Can we prove that $lim_ntoinfty frac1^n_0+2^n_0+cdots+n^n_0n^n_0+1$ is finite for any $n_0inBbb N$ without a direct computation?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Can we prove without direct calculation that this limit is finite for any natural number $n_0 in mathbbN$?
$$ lim_n to infty frac1^n_0+2^n_0+cdots+n^n_0n^n_0+1 $$
calculus real-analysis summation alternative-proof natural-numbers
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Can we prove without direct calculation that this limit is finite for any natural number $n_0 in mathbbN$?
$$ lim_n to infty frac1^n_0+2^n_0+cdots+n^n_0n^n_0+1 $$
calculus real-analysis summation alternative-proof natural-numbers
Of course, without direct calculation of the sum
â Vladislav Kharlamov
Aug 13 at 17:56
What's your thought?
â xbh
Aug 13 at 17:57
I assume your denominator was typed wrong, it should be $n^n_0+1$, I think.
â xbh
Aug 13 at 17:58
I changed the condition a little, now it's kind of true
â Vladislav Kharlamov
Aug 13 at 17:58
2
The numerator do not exceed $n times n^n_0$.
â xbh
Aug 13 at 18:00
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Can we prove without direct calculation that this limit is finite for any natural number $n_0 in mathbbN$?
$$ lim_n to infty frac1^n_0+2^n_0+cdots+n^n_0n^n_0+1 $$
calculus real-analysis summation alternative-proof natural-numbers
Can we prove without direct calculation that this limit is finite for any natural number $n_0 in mathbbN$?
$$ lim_n to infty frac1^n_0+2^n_0+cdots+n^n_0n^n_0+1 $$
calculus real-analysis summation alternative-proof natural-numbers
calculus real-analysis summation alternative-proof natural-numbers
edited Aug 13 at 21:58
Asaf Karagilaâ¦
294k32410738
294k32410738
asked Aug 13 at 17:54
Vladislav Kharlamov
587216
587216
Of course, without direct calculation of the sum
â Vladislav Kharlamov
Aug 13 at 17:56
What's your thought?
â xbh
Aug 13 at 17:57
I assume your denominator was typed wrong, it should be $n^n_0+1$, I think.
â xbh
Aug 13 at 17:58
I changed the condition a little, now it's kind of true
â Vladislav Kharlamov
Aug 13 at 17:58
2
The numerator do not exceed $n times n^n_0$.
â xbh
Aug 13 at 18:00
 |Â
show 2 more comments
Of course, without direct calculation of the sum
â Vladislav Kharlamov
Aug 13 at 17:56
What's your thought?
â xbh
Aug 13 at 17:57
I assume your denominator was typed wrong, it should be $n^n_0+1$, I think.
â xbh
Aug 13 at 17:58
I changed the condition a little, now it's kind of true
â Vladislav Kharlamov
Aug 13 at 17:58
2
The numerator do not exceed $n times n^n_0$.
â xbh
Aug 13 at 18:00
Of course, without direct calculation of the sum
â Vladislav Kharlamov
Aug 13 at 17:56
Of course, without direct calculation of the sum
â Vladislav Kharlamov
Aug 13 at 17:56
What's your thought?
â xbh
Aug 13 at 17:57
What's your thought?
â xbh
Aug 13 at 17:57
I assume your denominator was typed wrong, it should be $n^n_0+1$, I think.
â xbh
Aug 13 at 17:58
I assume your denominator was typed wrong, it should be $n^n_0+1$, I think.
â xbh
Aug 13 at 17:58
I changed the condition a little, now it's kind of true
â Vladislav Kharlamov
Aug 13 at 17:58
I changed the condition a little, now it's kind of true
â Vladislav Kharlamov
Aug 13 at 17:58
2
2
The numerator do not exceed $n times n^n_0$.
â xbh
Aug 13 at 18:00
The numerator do not exceed $n times n^n_0$.
â xbh
Aug 13 at 18:00
 |Â
show 2 more comments
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
The numerator can be expressed as a polynomial $P(n)$ of degree $n_0+1$, because $P(n)-P(n-1)=n^n_0$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0$.
So the limit of $$dfracP(n)n^n_0+1$$ is finite.
By the Faulhaber's formulas, the limit is $dfrac1n_0+1$.
I do not really understand your answer, would you clarify? Why can it be expressed through a polynomial of degree higher
â Vladislav Kharlamov
Aug 13 at 18:04
Why does such a polynomial exist? I don't know how to show there is such a $P$ with $P(n) - P(n-1) = n^n_0$ without explicitly constructing it.
