Jump to content

Direct comparison test – "Math for Non-Geeks"

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world

In this chapter we will study an important convergence criterion called the direct comparison test. This criterion allows us to deduce the convergence behavior of a series by comparing it to that of another series. That way we can answer questions regarding the convergence of a series by considering a simpler series. Using this criterion we can estimate upper or lower bounds of the series, until we hopefully find a proof for the convergence behavior.

The direct comparison test is also used to prove other criteria such as the quotient test and the root test, which are both useful tools to have when solving problems about the convergence of series.

Direct comparison test: majorant

[edit | edit source]

There are two versions of the direct comparison test. The first one is a test for convergence and involves finding a majorant of the series:

Theorem (Direct comparison: majorant)

Let ∑k=1∞ak be a series. If there exists a convergent series ∑k=1∞ck with |ak|≤ck for all k∈ℕ then ∑k=1∞ak converges absolutely.

Note that from the inequality |ak|≤ck it automatically follows that ck≥0, because ck is greater or equal to the non-negative number |ak|.

Proof (Direct comparison: majorant)

If ∑k=1∞ck converges, then the sequences of partial sums is bounded above (see the theorem on bounded series with non-negative summands). Because |ak|≤ck for all k∈ℕ also the corresponding sequence of partial sums of ∑k=1∞|ak| has an upper bound:

∑k=1n|ak|≤∑k=1nck≤∑k=1∞ck<∞

The sequence of partial sums ∑k=1∞|ak| is monotonically increasing since |ak|≥0. We have that the series is monotonic and bounded. Therefore ∑k=1∞|ak| is convergent.

Comprehension question: Would it suffice for the majorant if there exists N∈ℕ so that |ak|≤ck for all k≥N?

Yes. If the sequence of partial sums ∑k=1∞ck is bounded above, then this is true also for ∑k=N∞ck. Because of

∑k=Nn|ak|≤∑k=Nnck≤∑k=N∞ck<∞

also the sequence of partial sums ∑k=N∞|ak| is bounded above. Since the finitely many summands a1,a2,…,aN−1 don't change the boundedness, the partial sums of ∑k=1∞|ak| also have an upper bound. This means that ∑k=1∞ak converges absolutely.

Hint

As we already mentioned in the introduction, we would like to find a preferably simple convergent series to use as our majorant. Often, we can use the series ∑k=1∞1k2 as our majorant. We could also use a more general harmonic series ∑k=1∞1kα for α>1. Another good option is the convergent geometric series ∑k=0∞qk for |q|<1, for example ∑k=0∞(12)k.

Direct comparison test: minorant

[edit | edit source]

The second comparison test is similar, but we use it to determine the divergence of a series, and it involves finding a minorant of that series.

Theorem (Direct comparison test: minorant)

Let ∑k=1∞ak be a series with ak≥0 for all k∈ℕ. If there exists a divergent series ∑k=1∞ck with ak≥ck≥0 for all k∈ℕ, then also the series ∑k=1∞ak is divergent.

Proof (Direct comparison test: minorant)

Since ck≥0 the sequence of partial sums of ∑k=1∞ck is monotonic. According to our premise this series is divergent, so it must be unbounded. Because ck≤ak for all k∈ℕ we have that ∑k=1nck≤∑k=1nak for all n∈ℕ and therefore also the sequence of partial sums of ∑k=1∞ak is unbounded. This implies that ∑k=1∞ak diverges (every unbounded sequence diverges.)

Hint

Analogue to the majorant condition it suffices that ak≥ck≥0 be true for all k≥N, for a fixed N∈ℕ.

Hint

When using the minorant criterion in practice, often a good choice for the minorant is the divergent harmonic series ∑k=1∞1k. But also the series ∑k=1∞1kα for α<1 (for example ∑k=1∞1k) make for good minorants. Also the geometric series ∑k=1∞qk with q≥1 is suited as a minorant.

Warning

When applying the direct comparison test using a minorant it is necessary that ak≥0! If we only have that |ak|≥ck for ak∈ℝ as in the majorant case, then we cannot follow the divergence of ∑k=1∞ak from the divergence of ∑k=1∞ck. We can only say that ∑k=1∞ak doesn't converge absolutely. To see this consider for example the series ∑k=1∞(−1)kk and ∑k=1∞1k with ak=(−1)kk and ck=1k. We have 1k≤|(−1)kk|=1k, and the harmonic series ∑k=1∞1k diverges. But we can show that ∑k=1∞(−1)kk converges according to the alternating series test.

