anonymous
  • anonymous
Does the series \[\sum_{n\ge1}\frac{1}{\text{lcm}\{n,n+1\}}\]converge?
Mathematics
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
katieb
  • katieb
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
anonymous
  • anonymous
Using the fact that \(\text{lcm}\{n,n+1\}=\dfrac{n(n+1)}{\text{gcd}\{n,n+1\}}\), I'm almost tempted to say that \[\sum_{n\ge1}\frac{1}{\text{lcm}\{n,n+1\}}\sim\sum_{n\ge1}\frac{1}{n^2}\] but I don't think I can jump to that conclusion just yet.
mathmate
  • mathmate
We agree that lcm(n,n+1) is actually n(n+1). (The gcd is 1, by Euclid's algorithm) Since S=\(\sum_{n\ge1}\frac{1}{\text{lcm}\{n,n+1\}}=\sum_{n\ge1}\frac{1}{n(n+1)}<\sum_{n\ge1}\frac{1}{n^2}\) The strict inequality holds for each and every term, and since \(\sum_{n\ge1}\frac{1}{n^2}\) is a geometric series that is known to converge (=pi^2/6 prove it), so by comparison, S
mathmate
  • mathmate
* series, not geometric

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

anonymous
  • anonymous
Right, since \(n\) and \(n+1\) are consecutive, that makes their lcm very easy to determine. And we can find the value of the series while we're at it quite easily: \[\sum_{n\ge1}\frac{1}{n(n+1)}=\sum_{n\ge1}\left(\frac{1}{n}-\frac{1}{n+1}\right)=1\]Neat!
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
Nice! any two consecutive integers are coprime, gcd(n, n+1) = gcd(n, 1) = 1 so lcm(n, n+1) = n(n+1)
anonymous
  • anonymous
consider that the least common multiple of \(n,n+1\) is obviously \(n(n+1)\) since \(n+1-n=1\) and thus they must be coprime. this reduces to $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac1{n(n+1)}=\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{n+1-n}{n(n+1)}=\sum_{n=1}^\infty\left(\frac{n+1}{n(n+1)}-\frac{n}{n(n+1)}\right)\\\quad =\sum_{n=1}^\infty\left(\frac1n-\frac1{n+1}\right)$$ which is obviously telescoping and since \(1/(n+1)\to0\) it converges
imqwerty
  • imqwerty
well i read that a series that converges has got some bounds and that it approaches a specific value. so in this case its going like 1/2 , 1/6, 1/12 , 1/20..... so u mark a line of length 1 on a number line and u plot the point 1/2 u knw 1/2 is still left between 1/2 and 1 and then u add 1/6 still 1/3 is left so u have bounds and u knw that it can never go > 1 so yea it converges... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_series
anonymous
  • anonymous
Could we make a more general claim here? Numerically, it would seem that \[\sum_{n\ge1}\frac{1}{\text{lcm}\{n,n+k\}}\]also converges to \(1\) for \(k\in\mathbb{N}\), though much more slowly.
anonymous
  • anonymous
for prime \(k\) the problem is barely any harder -- you merely have to be careful about the multiples of \(k\): $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac1{[n,n+k]}=\sum_{m=1}^\infty\sum_{n=mk+1}^{(m+1)k}\frac1{[n,n+k]}\\\quad=\sum_{m=1}^\infty\left(\sum_{n=mk+1}^{mk+k-1}\frac1{n(n+k)}+\frac1{(m+1)(m+2)k}\right)$$
ParthKohli
  • ParthKohli
\[\gcd (n,n+k) \le k \]\[\Rightarrow {\rm lcm }(n,n+k) = \frac{n(n+k)}{\gcd(n,n+k)} \ge \frac{n(n+k)}{k}\]\[\Rightarrow \frac{1}{{\rm lcm} (n,n+k) }\le \frac{k}{n(n+k)}\]We can sum the right-side telescopically so I guess it is true that the sum is convergent?
