark Viola
    Aug 11 at 16:45















Yes it is a consequence of Abel's theorem, but not applied to $n^1/n$ since it is not monotone. You need to skip a finite number of terms from the beginning since what it really is is eventually decreasing and bounded by $1$ from below.
– user583012
Aug 11 at 14:47




Yes it is a consequence of Abel's theorem, but not applied to $n^1/n$ since it is not monotone. You need to skip a finite number of terms from the beginning since what it really is is eventually decreasing and bounded by $1$ from below.
– user583012
Aug 11 at 14:47












Please also show the index: $nge?$
– Szeto
Aug 11 at 15:21




Please also show the index: $nge?$
– Szeto
Aug 11 at 15:21




2




2




It is more often called an "Abel Test," not Abel's Theorem, which is different.
– Mark Viola
Aug 11 at 16:45




It is more often called an "Abel Test," not Abel's Theorem, which is different.
– Mark Viola
Aug 11 at 16:45










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote














  • If $u_n geq 0$ for all sufficiently large $n$, yes. And this is easy.



    Proof: without loss of generality, assume $u_n > 0$ for all $n$.
    $
    lim_nto infty sqrt[n]n = 1
    $, so $sqrt[n]nu_n sim_ntoinftyu_n$ and you can conclude by the limit comparison test.



  • If $(u_n)_n$ is allowed arbitrary signs, yes. But this is less obvious (though not horrendous either), and as you suggested follows from Abel/Dirichlet's test.
    (What follows is not the shortest proof, I reckon, but I find it instructive.)
    Note that since $$sqrt[n]n = e^fracln nn = 1+ fracln nn+Oleft(fracln^2 nn^2right)tag1$$
    when $nto infty$, and $lim_ntoinftyu_n = 0$ we have
    $$
    sqrt[n]nu_n = u_n + fracln nnu_n + varepsilon_n tag2.
    $$
    with $varepsilon_n = oleft(fracln^2 nn^2right)$.
    By assumption, $sum_n u_n$ is a convergent series. By comparison with a $p$-series, the series $sum_n varepsilon_n$ is absolutely convergent. So overall, we have that
    $$
    sum_n sqrt[n]nu_n
    $$
    converges if, and only if,
    $$
    sum_n fracln nnu_n
    $$
    does. So it suffices to prove the latter: this is where Dirichlet's test comes in handy: we apply it with $a_n = fraclnn$, $b_n=u_n$, so that (i) $(a_n)_n$ is non-increasing with limit $0$; (ii) the partial sums of $sum_n b_n$ are uniformly bounded (since $sum_n u_n$ is convergent. $square$






share|cite|improve this answer



























    up vote
    -1
    down vote













    $$fraca_n+1a_n=frac(n+1)^frac1n+1 u_n+1(n)^frac1n u_n$$
    $$fraca_n+1a_nlefrac(n+1)^frac1n u_n+1(n)^frac1n u_n $$
    $$fraca_n+1a_nlefrac(fracn+1n)^frac1n u_n+1 u_n $$
    $$fraca_n+1a_nlefrac(1+frac1n)^frac1n u_n+1 u_n $$



    $u_n$ is convergent also $(1+1/n)^1/n$






    share|cite|improve this answer
















    • 1




      The signs of $u_n$ are not known.
      – user583012
      Aug 11 at 14:56






    • 2




      This is not how we do ratio test formally. You missed the absolute value and limit. Also, what if $lim_ntoinfty|u_n+1/u_n|=1$? Then your test shows nothing at all!
      – Szeto
      Aug 11 at 15:12











    • In addition, if you do ratio test correctly, you still get $lim_ntoinfty|a_n+1/a_n|le 1$ which is not sufficient to prove convergence.
      – Szeto
      Aug 11 at 15:14







    • 1




      @upvoter Care to explain your vote?
      – Did
      Aug 12 at 9:11

















    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    2
    down vote














    • If $u_n geq 0$ for all sufficiently large $n$, yes. And this is easy.



      Proof: without loss of generality, assume $u_n > 0$ for all $n$.
      $
      lim_nto infty sqrt[n]n = 1
      $, so $sqrt[n]nu_n sim_ntoinftyu_n$ and you can conclude by the limit comparison test.