â Jair Taylor
Aug 13 at 18:05
@VladislavKharlamov: if $P(n)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0+1$ then $P(n)-P(n-1)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0$ and conversely.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 13 at 18:31
@JairTaylor: expand $P(n)-P(n-1)$ where the coefficients are indeterminate; then identify to some $Q(n)$ and solve for the coefficients. The system is triangular.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 13 at 18:35
Could you justify the assertion (be that by proof, link, etc.) that, for $f:mathbbN to mathbbN$, if $f(x+1) - f(x)$ is a polynomial for each $x in mathbbN$, then $f$ is a polynomial? Your entire answer hinges on this fact and its validity is not at all apparent to me nor it appears several others.
â Alex W
Aug 13 at 22:00
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
For positive integer $kleq n$ we have $$int_k-1^kx^n_0dx<k^n_0<int_k^k+1x^n_0dx.$$ Now add from $k=1$ to $k=n.$
Best answer ... I would have posted it if I got here first. In fact, this method will yield the exact value $1/(n_0+1)$ for the limit in question.
â GEdgar
Aug 13 at 20:37
To the proposer: Comparison to an integral is a widely-used tool to obtain estimates or to prove convergence of a series.
â DanielWainfleet
Aug 14 at 2:05
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
I'll use $p$ instead of $n_0$. The number you're interested in is:
$$
L_p=lim_ntoinftyfrac1^p+2^p+cdots+n^pn^p+1
$$
Alternatively, by factoring out $1/n$, we may write:
$$
L_p=lim_ntoinftyfrac 1nsum_k=1^nleft(frac knright)^p
$$
The term in the limit is an average of $n$ values all of which are in $[0,1]$, provided $p>0$. The limit function itself then must be bounded to this interval.
This does not show that the limit exists, but provided it does, it must be in the unit interval.
1
This also shows that $L_p=int_0^1 x^p,dx$ since the sum can be interpreted as a Riemann sum for integration. This corresponds to Yves' answer.
â Clayton
Aug 13 at 18:13
Indeed. That would suffice to show that the sum converges, but it would require the additional baggage of Riemann integrability.
â Kajelad
Aug 13 at 18:14
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Here's a completely elementary proof
that just uses
Bernoulli's inequality.
$beginarray\
(x+1)^m-x^m
&=x^m((1+1/x)^m-1)\
&ge x^m(1+m/x-1)
qquadtextby Bernoulli\
&=mx^m-1\
endarray
$
Therefore
$sum_k=0^n-1 k^m-1
le sum_k=0^n-1frac1m((k+1)^m-k^m)
=frac1mn^m
$
so,
for $m ge 2$,
$sum_k=1^n k^m-1
le n^m-1+frac1mn^m
$
or
$frac1n^msum_k=1^n k^m-1
le frac1n^m(n^m-1+frac1mn^m)
=frac1n+frac1m
$
which is bounded.
You have to work a little harder
to show that
$frac1m$
is the actual limit.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Alternative method: CesÃÂ ro-stolz theorem [if you've learned].
@VladislavKharlamov Then you can see other answers. Although the one above seems need a bit calculation of the first coefficient of the polynomial, which may not be simpler too much.
â xbh
Aug 13 at 18:05
It's Cesaro-Stolz (at least that's the name by which is popular).
â Paramanand Singh
Aug 14 at 4:27
@ParamanandSingh Thanks! I forgot this since in my text we only say "O. Stolz" formula. I might stick to my original terminologies.
â xbh
Aug 14 at 6:54
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
As in Falling and rising factorials, define (using $p$ instead of $n_0$, as in a previous answer):
beginalign*
(k)_p & = k(k - 1)cdots(k - p + 1), \
k^(p) & = k(k + 1)cdots(k + p - 1).
endalign*
Then:
beginalign*
(k + 1)_p + 1 - k_p + 1 & = (p + 1)(k)_p, \
k^(p + 1) - (k - 1)^(p + 1) & = (p + 1)k^(p).
endalign*
For every positive integer $k$,
$$
(k)_p leqslant k^p leqslant k^(p).
$$
Hence, for every positive integer $n$,
$$
frac(n + 1)_p + 1p + 1 leqslant sum_k=1^n k^p leqslant fracn^(p + 1)p + 1.
$$
But
$$
frac(n + 1)_p + 1n^p + 1 to 1 text as n to infty, text and
fracn^(p + 1)n^p + 1 to 1 text as n to infty,
$$
therefore
$$
fracsum_k=1^n k^pn^p + 1 to frac1p + 1 text as n to infty.
$$
add a comment |Â
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
The numerator can be expressed as a polynomial $P(n)$ of degree $n_0+1$, because $P(n)-P(n-1)=n^n_0$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0$.