Examples and exercises

[edit | edit source]

Direct comparison with majorant

[edit | edit source]
Example (Direct comparison with majorant)

Take the series ∑k=1∞kk3+k. The corresponding sequence is ak=kk3+k. If we factor out k in the denominator and reduce we get:

kk3+k=kk(k2+1)=1k2+1

The series behaves like ∑k=1∞1k2 and should therefore converge. We can prove this formally using our direct comparison test: From k2+1≥k2 we have that

kk3+k⏟=|ak|=1k2+1≤1k2⏟=ck

With ∑k=1∞ck=∑k=1∞1k2 we have found a majorant that converges. From our direct comparison test it follows that ∑k=1∞ak=∑k=1∞kk3+k also converges.

Exercise (Direct comparison with majorant)

Examine whether the series ∑k=1∞(k+1k2+3k)2 converges.

How to get to the proof? (Direct comparison with majorant)

If one has little experience proving convergence of series, it is difficult to tell whether the series is convergent or divergent. Start by examining the fraction k+1k2+3k. Maybe you see that the numerator is a polynomial of degree two and the denominator is a polynomial of degree three. This means that the whole fraction goes to zero with a rate of convergence 1k. In our series this fraction is squared. This means that (k+1k2+3k)2 will go to zero with a convergences rate of 1k2. Since ∑k=1∞1k2 is convergent, also the series ∑k=1∞(k+1k2+3k)2 should converge.

To prove this formally, we can use the direct comparison test and compare ∑k=1∞(k+1k2+3k)2 to the majorant ∑k=1∞1k2. But we first need to show that this is indeed a majorant of our series. Here we need to make some clever estimates:

k+1k2+3k≤k+1k2≤k+kk2=2kk2=2⋅1k

To estimate an upper bound we followed a schema: We removed summands that make the term smaller. For the remaining summands, that we could not simply remove, we found an estimate so that we could merge them. The end result:

(k+1k2+3k)2≤(2⋅1k)2=4⋅1k2

Thus ∑k=1∞4⋅1k2 is indeed a majorant, and since the series is convergent, by direct comparison we find that also ∑k=1∞(k+1k2+3k)2 must be convergent.

Solution (Direct comparison with majorant)

We have that:

(k+1k2+3k)2≤(k+1k2)2≤(k+kk2)2=(2kk2)2=(2⋅1k)2=4⋅1k2

and therefore

∑k=1∞4⋅1k2=4⋅∑k=1∞1k2<∞

is a convergent majorant of the series ∑k=1∞(k+1k2+3k)2. By direct comparison the series is convergent.

Direct comparison with minorant

[edit | edit source]
An example for the direct comparison test (Youtube video by the Youtube channel Maths CA).
Example (Direct comparison with minorant)

Let us examine the series ∑k=1∞12k−1. It should grow similar to ∑k=1∞12k. Since the harmonic series ∑k=1∞1k diverges, also the series ∑k=1∞12k should diverge, and thus also our original series. Formal proof:

We have

2k−1≤2k⟺12k−1⏟=ak≥12k⏟=ck

Thus ∑k=1∞12k is a minorant and diverges. From direct comparison it follows that ∑k=1∞12k−1 is also divergent.


Exercise (Direct comparison with minorant)

Examine whether the series ∑k=1∞1k(k+2) converges or diverges.

How to get to the proof? (Direct comparison with minorant)

Here it is interesting to note the rate at which the summands converge to zero. The product k(k+2) converges like k2 towards infinity. Thus 1k(k+2) converges to 0 like 1k2. Since we take the square root we can see that the rate of convergence of 1k(k+2) is like 1k. But the harmonic series ∑k=1∞1k is divergent. This tells us that ∑k=1∞1k(k+2) should also diverge.

Now that we have conjectured the divergence of the series, we need to prove it. We do that by direct comparison with a minorant. First, we need to estimate lower bounds:

1k(k+2)=1k2+2k≥1k2+2k2=13k2=13⋅k

As in the previous exercise when we needed to estimate an upper bound, we can follow a schema: Summands that make the term bigger, can be removed. For the remaining summands, we try to find an estimate so that we can merge them. So now we have a divergent minorant: ∑k=1∞13⋅k. By direct comparison, it follows that ∑k=1∞1k(k+2) is divergent.

Proof (Direct comparison with minorant)

We have

1k(k+2)=1k2+2k≥1k2+2k2=13k2=13⋅k=13⋅1k

The series ∑k=1∞13⋅1k is divergent. Thus, also ∑k=1∞1k(k+2) must diverge by direct comparison.

