You could use induction. Have you tried this? (The statement given is really just equivalent to saying that the sequence is strictly decreasing.)For this question:
What would be the best approach to do this?
Conditionally convergent. But yes, convergent.
Apparently it is also convergent when x equals to 1/3, or says the answers. But I'm confused as to why this is ok because
Yes, convergent by the alternating series test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternating_series_test ).
Apparently it is also convergent when x equals to 1/3, or says the answers. But I'm confused as to why this is ok because
Lemma. For all sufficiently large k, ln k < k^{1/6}. (In fact: for any given positive alpha and beta, (ln k)^{beta} will be less than k^{alpha} for all sufficiently large k. And not just less than, but 'little oh' of as k -> oo, in fact.)Oh wait conditional convergence will suffice? Ok thanks, didn't know that
__________________
Best approach to proving this is convergent?
Aha guess that'll do. That was basically what I was thinking.Lemma. For all sufficiently large k, ln k < sqrt(k).
Proof. Exercise.
Now, we can say that for sufficiently large k, the summand (which is positive) is less than 1/(k^{1.5}) (which converges by p-test), so the given series converges by the comparison test.
Negative radius is fine, didn't you deal with polar forms some time ago?Aha guess that'll do. That was basically what I was thinking.
______________________
Also a quickie
So if I want to use the formula for radius of convergence
Should I just ignore the (-1)^k or permit R to be negative?
The formula is actually with absolute values around the fraction. So the (-1)^k goes away. The radius of convergence can't be negative, it is by definition either 0, a positive real number, or +oo. (Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radius_of_convergence )Aha guess that'll do. That was basically what I was thinking.
______________________
Also a quickie
So if I want to use the formula for radius of convergence
Should I just ignore the (-1)^k or permit R to be negative?
ftfyThe formula is actually with absolute values around the fraction. So the (-1)^k goes away. The radius of convergence can't be negative, it is by definition either 0, a positive real number, or +∞.
Yeah I figured that'd work for the Taylor polynomial. Sorry, my confusion was mostly in how to get the remainder
Sorry for the late reply, figured that one out, thanksYou could use induction. Have you tried this? (The statement given is really just equivalent to saying that the sequence is strictly decreasing.)
Got more questions...pls help:
Got more questions...pls help: