0

Evaluate $\lim _{n\to\infty} \left[\frac{1}{n+1}+\frac{1}{n+2}+\ldots \frac{1}{n+n}\right]$

My solution goes like this:

We consider $n$ sequences, $x_1=\frac{1}{n+1}, x_2=\frac{1}{n+2},\ldots , x_n=\frac{1}{2n}.$ Now, $\lim_{n\to\infty}x_k=0$ , $\forall k\in \{1,2,\ldots ,n\}$ and thus,$\lim _{n\to\infty} \left[\frac{1}{n+1}+\frac{1}{n+2}+\ldots \frac{1}{n+n}\right]=\lim_{n\to \infty} [x_1+\ldots +x_n]=0.$

Is the above solution correct? If not, where is it going wrong?

EDIT 1: As suggested by Bernkastel and others, the reason for this solution to be incorrect is justified. But, this link : For each positive integer $n$, let $x_n=1/(n+1)+1/(n+2)+\cdots+1/(2n)$. Prove that the sequence $(x_n)$ converges. does not answer my question as I wanted to know, why my solution is not valid and was not interested in any alternative solution of this problem. This was the intended while positing this initially.

Furthermore, is there any alternative solution which, does not involve Riemann sums or Riemann integrals? As, I still haven't learnt them. To be specific, I only know, the fundamental properties and the elementary definition of definite integrals. The "Riemann integral" is completely unknown to me, as of yet.

EDIT 2: I have added my own answer, which clarifies all these issues to the best of my understanding. Many thanks, To all the community members for their benignant co-operations in all their travails !

Arthur
  • 2,614
  • Unfortunately, it is not correct. The problem is that the theorem "The limit of the sum is the sum of limits" is only valid for a fixed sum. Here, the number of terms you are summing grows with $n$ and $n\to+\infty$; hence, you have infinite terms and so the theorem does not apply here. – Bernkastel Mar 10 '23 at 13:10
  • @Franklin where did you find the problem? That's the quintessential kind of limit you do with Riemann sums – Fra Mar 10 '23 at 13:22
  • @Fra Actually, this problem appeared in a collection of problems in a randomhandout focussing upon basic limits and theorems rather say, basic calculus stuff. – Arthur Mar 10 '23 at 13:24
  • The following is a true duplicate of your question: Is the following statement is true?. As for various computations below of the limit (which I understand was not your question), see also https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2636908 and links therein to duplicates. – Anne Bauval Mar 12 '23 at 17:12

4 Answers4

2

$\begin{align}&\lim _{n\to\infty} [\frac{1}{n+1}+\frac{1}{n+2}+\cdots \frac{1}{n+n}]\\&=\lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{1}{n+k}\\&=\lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{k=1}^{n}f_k\end{align}$

where $f_k=\frac{1}{k+n}$

$f_k\to 0$ for all $k\in\{1, 2,\ldots n\}$

Does this implies $\sum_{k=1}^{n}f_k\to 0$?

Convergence of a series (or sequence) doesn't depends on finitely many terms!

Sourav Ghosh
  • 12,997
2

No, this is wrong. Note that ${1 \over n+k} \geq {1\over 2n}$ for $1\leq k\leq n$ so that we have for all $n$, $${1\over n+1}+ ....+ {1\over 2n} \geq n\times {1\over 2n} = {1\over 2}$$ This is an example where you can't invert sums and limits.

You need to convert your expression into a Riemann sum to compute the limit.

Edit: at some point, the OP asked for the computation of the limit without using Riemann sums. After some thought, here is my solution.

First, it is an elementary result, explained in this other post, to show that the following sequence is convergent. $$ \sum_{k=1}^n {1 \over k} - \ln(n)\longrightarrow \gamma. $$ Here $\gamma$ is some constant, actually Euler's constant, whose value we won't need. Let us denote by $\varepsilon(n) $ the difference between the previous sequence and its limit. We are almost done. $$ \sum_{k=1}^n {1\over n+k} = \sum_{k=1}^{2n} {1\over k} - \sum_{k=1}^n {1\over k} = \ln(2n)+\gamma -\ln(n)-\gamma + \varepsilon(2n)-\varepsilon(n) = \ln(2)+ \varepsilon(2n)-\varepsilon(n). $$ The limit is $\ln(2)$ as expected.

coudy
  • 5,843
  • But where is my solution going wrong? – Arthur Mar 10 '23 at 13:10
  • You are assuming that the following holds: $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \sum_{k=1}^n a_{n,k} = \sum_{k=1}^n \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} a_{n,k}$. This is not always true and you have found a counterexample. – coudy Mar 10 '23 at 13:13
  • @Franklin you're trying to apply limit to infinite number of elements. Here you can find an example, when it's wrong: $x_i = \frac{1}{2n}$. – openspace Mar 10 '23 at 13:15
0

