series
\[\sum_{n=3}^{\infty} \frac{ (-1)^{n-1} }{ nlnn }\] I got converges by Alternating series test, but am not sure.
@ganeshie8
Finding the derivative gives a decreasing function, taking limit n-> infinity = 0
Seems fine to me :) Lim as a_{n} goes to infinity is 0 and you can show it's decreasing with the first derivative test. So yes, converges.
All the other tests would be inconclusive
Yeah and \[b_n+1 < b_n\] I think
Yeah, which is what the first derivative test shows, so you're right.
Alright, cool :)! Just wanted to make sure it's convergent and wolfram gives http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=series+n%3D3+to+infinity%28-1%29%5E%28n%29%2F%28nlnn%29 haha so I wasn't sure.
n n-1 what ever the alternating is, should still be convergent
u an rewrite (-1)^(n-1) as cos npix
\[\sum_{n=3}^{\infty} \frac{ (-1)^{n-1} }{ n\ln n } = \sum_{n=3}^{\infty} \frac{ \cos((n+1)\pi) }{ n\ln n }\] next what dan
i dunno lol i was gonna show that as a continuous function is it converging
one way to see its converging for sure is that its n ln n so its >1 and
u just got -1 and +1 so
1/n^k, k>1 and -1/n^k, K>1
are both converging series
Oh nice using a p series?
I was thinking about \[\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{ 1 }{ nlnn }\] which would be divering using the comparison test haha
diverging*
im not sure if this is valid though why cant we just say n ln n = n^k, k>1
as a series
is thhaat wrong??
we are starting at n=0 so we never worry about ln being negative
p series requires k >=2
so n ln n must > n, and and sum of series 1/n^K, where K>1 is convergin
oh oh really
T_T
nlnn happens to be the border case
n < nlnn < n^2
p series requires >1 I thought
right right !
where did i get this idea about border case hmm
yeah k>1 is sufficient and harmonic series is the true border line ;)
yup
Thanks guys ^.^
lol
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!