    • If $(u_n)_n$ is allowed arbitrary signs, yes. But this is less obvious (though not horrendous either), and as you suggested follows from Abel/Dirichlet's test.
      (What follows is not the shortest proof, I reckon, but I find it instructive.)
      Note that since $$sqrt[n]n = e^fracln nn = 1+ fracln nn+Oleft(fracln^2 nn^2right)tag1$$
      when $nto infty$, and $lim_ntoinftyu_n = 0$ we have
      $$
      sqrt[n]nu_n = u_n + fracln nnu_n + varepsilon_n tag2.
      $$
      with $varepsilon_n = oleft(fracln^2 nn^2right)$.
      By assumption, $sum_n u_n$ is a convergent series. By comparison with a $p$-series, the series $sum_n varepsilon_n$ is absolutely convergent. So overall, we have that
      $$
      sum_n sqrt[n]nu_n
      $$
      converges if, and only if,
      $$
      sum_n fracln nnu_n
      $$
      does. So it suffices to prove the latter: this is where Dirichlet's test comes in handy: we apply it with $a_n = fraclnn$, $b_n=u_n$, so that (i) $(a_n)_n$ is non-increasing with limit $0$; (ii) the partial sums of $sum_n b_n$ are uniformly bounded (since $sum_n u_n$ is convergent. $square$






    share|cite|improve this answer
























      up vote
      2
      down vote














      • If $u_n geq 0$ for all sufficiently large $n$, yes. And this is easy.



        Proof: without loss of generality, assume $u_n > 0$ for all $n$.
        $
        lim_nto infty sqrt[n]n = 1
        $, so $sqrt[n]nu_n sim_ntoinftyu_n$ and you can conclude by the limit comparison test.



      • If $(u_n)_n$ is allowed arbitrary signs, yes. But this is less obvious (though not horrendous either), and as you suggested follows from Abel/Dirichlet's test.
        (What follows is not the shortest proof, I reckon, but I find it instructive.)
        Note that since $$sqrt[n]n = e^fracln nn = 1+ fracln nn+Oleft(fracln^2 nn^2right)tag1$$
        when $nto infty$, and $lim_ntoinftyu_n = 0$ we have
        $$
        sqrt[n]nu_n = u_n + fracln nnu_n + varepsilon_n tag2.
        $$
        with $varepsilon_n = oleft(fracln^2 nn^2right)$.
        By assumption, $sum_n u_n$ is a convergent series. By comparison with a $p$-series, the series $sum_n varepsilon_n$ is absolutely convergent. So overall, we have that
        $$
        sum_n sqrt[n]nu_n
        $$
        converges if, and only if,
        $$
        sum_n fracln nnu_n
        $$
        does. So it suffices to prove the latter: this is where Dirichlet's test comes in handy: we apply it with $a_n = fraclnn$, $b_n=u_n$, so that (i) $(a_n)_n$ is non-increasing with limit $0$; (ii) the partial sums of $sum_n b_n$ are uniformly bounded (since $sum_n u_n$ is convergent. $square$






      share|cite|improve this answer






















        up vote
        2
        down vote










        up vote
        2
        down vote










        • If $u_n geq 0$ for all sufficiently large $n$, yes. And this is easy.



          Proof: without loss of generality, assume $u_n > 0$ for all $n$.
          $
          lim_nto infty sqrt[n]n = 1
          $, so $sqrt[n]nu_n sim_ntoinftyu_n$ and you can conclude by the limit comparison test.



        • If $(u_n)_n$ is allowed arbitrary signs, yes. But this is less obvious (though not horrendous either), and as you suggested follows from Abel/Dirichlet's test.
          (What follows is not the shortest proof, I reckon, but I find it instructive.)
          Note that since $$sqrt[n]n = e^fracln nn = 1+ fracln nn+Oleft(fracln^2 nn^2right)tag1$$
          when $nto infty$, and $lim_ntoinftyu_n = 0$ we have
          $$
          sqrt[n]nu_n = u_n + fracln nnu_n + varepsilon_n tag2.
          $$
          with $varepsilon_n = oleft(fracln^2 nn^2right)$.
          By assumption, $sum_n u_n$ is a convergent series. By comparison with a $p$-series, the series $sum_n varepsilon_n$ is absolutely convergent. So overall, we have that
          $$
          sum_n sqrt[n]nu_n
          $$
          converges if, and only if,
          $$
          sum_n fracln nnu_n
          $$
          does. So it suffices to prove the latter: this is where Dirichlet's test comes in handy: we apply it with $a_n = fraclnn$, $b_n=u_n$, so that (i) $(a_n)_n$ is non-increasing with limit $0$; (ii) the partial sums of $sum_n b_n$ are uniformly bounded (since $sum_n u_n$ is convergent. $square$






        share|cite|improve this answer













        • If $u_n geq 0$ for all sufficiently large $n$, yes. And this is easy.