anonymous
  • anonymous
yeah, showing its convergence along those lines is exactly what I figured
anonymous
  • anonymous
the sum of the terms for \(n\) coprime to \(k\) is accomplished with relatively little effort $$\sum_{n=mk+1}^{(m+1)k-1}\frac1{n(n+k)}=\frac1k\left(\frac1{mk+1}-\frac1{(m+2)k-1}\right)$$ so we get: $$\frac1k\sum_{m=0}^\infty\left(\frac1{mk+1}-\frac1{(m+2)k-1}+\frac1{(m+1)(m+2)}\right)$$now split it up and telescope, I suppose? $$\sum\left(\frac1{mk+1}-\frac1{(m+2)k-1}\right)=1+\frac1{k+1}\\\sum\left(\frac1{m+1}-\frac1{m+2}\right)=1$$ so we get $$\frac1k\left(2+\frac1{k+1}\right)=\frac2k+\frac1{k(k+1)}=\frac3k-\frac1{k+1}$$ for prime \(k\)
anonymous
  • anonymous
oops, ignore that -- I read \((m+2)k+1\) rather than \((m+2)k-1\), so that series does not quite telescope so cleanly
anonymous
  • anonymous
our problem term for prime \(k\) is this: $$\frac1{mk+1}-\frac1{(m+2)k-1}$$
anonymous
  • anonymous
Would that I could hand out more medals...
thomas5267
  • thomas5267
How do you show \(\gcd (n,n+k) \leq k\) without using B├ęzout's Identity?
anonymous
  • anonymous
i mean, if (positive) \(d\) divides (positive) \(n\) and \(n+k\) then it also divides their difference, so \(d\) must divide \(k\). it follows that the greatest common divisor is at most \(k\)
anonymous
  • anonymous
you don't necessarily need the full strength of Bezout's identity, just the fact that divisibility is preserved by sums which is very elementary
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
\(\gcd(n,n+k)=\gcd(n.k)\le k\)
thomas5267
  • thomas5267
\[ \begin{align*} \sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac1{[n,n+k]}&=\sum_{m=0}^\infty\sum_{n=mk+1}^{(m+1)k}\frac1{[n,n+k]}\\ &=\sum_{m=0}^\infty\left(\sum_{n=mk+1}^{mk+k-1}\frac1{n(n+k)}+\frac1{(m+1)(m+2)k}\right)\\ \end{align*} \] \[ \begin{align*} &\phantom{{}={}}\sum_{m=0}^\infty\sum_{n=mk+1}^{mk+k-1}\frac1{n(n+k)}\\ &=\sum_{m=0}^\infty\left(\frac{1}{mk+1}-\frac{1}{(m+1)k-1}\right)\\ &=\sum_{m=0}^\infty\left(\frac{1}{mk+1}-\frac{1}{(m+1)k+1}+\frac{1}{(m+1)k+1}-\frac{1}{(m+1)k-1}\right)\\ &=\sum_{m=0}^\infty\left(\frac{1}{mk+1}-\frac{1}{(m+1)k+1}-\frac{2}{(m+1)^2k^2-1}\right)\\ &=1-\sum_{m=0}^\infty\frac{2}{(m+1)^2k^2-1} \end{align*} \] I think the sum converges but I couldn't prove it.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Comparing to the series \(\sum\frac{1}{n^2}\) would suffice for convergence. It has a somewhat daunting closed form: \[\sum_{m=0}^\infty \frac{2}{(m+1)^2k^2-1}=\frac{k-\pi\cot\dfrac{\pi}{k}}{2k}\]
anonymous
  • anonymous
(closed form courtesy of Mathematica)
thomas5267
  • thomas5267
I thought \(\dfrac{2}{(m+1)k^2-1}\geq\dfrac{1}{n^2}\) for some reason! \[ \min(k)=2\\ \frac{2}{4n^2-1}-\frac{1}{n^2}=\frac{2n^2-4n^2+1}{n^2(4n^2-1)}=\frac{-2n^2+1}{n^2(4n^2-1)}\leq0 \]
anonymous
  • anonymous
\[\sum_{m\ge0}\frac{1}{(m+1)^2k^2-1}=\sum_{m\ge1}\frac{1}{m^2k^2-1}\le\sum_{m\ge1}\frac{1}{m^2}\] since \[1\le k^2-1~~\implies~~ m^2\le m^2k^2-1~~\implies~~\frac{1}{m^2k^2-1}\le\frac{1}{m^2}\](The first inequality is true since \(k\ge2\).)

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.