Divergence to infinity/Rules – "Math for Non-Geeks"

In the last article, we mentioned that some rules for limit calculation carry through to improper convergent sequences, and some don't. For instance, if a sequence (improperly) converges to and a second sequence (properly) converges to , one cannot make any statement about the convergence of their product! Math for Non-Geeks: Template:Aufgabe

Rules for computing limits of improperly converging sequences

Which calculation rules for limits of convergent sequences can be carried over to improper convergence? The answer is: almost all of them, but only if certain conditions hold!

Product rule

Suppose that is a sequence with . What will happen to the product  ? The case definitely causes trouble, meaning that we cannot make any statement about convergence or divergence of the product.

Case 1: . Intuitively, so we expect . This assertion only needs to be mathematically proven: Let be given. Since we can find an with for all . Analogously, since there is an with for all . Whenever we therefore have So, indeed .

Case 2: . Intuitively, so we expect . What we need to show for a mathematical proof is: So let again be given. Since there is an with for all . Analogously, since there is an with for all . Now, for all we have And indeed there is .

Case 3: . Intuitively, so we again make a guess . The proof could be done as the two examples above. However, this time we will vary it a bit, to make it not too boring: Let be given. Since , for each there is an with for all . We set . Then there is : , which especially includes . Since there is some with for all . Now for we have And hence .

Case 4: . Here, . Math for Non-Geeks: Template:Aufgabe

Those four cases can also be concluded into one statement. We introduce a practical extension of the real numbers: To the set , we add the elements which leads to the bigger set .

Theorem (Product rule for improperly convergent sequences)

Let be a real sequence with and a real sequence with . Then

Sum rule

Let again be a sequence with . What can we say about the limit of a sum  ? For finite , the limit will stay unchanged, as intuitively . Similarly . The critical case is , as is not well-defined. In fact, this case does not allow for any statement about convergence or divergence of the sum . As an example,

  • For and there is .
  • For and there is .

We therefore exclude the case and consider all other cases:

Case 1: . We expect Mathematically, we need to prove: Let be given. Since there is an with for all . Analogously, since there is an with for all . Hence, for all we have

And indeed .

Case 2: . We also expect . Mathematically, we need to prove: Let be given. Since for each we can find an with for all . This includes the case . Hence, for all . Since there is also an with for all . Hence, for any we have

And we get the desired result .

Both cases can be concluded in a theorem:

Theorem (Sum rule for improperly convergent sequences)

Let be a real sequence with and be a real sequence with . Then

Inversion

This rule is also quite intuitive: Let be a sequence with for all and or , then formally converges to and should hence be a null sequence. Is this really mathematically true?

Case 1: . We need to show Let be given. Since for any there is an , such that there is . Hence, there is So.

Case 2: . Math for Non-Geeks: Template:Aufgabe

We conclude these findings in a theorem:

Theorem (Inversion rule 1 for improperly convergent series)

Let be a real sequence with for all and . Then

Question: Does the converse of the inversion rule, i.e. if we may imply or ?

Nope! A counterexample is with . Then, , but does not go to or . However, it is true that the absolute values diverge to .

The question is now: can we define a "converse of the inversion rule" which holds under more special assumptions? The sequence is not diverging to or because it keeps changing presign, so there is a subsequence of it converging to and a subsequence converging to . We can avoid this by forbidding a change of presign in . It should also not be too bad if the change of presign is allowed again on finitely many elements, since a manipulation on finitely many elements never changes convergence properties.

Case 1: Let be a sequence with , all sequence elements being and all but finitely many sequence elements being positive. Then, intuitively . For a mathematical proof, we need to show that Let be given. Since is a null sequence, for we can find an with for all . Since almost all elements of are positive, there is an with for all . Therefore for all . So we get .

Case 2: Let now v , all sequence elements being but this time, almost all of them are negative. Math for Non-Geeks: Template:Aufgabe

The converse of the inversion rule is also concluded into a theorem.

Theorem (Inversion rule 2 for improperly convergent series)

Let be a real sequence with for all and . Then

  • , if for almost all
  • , if for almost all

Example (Inversion rule)

In the article examples for limits, we have proven that "exponential sequences win against polynomial ones", i.e. is a null sequence for and . If , all sequence elements are non-negative. So the inversion rule implies

Analogously, for :

Quotient rule

The inversion rule is an example of a quotient of sequences and wit constant . Now, we generalize to quotients of any sequences and with for all .

First, we consider . At this point, we exclude the cases , since is ill-defined. Let . Then, formally . To verify this mathematically, we need to show Let be given. Since there is convergence , the sequence must be bounded, i.e. there is a with for all . Now since , the inversion rule implies . So there is an with for all . Hence, there is: And we have convergence .

The case and also leads to by the same argument.

We conclude

Theorem (Quotient rule 1 for improperly convergent sequences)

Let and be real sequences with and . Then .

Next, we let the enumerator diverge as . The case again leads to the ill-defined expression and will not be not considered at this point.

Case 1: . Here, we assert . : Let be given. Since converges to , there must be an , such that for all . Since there is also an with for all . Hence, for all , there is: So we have convergence .

Case 2: with almost all being positive. Here, we assert . A mathematical proof requires showing Let be given. Since converges to and almost all elements are positive, there must be an with for all . Since there is also an with for all . So for all , there is: And again, we have convergence .

Math for Non-Geeks: Template:Aufgabe

All 4 cases are concluded in a theorem

Theorem (Quotient rule 1 for improperly convergent sequences)

Let and be real sequences with .

  • If or with almost all , then .
  • If or with almost all , then .

Direct comparison

Intuitively, if is given and some "smaller" sequence diverges to , then also the "bigger" must tend to . This should still hold true if " is bigger than " almost everywhere. Mathematically, we need to show So let be given. Since there is an with for all . Since for all but finitely many there is an with for all . So indeed, .

We conclude this in a theorem:

Theorem (Direct comparison for sequences)

Let be a real sequence and be another sequence with for almost all and let . Then, .

Example (Direct comparison for sequences)

Take the sequence . For there is In addition . So by direct comparison,

Of course, a similar statement holds true for and . Then also . This can easily seen by considering the sequences and .