          Proof: without loss of generality, assume $u_n > 0$ for all $n$.
          $
          lim_nto infty sqrt[n]n = 1
          $, so $sqrt[n]nu_n sim_ntoinftyu_n$ and you can conclude by the limit comparison test.



        • If $(u_n)_n$ is allowed arbitrary signs, yes. But this is less obvious (though not horrendous either), and as you suggested follows from Abel/Dirichlet's test.
          (What follows is not the shortest proof, I reckon, but I find it instructive.)
          Note that since $$sqrt[n]n = e^fracln nn = 1+ fracln nn+Oleft(fracln^2 nn^2right)tag1$$
          when $nto infty$, and $lim_ntoinftyu_n = 0$ we have
          $$
          sqrt[n]nu_n = u_n + fracln nnu_n + varepsilon_n tag2.
          $$
          with $varepsilon_n = oleft(fracln^2 nn^2right)$.
          By assumption, $sum_n u_n$ is a convergent series. By comparison with a $p$-series, the series $sum_n varepsilon_n$ is absolutely convergent. So overall, we have that
          $$
          sum_n sqrt[n]nu_n
          $$
          converges if, and only if,
          $$
          sum_n fracln nnu_n
          $$
          does. So it suffices to prove the latter: this is where Dirichlet's test comes in handy: we apply it with $a_n = fraclnn$, $b_n=u_n$, so that (i) $(a_n)_n$ is non-increasing with limit $0$; (ii) the partial sums of $sum_n b_n$ are uniformly bounded (since $sum_n u_n$ is convergent. $square$







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Aug 11 at 16:55









        Clement C.

        47.2k33682




        47.2k33682




















            up vote
            -1
            down vote













            $$fraca_n+1a_n=frac(n+1)^frac1n+1 u_n+1(n)^frac1n u_n$$
            $$fraca_n+1a_nlefrac(n+1)^frac1n u_n+1(n)^frac1n u_n $$
            $$fraca_n+1a_nlefrac(fracn+1n)^frac1n u_n+1 u_n $$
            $$fraca_n+1a_nlefrac(1+frac1n)^frac1n u_n+1 u_n $$



            $u_n$ is convergent also $(1+1/n)^1/n$






            share|cite|improve this answer
















            • 1




              The signs of $u_n$ are not known.
              – user583012
              Aug 11 at 14:56






            • 2




              This is not how we do ratio test formally. You missed the absolute value and limit. Also, what if $lim_ntoinfty|u_n+1/u_n|=1$? Then your test shows nothing at all!
              – Szeto
              Aug 11 at 15:12











            • In addition, if you do ratio test correctly, you still get $lim_ntoinfty|a_n+1/a_n|le 1$ which is not sufficient to prove convergence.
              – Szeto
              Aug 11 at 15:14







            • 1




              @upvoter Care to explain your vote?
              – Did
              Aug 12 at 9:11














            up vote
            -1
            down vote













            $$fraca_n+1a_n=frac(n+1)^frac1n+1 u_n+1(n)^frac1n u_n$$
            $$fraca_n+1a_nlefrac(n+1)^frac1n u_n+1(n)^frac1n u_n $$
            $$fraca_n+1a_nlefrac(fracn+1n)^frac1n u_n+1 u_n $$
            $$fraca_n+1a_nlefrac(1+frac1n)^frac1n u_n+1 u_n $$



            $u_n$ is convergent also $(1+1/n)^1/n$






            share|cite|improve this answer
















            • 1




              The signs of $u_n$ are not known.
              – user583012
              Aug 11 at 14:56