So the limit of $$dfracP(n)n^n_0+1$$ is finite.
By the Faulhaber's formulas, the limit is $dfrac1n_0+1$.
I do not really understand your answer, would you clarify? Why can it be expressed through a polynomial of degree higher
â Vladislav Kharlamov
Aug 13 at 18:04
Why does such a polynomial exist? I don't know how to show there is such a $P$ with $P(n) - P(n-1) = n^n_0$ without explicitly constructing it.
â Jair Taylor
Aug 13 at 18:05
@VladislavKharlamov: if $P(n)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0+1$ then $P(n)-P(n-1)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0$ and conversely.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 13 at 18:31
@JairTaylor: expand $P(n)-P(n-1)$ where the coefficients are indeterminate; then identify to some $Q(n)$ and solve for the coefficients. The system is triangular.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 13 at 18:35
Could you justify the assertion (be that by proof, link, etc.) that, for $f:mathbbN to mathbbN$, if $f(x+1) - f(x)$ is a polynomial for each $x in mathbbN$, then $f$ is a polynomial? Your entire answer hinges on this fact and its validity is not at all apparent to me nor it appears several others.
â Alex W
Aug 13 at 22:00
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
The numerator can be expressed as a polynomial $P(n)$ of degree $n_0+1$, because $P(n)-P(n-1)=n^n_0$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0$.
So the limit of $$dfracP(n)n^n_0+1$$ is finite.
By the Faulhaber's formulas, the limit is $dfrac1n_0+1$.
I do not really understand your answer, would you clarify? Why can it be expressed through a polynomial of degree higher
â Vladislav Kharlamov
Aug 13 at 18:04
Why does such a polynomial exist? I don't know how to show there is such a $P$ with $P(n) - P(n-1) = n^n_0$ without explicitly constructing it.
â Jair Taylor
Aug 13 at 18:05
@VladislavKharlamov: if $P(n)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0+1$ then $P(n)-P(n-1)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0$ and conversely.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 13 at 18:31
@JairTaylor: expand $P(n)-P(n-1)$ where the coefficients are indeterminate; then identify to some $Q(n)$ and solve for the coefficients. The system is triangular.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 13 at 18:35
Could you justify the assertion (be that by proof, link, etc.) that, for $f:mathbbN to mathbbN$, if $f(x+1) - f(x)$ is a polynomial for each $x in mathbbN$, then $f$ is a polynomial? Your entire answer hinges on this fact and its validity is not at all apparent to me nor it appears several others.
â Alex W
Aug 13 at 22:00
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
The numerator can be expressed as a polynomial $P(n)$ of degree $n_0+1$, because $P(n)-P(n-1)=n^n_0$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0$.
So the limit of $$dfracP(n)n^n_0+1$$ is finite.
By the Faulhaber's formulas, the limit is $dfrac1n_0+1$.
The numerator can be expressed as a polynomial $P(n)$ of degree $n_0+1$, because $P(n)-P(n-1)=n^n_0$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0$.
So the limit of $$dfracP(n)n^n_0+1$$ is finite.
By the Faulhaber's formulas, the limit is $dfrac1n_0+1$.
answered Aug 13 at 18:00
Yves Daoust
114k666209
114k666209
I do not really understand your answer, would you clarify? Why can it be expressed through a polynomial of degree higher
â Vladislav Kharlamov
Aug 13 at 18:04
Why does such a polynomial exist? I don't know how to show there is such a $P$ with $P(n) - P(n-1) = n^n_0$ without explicitly constructing it.
â Jair Taylor
Aug 13 at 18:05
@VladislavKharlamov: if $P(n)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0+1$ then $P(n)-P(n-1)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0$ and conversely.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 13 at 18:31
@JairTaylor: expand $P(n)-P(n-1)$ where the coefficients are indeterminate; then identify to some $Q(n)$ and solve for the coefficients. The system is triangular.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 13 at 18:35
Could you justify the assertion (be that by proof, link, etc.) that, for $f:mathbbN to mathbbN$, if $f(x+1) - f(x)$ is a polynomial for each $x in mathbbN$, then $f$ is a polynomial? Your entire answer hinges on this fact and its validity is not at all apparent to me nor it appears several others.