Corollary: Limit comparison test

[edit | edit source]

For series with positive summands there is another test called the limit comparison test, which we can derive from the direct comparison test:

Theorem (Limit comparison test)

Let ∑k=1∞ak and ∑k=1∞bk be series with positive summands, and limk→∞akbk=c with c>0, then the series ∑k=1∞ak converges if and only if ∑k=1∞bk converges.

Proof (Limit comparison test)

Because limk→∞akbk=c there exists N∈ℕ, so that |akbk−c|<c2 for all k≥N. This follows from the epsilon definition of convergence with ϵ=c2. For all k≥N we have:

|akbk−c|<c2⟺c−c2≤akbk≤c+c2⟺12c≤akbk≤32c⟺12c⋅bk≤ak≤32c⋅bk

If ∑k=1∞ak converges, then also ∑k=1∞12c⋅bk converges by direct comparison because of the inequality 12c⋅bk≤ak for all k≥N. We also see that ∑k=1∞bk=∑k=1∞2c⋅(12c⋅bk). But then also ∑k=1∞bk converges, because multiplying by a constant factor doesn't affect convergence behaviour.

On the other side assume that ∑k=1∞bk is convergent, then also ∑k=1∞32c⋅bk is convergent (again multiplication by a constant factor). Because of the inequality ak≤32c⋅bk for all k≥N the series ∑k=1∞ak is convergent by direct comparison.

Comprehension question: What can we deduce from limk→∞akbk=0 under the same conditions?

From the convergence of ∑k=1∞bk we can deduce the convergence of ∑k=1∞ak. If limk→∞akbk=0, there exists N∈ℕ with akbk≤1⟺ak≤bk for all k≥N. Thus, if ∑k=1∞bk is convergent it follows from direct comparison that ∑k=1∞ak is convergent.

The opposite is not true: If ∑k=1∞ak converges we cannot conclude that ∑k=1∞bk is also convergent. As a counterexample consider ∑k=1∞1k2⏟=ak and ∑k=1∞1k⏟=bk . Here we have

limk→∞akbk=limk→∞1k21k=limk→∞1k=0

But ∑k=1∞1k2 is convergent and ∑k=1∞1k is divergent .

Example (Prove convergence using limit comparison test)

Consider the series ∑k=1∞2k26k4−3k. We have

ak=2k26k4−3k=k2k4⋅26−3k3=1k2⋅26−3k3

With bk=1k2 it follows that

limk→∞akbk=limk→∞26−3k3=26=13

Since ∑k=1∞1k2 is convergent, is follows from the limit comparison test that ∑k=1∞2k26k4−3k is also convergent .

Hint

As this example shows, the limit comparison test is a convenient way to prove the convergence of a series. Often, computing the limit limk→∞akbk is easier than finding a suiting majorant. In many lectures however the limit comparison test is not discussed, so you are probably not allowed to use it either. Even so you can still use the argumentation of the proof to find the necessary majorant:

For ak=2k26k4−3k and bk=1k2 we find that limk→∞akbk=13. There must exist n0∈ℕ with akbk<2⋅13=23 for all k≥n0. This is equivalent to ak≤23bk for all k≥n0. This way we have found a suitable majorant. Because we know that ∑k=1∞1k2 converges, also ∑k=1∞231k2 must converge. Now we use the direct comparison test to show that ∑k=1∞2k26k4−3k is convergent.

Exercise (Limit comparison test)

Examine for which s∈ℚ the series ∑n=1∞(1+1ns−1) converges.

Hint: Consider the general harmonic series ∑n=1∞1ns.

Solution (Limit comparison test)

Case 1: s≤0

Here an=1+1ns−1 is not a null sequence:

an=1+1ns−1={1+1n0−1=2−1for s=0,1+1ns−1=1+n−s−1→∞for s<0⟺−s>0

Case 2: s>0

Let an=1+1ns−1 and bn=1ns. We have

anbn=1+1ns−11ns=(1+1ns−1)(1+1ns+1)1ns(1+1ns+1)=1+1ns−121ns(1+1ns+1)=1ns1ns(1+1ns+1)=11+1ns+1

Because of limn→∞1ns=0 and from the limit theorems it follows limn→∞anbn=limn→∞11+1ns+1=11+1=12. According to the limit comparison test, the series ∑n=1∞(1+1ns−1) converges if and only if ∑n=1∞1ns converges. Thus, we know it converges for s>1 and diverges for 0<s≤1.

Combining both cases we find that our series is convergent for s>1 and divergent for s≤1.