            • 2




              This is not how we do ratio test formally. You missed the absolute value and limit. Also, what if $lim_ntoinfty|u_n+1/u_n|=1$? Then your test shows nothing at all!
              – Szeto
              Aug 11 at 15:12











            • In addition, if you do ratio test correctly, you still get $lim_ntoinfty|a_n+1/a_n|le 1$ which is not sufficient to prove convergence.
              – Szeto
              Aug 11 at 15:14







            • 1




              @upvoter Care to explain your vote?
              – Did
              Aug 12 at 9:11












            up vote
            -1
            down vote










            up vote
            -1
            down vote









            $$fraca_n+1a_n=frac(n+1)^frac1n+1 u_n+1(n)^frac1n u_n$$
            $$fraca_n+1a_nlefrac(n+1)^frac1n u_n+1(n)^frac1n u_n $$
            $$fraca_n+1a_nlefrac(fracn+1n)^frac1n u_n+1 u_n $$
            $$fraca_n+1a_nlefrac(1+frac1n)^frac1n u_n+1 u_n $$



            $u_n$ is convergent also $(1+1/n)^1/n$






            share|cite|improve this answer












            $$fraca_n+1a_n=frac(n+1)^frac1n+1 u_n+1(n)^frac1n u_n$$
            $$fraca_n+1a_nlefrac(n+1)^frac1n u_n+1(n)^frac1n u_n $$
            $$fraca_n+1a_nlefrac(fracn+1n)^frac1n u_n+1 u_n $$
            $$fraca_n+1a_nlefrac(1+frac1n)^frac1n u_n+1 u_n $$



            $u_n$ is convergent also $(1+1/n)^1/n$







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Aug 11 at 14:51









            James

            1,803419




            1,803419







            • 1




              The signs of $u_n$ are not known.
              – user583012
              Aug 11 at 14:56






            • 2




              This is not how we do ratio test formally. You missed the absolute value and limit. Also, what if $lim_ntoinfty|u_n+1/u_n|=1$? Then your test shows nothing at all!
              – Szeto
              Aug 11 at 15:12











            • In addition, if you do ratio test correctly, you still get $lim_ntoinfty|a_n+1/a_n|le 1$ which is not sufficient to prove convergence.
              – Szeto
              Aug 11 at 15:14







            • 1




              @upvoter Care to explain your vote?
              – Did
              Aug 12 at 9:11












            • 1




              The signs of $u_n$ are not known.
              – user583012
              Aug 11 at 14:56






            • 2




              This is not how we do ratio test formally. You missed the absolute value and limit. Also, what if $lim_ntoinfty|u_n+1/u_n|=1$? Then your test shows nothing at all!
              – Szeto
              Aug 11 at 15:12











            • In addition, if you do ratio test correctly, you still get $lim_ntoinfty|a_n+1/a_n|le 1$ which is not sufficient to prove convergence.
              – Szeto
              Aug 11 at 15:14







            • 1




              @upvoter Care to explain your vote?
              – Did
              Aug 12 at 9:11







            1




            1




            The signs of $u_n$ are not known.
            – user583012
            Aug 11 at 14:56




            The signs of $u_n$ are not known.
            – user583012
            Aug 11 at 14:56




            2




            2




            This is not how we do ratio test formally. You missed the absolute value and limit. Also, what if $lim_ntoinfty|u_n+1/u_n|=1$? Then your test shows nothing at all!
            – Szeto
            Aug 11 at 15:12





            This is not how we do ratio test formally. You missed the absolute value and limit. Also, what if $lim_ntoinfty|u_n+1/u_n|=1$? Then your test shows nothing at all!
            – Szeto
            Aug 11 at 15:12













            In addition, if you do ratio test correctly, you still get $lim_ntoinfty|a_n+1/a_n|le 1$ which is not sufficient to prove convergence.
            – Szeto
            Aug 11 at 15:14





            In addition, if you do ratio test correctly, you still get $lim_ntoinfty|a_n+1/a_n|le 1$ which is not sufficient to prove convergence.
            – Szeto
            Aug 11 at 15:14





            1




            1




            @upvoter Care to explain your vote?
            – Did
            Aug 12 at 9:11




            @upvoter Care to explain your vote?
            – Did
            Aug 12 at 9:11


            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

            Carbon dioxide

            Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?