â Alex W
Aug 13 at 22:00
 |Â
show 3 more comments
I do not really understand your answer, would you clarify? Why can it be expressed through a polynomial of degree higher
â Vladislav Kharlamov
Aug 13 at 18:04
Why does such a polynomial exist? I don't know how to show there is such a $P$ with $P(n) - P(n-1) = n^n_0$ without explicitly constructing it.
â Jair Taylor
Aug 13 at 18:05
@VladislavKharlamov: if $P(n)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0+1$ then $P(n)-P(n-1)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0$ and conversely.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 13 at 18:31
@JairTaylor: expand $P(n)-P(n-1)$ where the coefficients are indeterminate; then identify to some $Q(n)$ and solve for the coefficients. The system is triangular.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 13 at 18:35
Could you justify the assertion (be that by proof, link, etc.) that, for $f:mathbbN to mathbbN$, if $f(x+1) - f(x)$ is a polynomial for each $x in mathbbN$, then $f$ is a polynomial? Your entire answer hinges on this fact and its validity is not at all apparent to me nor it appears several others.
â Alex W
Aug 13 at 22:00
I do not really understand your answer, would you clarify? Why can it be expressed through a polynomial of degree higher
â Vladislav Kharlamov
Aug 13 at 18:04
I do not really understand your answer, would you clarify? Why can it be expressed through a polynomial of degree higher
â Vladislav Kharlamov
Aug 13 at 18:04
Why does such a polynomial exist? I don't know how to show there is such a $P$ with $P(n) - P(n-1) = n^n_0$ without explicitly constructing it.
â Jair Taylor
Aug 13 at 18:05
Why does such a polynomial exist? I don't know how to show there is such a $P$ with $P(n) - P(n-1) = n^n_0$ without explicitly constructing it.
â Jair Taylor
Aug 13 at 18:05
@VladislavKharlamov: if $P(n)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0+1$ then $P(n)-P(n-1)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0$ and conversely.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 13 at 18:31
@VladislavKharlamov: if $P(n)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0+1$ then $P(n)-P(n-1)$ is a polynomial of degree $n_0$ and conversely.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 13 at 18:31
@JairTaylor: expand $P(n)-P(n-1)$ where the coefficients are indeterminate; then identify to some $Q(n)$ and solve for the coefficients. The system is triangular.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 13 at 18:35
@JairTaylor: expand $P(n)-P(n-1)$ where the coefficients are indeterminate; then identify to some $Q(n)$ and solve for the coefficients. The system is triangular.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 13 at 18:35
Could you justify the assertion (be that by proof, link, etc.) that, for $f:mathbbN to mathbbN$, if $f(x+1) - f(x)$ is a polynomial for each $x in mathbbN$, then $f$ is a polynomial? Your entire answer hinges on this fact and its validity is not at all apparent to me nor it appears several others.
â Alex W
Aug 13 at 22:00
Could you justify the assertion (be that by proof, link, etc.) that, for $f:mathbbN to mathbbN$, if $f(x+1) - f(x)$ is a polynomial for each $x in mathbbN$, then $f$ is a polynomial? Your entire answer hinges on this fact and its validity is not at all apparent to me nor it appears several others.
â Alex W
Aug 13 at 22:00
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
For positive integer $kleq n$ we have $$int_k-1^kx^n_0dx<k^n_0<int_k^k+1x^n_0dx.$$ Now add from $k=1$ to $k=n.$
Best answer ... I would have posted it if I got here first. In fact, this method will yield the exact value $1/(n_0+1)$ for the limit in question.
â GEdgar
Aug 13 at 20:37
To the proposer: Comparison to an integral is a widely-used tool to obtain estimates or to prove convergence of a series.
â DanielWainfleet
Aug 14 at 2:05
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
For positive integer $kleq n$ we have $$int_k-1^kx^n_0dx<k^n_0<int_k^k+1x^n_0dx.$$ Now add from $k=1$ to $k=n.$
Best answer ... I would have posted it if I got here first. In fact, this method will yield the exact value $1/(n_0+1)$ for the limit in question.
â GEdgar
Aug 13 at 20:37
To the proposer: Comparison to an integral is a widely-used tool to obtain estimates or to prove convergence of a series.
â DanielWainfleet
Aug 14 at 2:05
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
For positive integer $kleq n$ we have $$int_k-1^kx^n_0dx<k^n_0<int_k^k+1x^n_0dx.$$ Now add from $k=1$ to $k=n.$
For positive integer $kleq n$ we have $$int_k-1^kx^n_0dx<k^n_0<int_k^k+1x^n_0dx.$$ Now add from $k=1$ to $k=n.$
answered Aug 13 at 20:14
DanielWainfleet
32.2k31644
32.2k31644
Best answer ... I would have posted it if I got here first. In fact, this method will yield the exact value $1/(n_0+1)$ for the limit in question.
â GEdgar
Aug 13 at 20:37
To the proposer: Comparison to an integral is a widely-used tool to obtain estimates or to prove convergence of a series.
â DanielWainfleet
Aug 14 at 2:05
add a comment |Â
Best answer ... I would have posted it if I got here first. In fact, this method will yield the exact value $1/(n_0+1)$ for the limit in question.
â GEdgar
Aug 13 at 20:37
To the proposer: Comparison to an integral is a widely-used tool to obtain estimates or to prove convergence of a series.
â DanielWainfleet
Aug 14 at 2:05
Best answer ... I would have posted it if I got here first. In fact, this method will yield the exact value $1/(n_0+1)$ for the limit in question.
â GEdgar
Aug 13 at 20:37
Best answer ... I would have posted it if I got here first. In fact, this method will yield the exact value $1/(n_0+1)$ for the limit in question.
â GEdgar
Aug 13 at 20:37
To the proposer: Comparison to an integral is a widely-used tool to obtain estimates or to prove convergence of a series.
â DanielWainfleet
Aug 14 at 2:05
To the proposer: Comparison to an integral is a widely-used tool to obtain estimates or to prove convergence of a series.
â DanielWainfleet
Aug 14 at 2:05
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
I'll use $p$ instead of $n_0$. The number you're interested in is:
$$
L_p=lim_ntoinftyfrac1^p+2^p+cdots+n^pn^p+1
$$
Alternatively, by factoring out $1/n$, we may write:
$$
L_p=lim_ntoinftyfrac 1nsum_k=1^nleft(frac knright)^p
$$
The term in the limit is an average of $n$ values all of which are in $[0,1]$, provided $p>0$. The limit function itself then must be bounded to this interval.
This does not show that the limit exists, but provided it does, it must be in the unit interval.
1
This also shows that $L_p=int_0^1 x^p,dx$ since the sum can be interpreted as a Riemann sum for integration. This corresponds to Yves' answer.
â Clayton
Aug 13 at 18:13
Indeed. That would suffice to show that the sum converges, but it would require the additional baggage of Riemann integrability.
â Kajelad
Aug 13 at 18:14
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
I'll use $p$ instead of $n_0$. The number you're interested in is:
$$
L_p=lim_ntoinftyfrac1^p+2^p+cdots+n^pn^p+1
$$
Alternatively, by factoring out $1/n$, we may write:
$$
L_p=lim_ntoinftyfrac 1nsum_k=1^nleft(frac knright)^p
$$
The term in the limit is an average of $n$ values all of which are in $[0,1]$, provided $p>0$. The limit function itself then must be bounded to this interval.
This does not show that the limit exists, but provided it does, it must be in the unit interval.
1
This also shows that $L_p=int_0^1 x^p,dx$ since the sum can be interpreted as a Riemann sum for integration. This corresponds to Yves' answer.
â Clayton
Aug 13 at 18:13
Indeed. That would suffice to show that the sum converges, but it would require the additional baggage of Riemann integrability.
â Kajelad
Aug 13 at 18:14
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
I'll use $p$ instead of $n_0$. The number you're interested in is:
$$
L_p=lim_ntoinftyfrac1^p+2^p+cdots+n^pn^p+1
$$
Alternatively, by factoring out $1/n$, we may write:
$$
L_p=lim_ntoinftyfrac 1nsum_k=1^nleft(frac knright)^p
$$
The term in the limit is an average of $n$ values all of which are in $[0,1]$, provided $p>0$. The limit function itself then must be bounded to this interval.
This does not show that the limit exists, but provided it does, it must be in the unit interval.
I'll use $p$ instead of $n_0$. The number you're interested in is:
$$
L_p=lim_ntoinftyfrac1^p+2^p+cdots+n^pn^p+1
$$
Alternatively, by factoring out $1/n$, we may write:
$$
L_p=lim_ntoinftyfrac 1nsum_k=1^nleft(frac knright)^p
$$
The term in the limit is an average of $n$ values all of which are in $[0,1]$, provided $p>0$. The limit function itself then must be bounded to this interval.
This does not show that the limit exists, but provided it does, it must be in the unit interval.
edited Aug 13 at 18:44
Michael Hardy
206k23187466
206k23187466
answered Aug 13 at 18:10
Kajelad
1,916619
1,916619
1
This also shows that $L_p=int_0^1 x^p,dx$ since the sum can be interpreted as a Riemann sum for integration. This corresponds to Yves' answer.
â Clayton
Aug 13 at 18:13
Indeed. That would suffice to show that the sum converges, but it would require the additional baggage of Riemann integrability.
â Kajelad
Aug 13 at 18:14
add a comment |Â
1
This also shows that $L_p=int_0^1 x^p,dx$ since the sum can be interpreted as a Riemann sum for integration. This corresponds to Yves' answer.
â Clayton
Aug 13 at 18:13
Indeed. That would suffice to show that the sum converges, but it would require the additional baggage of Riemann integrability.
â Kajelad
Aug 13 at 18:14
1
1
This also shows that $L_p=int_0^1 x^p,dx$ since the sum can be interpreted as a Riemann sum for integration. This corresponds to Yves' answer.
â Clayton
Aug 13 at 18:13
This also shows that $L_p=int_0^1 x^p,dx$ since the sum can be interpreted as a Riemann sum for integration. This corresponds to Yves' answer.
â Clayton
Aug 13 at 18:13
Indeed. That would suffice to show that the sum converges, but it would require the additional baggage of Riemann integrability.
â Kajelad
Aug 13 at 18:14
Indeed. That would suffice to show that the sum converges, but it would require the additional baggage of Riemann integrability.
â Kajelad
Aug 13 at 18:14
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Here's a completely elementary proof
that just uses
Bernoulli's inequality.
$beginarray\
(x+1)^m-x^m
&=x^m((1+1/x)^m-1)\
&ge x^m(1+m/x-1)
qquadtextby Bernoulli\
&=mx^m-1\
endarray
$
Therefore
$sum_k=0^n-1 k^m-1
le sum_k=0^n-1frac1m((k+1)^m-k^m)
=frac1mn^m
$
so,
for $m ge 2$,
$sum_k=1^n k^m-1
le n^m-1+frac1mn^m
$
or
$frac1n^msum_k=1^n k^m-1
le frac1n^m(n^m-1+frac1mn^m)
=frac1n+frac1m
$
which is bounded.
You have to work a little harder
to show that
$frac1m$
is the actual limit.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Here's a completely elementary proof
that just uses
Bernoulli's inequality.
$beginarray\
(x+1)^m-x^m
&=x^m((1+1/x)^m-1)\
&ge x^m(1+m/x-1)
qquadtextby Bernoulli\
&=mx^m-1\
endarray
$
Therefore
$sum_k=0^n-1 k^m-1
le sum_k=0^n-1frac1m((k+1)^m-k^m)
=frac1mn^m
$
so,
for $m ge 2$,
$sum_k=1^n k^m-1
le n^m-1+frac1mn^m
$
or
$frac1n^msum_k=1^n k^m-1
le frac1n^m(n^m-1+frac1mn^m)
=frac1n+frac1m
$
which is bounded.
You have to work a little harder
to show that
$frac1m$
is the actual limit.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Here's a completely elementary proof
that just uses
Bernoulli's inequality.
$beginarray\
(x+1)^m-x^m
&=x^m((1+1/x)^m-1)\
&ge x^m(1+m/x-1)
qquadtextby Bernoulli\
&=mx^m-1\
endarray
$
Therefore
$sum_k=0^n-1 k^m-1
le sum_k=0^n-1frac1m((k+1)^m-k^m)
=frac1mn^m
$
so,
for $m ge 2$,
$sum_k=1^n k^m-1
le n^m-1+frac1mn^m
$
or
$frac1n^msum_k=1^n k^m-1
le frac1n^m(n^m-1+frac1mn^m)
=frac1n+frac1m
$
which is bounded.
You have to work a little harder
to show that
$frac1m$
is the actual limit.
Here's a completely elementary proof
that just uses
Bernoulli's inequality.
$beginarray\
(x+1)^m-x^m
&=x^m((1+1/x)^m-1)\
&ge x^m(1+m/x-1)
qquadtextby Bernoulli\
&=mx^m-1\
endarray
$
Therefore
$sum_k=0^n-1 k^m-1
le sum_k=0^n-1frac1m((k+1)^m-k^m)
=frac1mn^m
$
so,
for $m ge 2$,
$sum_k=1^n k^m-1
le n^m-1+frac1mn^m
$
or
$frac1n^msum_k=1^n k^m-1
le frac1n^m(n^m-1+frac1mn^m)
=frac1n+frac1m
$
which is bounded.
You have to work a little harder
to show that
$frac1m$
is the actual limit.
answered Aug 13 at 22:47
marty cohen
70k446122
70k446122
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Alternative method: CesÃÂ ro-stolz theorem [if you've learned].
@VladislavKharlamov Then you can see other answers. Although the one above seems need a bit calculation of the first coefficient of the polynomial, which may not be simpler too much.
â xbh
Aug 13 at 18:05
It's Cesaro-Stolz (at least that's the name by which is popular).
â Paramanand Singh
Aug 14 at 4:27
@ParamanandSingh Thanks! I forgot this since in my text we only say "O. Stolz" formula. I might stick to my original terminologies.
â xbh
Aug 14 at 6:54
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Alternative method: CesÃÂ ro-stolz theorem [if you've learned].
@VladislavKharlamov Then you can see other answers. Although the one above seems need a bit calculation of the first coefficient of the polynomial, which may not be simpler too much.
â xbh
Aug 13 at 18:05
It's Cesaro-Stolz (at least that's the name by which is popular).
â Paramanand Singh
Aug 14 at 4:27
@ParamanandSingh Thanks! I forgot this since in my text we only say "O. Stolz" formula. I might stick to my original terminologies.
â xbh
Aug 14 at 6:54
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Alternative method: CesÃÂ ro-stolz theorem [if you've learned].
Alternative method: CesÃÂ ro-stolz theorem [if you've learned].
edited Aug 14 at 6:54
answered Aug 13 at 18:01
xbh
3,545320
3,545320
@VladislavKharlamov Then you can see other answers. Although the one above seems need a bit calculation of the first coefficient of the polynomial, which may not be simpler too much.
â xbh
Aug 13 at 18:05
It's Cesaro-Stolz (at least that's the name by which is popular).
â Paramanand Singh
Aug 14 at 4:27
@ParamanandSingh Thanks! I forgot this since in my text we only say "O. Stolz" formula. I might stick to my original terminologies.
â xbh
Aug 14 at 6:54
add a comment |Â
@VladislavKharlamov Then you can see other answers. Although the one above seems need a bit calculation of the first coefficient of the polynomial, which may not be simpler too much.
â xbh
Aug 13 at 18:05
It's Cesaro-Stolz (at least that's the name by which is popular).
â Paramanand Singh
Aug 14 at 4:27
@ParamanandSingh Thanks! I forgot this since in my text we only say "O. Stolz" formula. I might stick to my original terminologies.
â xbh
Aug 14 at 6:54
@VladislavKharlamov Then you can see other answers. Although the one above seems need a bit calculation of the first coefficient of the polynomial, which may not be simpler too much.
â xbh
Aug 13 at 18:05
@VladislavKharlamov Then you can see other answers. Although the one above seems need a bit calculation of the first coefficient of the polynomial, which may not be simpler too much.
â xbh
Aug 13 at 18:05
It's Cesaro-Stolz (at least that's the name by which is popular).
â Paramanand Singh
Aug 14 at 4:27
It's Cesaro-Stolz (at least that's the name by which is popular).
â Paramanand Singh
Aug 14 at 4:27
@ParamanandSingh Thanks! I forgot this since in my text we only say "O. Stolz" formula. I might stick to my original terminologies.
â xbh
Aug 14 at 6:54
@ParamanandSingh Thanks! I forgot this since in my text we only say "O. Stolz" formula. I might stick to my original terminologies.
â xbh
Aug 14 at 6:54
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
As in Falling and rising factorials, define (using $p$ instead of $n_0$, as in a previous answer):
beginalign*
(k)_p & = k(k - 1)cdots(k - p + 1), \
k^(p) & = k(k + 1)cdots(k + p - 1).
endalign*
Then:
beginalign*
(k + 1)_p + 1 - k_p + 1 & = (p + 1)(k)_p, \
k^(p + 1) - (k - 1)^(p + 1) & = (p + 1)k^(p).
endalign*
For every positive integer $k$,
$$
(k)_p leqslant k^p leqslant k^(p).
$$
Hence, for every positive integer $n$,
$$
frac(n + 1)_p + 1p + 1 leqslant sum_k=1^n k^p leqslant fracn^(p + 1)p + 1.
$$
But
$$
frac(n + 1)_p + 1n^p + 1 to 1 text as n to infty, text and
fracn^(p + 1)n^p + 1 to 1 text as n to infty,
$$
therefore
$$
fracsum_k=1^n k^pn^p + 1 to frac1p + 1 text as n to infty.
$$
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
As in Falling and rising factorials, define (using $p$ instead of $n_0$, as in a previous answer):
beginalign*
(k)_p & = k(k - 1)cdots(k - p + 1), \
k^(p) & = k(k + 1)cdots(k + p - 1).
endalign*
Then:
beginalign*
(k + 1)_p + 1 - k_p + 1 & = (p + 1)(k)_p, \
k^(p + 1) - (k - 1)^(p + 1) & = (p + 1)k^(p).
endalign*
For every positive integer $k$,
$$
(k)_p leqslant k^p leqslant k^(p).
$$
Hence, for every positive integer $n$,
$$
frac(n + 1)_p + 1p + 1 leqslant sum_k=1^n k^p leqslant fracn^(p + 1)p + 1.
$$
But
$$
frac(n + 1)_p + 1n^p + 1 to 1 text as n to infty, text and
fracn^(p + 1)n^p + 1 to 1 text as n to infty,
$$
therefore
$$
fracsum_k=1^n k^pn^p + 1 to frac1p + 1 text as n to infty.
$$
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
As in Falling and rising factorials, define (using $p$ instead of $n_0$, as in a previous answer):
beginalign*
(k)_p & = k(k - 1)cdots(k - p + 1), \
k^(p) & = k(k + 1)cdots(k + p - 1).
endalign*
Then:
beginalign*
(k + 1)_p + 1 - k_p + 1 & = (p + 1)(k)_p, \
k^(p + 1) - (k - 1)^(p + 1) & = (p + 1)k^(p).
endalign*
For every positive integer $k$,
$$
(k)_p leqslant k^p leqslant k^(p).
$$
Hence, for every positive integer $n$,
$$
frac(n + 1)_p + 1p + 1 leqslant sum_k=1^n k^p leqslant fracn^(p + 1)p + 1.
$$
But
$$
frac(n + 1)_p + 1n^p + 1 to 1 text as n to infty, text and
fracn^(p + 1)n^p + 1 to 1 text as n to infty,
$$
therefore
$$
fracsum_k=1^n k^pn^p + 1 to frac1p + 1 text as n to infty.
$$
As in Falling and rising factorials, define (using $p$ instead of $n_0$, as in a previous answer):
beginalign*
(k)_p & = k(k - 1)cdots(k - p + 1), \
k^(p) & = k(k + 1)cdots(k + p - 1).
endalign*
Then:
beginalign*
(k + 1)_p + 1 - k_p + 1 & = (p + 1)(k)_p, \
k^(p + 1) - (k - 1)^(p + 1) & = (p + 1)k^(p).
endalign*
For every positive integer $k$,
$$
(k)_p leqslant k^p leqslant k^(p).
$$
Hence, for every positive integer $n$,
$$
frac(n + 1)_p + 1p + 1 leqslant sum_k=1^n k^p leqslant fracn^(p + 1)p + 1.
$$
But
$$
frac(n + 1)_p + 1n^p + 1 to 1 text as n to infty, text and
fracn^(p + 1)n^p + 1 to 1 text as n to infty,
$$
therefore
$$
fracsum_k=1^n k^pn^p + 1 to frac1p + 1 text as n to infty.
$$
answered Aug 13 at 23:22
Calum Gilhooley
2,962528
2,962528
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2881647%2fcan-we-prove-that-lim-n-to-infty-frac1n-02n-0-cdotsnn-0nn%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
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
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
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
Of course, without direct calculation of the sum
â Vladislav Kharlamov
Aug 13 at 17:56
What's your thought?
â xbh
Aug 13 at 17:57
I assume your denominator was typed wrong, it should be $n^n_0+1$, I think.
â xbh
Aug 13 at 17:58
I changed the condition a little, now it's kind of true
â Vladislav Kharlamov
Aug 13 at 17:58
2
The numerator do not exceed $n times n^n_0$.
â xbh
Aug 13 at 18:00