The method in the OP is not a valid solution. This is because the theorem utilized in the OP is :

If $x_n$ and $y_n$ are two two convergent series such that $\lim_{n\to\infty} x_n=x$ and $lim_{n\to\infty} y_n=y$ then $\lim_{n\to\infty}(x_n+y_n)=x+y.$

But notice, that the above theorem is valid or rather, can be extended for a finite number of sequences but in the posed problem, the number of sequences considered in the solution portion is infinite as, $x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n$ are the sequences considered and $n$ is infinite, not a finite quantity.

The real solution can be given in the following way:

Given, $\lim_{n\to\infty}[\frac{1}{n+1}+\cdots +\frac{1}{n+n}]=\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n}[\frac{1}{1+\frac 1n}+\cdots +\frac{1}{1+\frac nn }].$ We consider, $f(x)=\frac{1}{1+x}.$ Now, we can say, $\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n}[\frac{1}{1+\frac 1n}+\cdots +\frac{1}{1+\frac nn }]=\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n}[f(\frac 1n)+\cdots +f(\frac nn)].$ Thus, the thing going on here, is, that if there is an interval $[0,1]$ we can break up this interval into smaller intervals of $[0,\frac 1n],[\frac1n,\frac 2n],\cdots ,[\frac{n-1}n,\frac nn].$ Now, we know that $\int_a^bf(x)dx=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac {b-a}{n}(f(a)+f(a+\frac {b-a}{n})+f(a+2\frac {b-a}{n})+\cdots +f(a+n\frac{b-a}{n})),$ if $f$ is continuous and differentiable on the interval $[a,b].$ We use this theorem, in our case as well. This is a standard strategy. Now, in our case, $a=0,b=1$ and all the criterions of continuity and differentiability are satisfied by $f$ and hence, $L=\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n}[\frac{1}{1+\frac 1n}+\cdots +\frac{1}{1+\frac nn }]=\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n}[f(\frac 1n)+\cdots +f(\frac nn)]=\int_0^1 f(x)dx=\int_0^1\frac{1}{1+x}dx=[\log(1+x)+c]^1_0,$ where $c$ is an arbitary constant of integration. Thus, $L=\log 2.$

Thus, $\lim_{n\to\infty}[\frac{1}{n+1}+\cdots+\frac{1}{n+n}]=\log 2$

The above solution, uses only fundamental results and typically it does not involve Riemann sums in the way, but uses a basic approach which is actually the essence of definite integrals. The solution, so presented do not refer to Riemann integrals or sums directly.

Arthur
  • 2,614
  • 1
    The point at which you bring in the integral is essentially using a Riemann Sum. My answer does not use integration, only pre-calculus tools. – robjohn Mar 12 '23 at 09:43
  • @robjohn Actually, I dont know the term "Riemann integral" or anything about "Riemann ..." so, seeing that term in all the answers made me confused about what it is? The point is, I essentially knew the definition of definite integral in an elementary way, that I used in this answer. Anything higher than that is unknown to me due to the lack of my cognizance, which I really want to be excused for. Yes, what you say might be true, or rather is true, but as mentioned eariler, I dont know the terminology, as of yet. Maybe, I will get to know about it, as the course progresses in my college. – Arthur Mar 12 '23 at 09:48
  • @robjohn But your answer is great! I am thankful or rather, grateful for all the travail you put in to answer my question. Thanks a lot! – Arthur Mar 12 '23 at 09:49
  • You might read the Wikipedia article. Although it is a bit confusing because of the generality it tries to present, it does give the main ideas. – robjohn Mar 12 '23 at 09:56
0

As others have said, the problem with the initial argument is the misuse of the theorem that the limit of a sum of a fixed and finite number of sequences is the sum of the limits of those sequences. However, the number of sequences is infinite or increasing, depending on how you look at it.

Here is a proof of the convergence and the evaluation of the limit using only pre-calculus (sums and limits, but no integration or differentiation).


Convergence

Note that the sequence is increasing: $$ \begin{align} \sum_{k=m+1}^{2m}\frac1k-\sum_{k=m}^{2m-2}\frac1k &=\frac1{2m}+\frac1{2m-1}-\frac1m\tag{1a}\\ &=\frac1{2m-1}-\frac1{2m}\tag{1b}\\[6pt] &\gt0\tag{1c} \end{align} $$ Explanation:
$\text{(1a):}$ cancel the common terms in the series
$\text{(1b):}$ simplify
$\text{(1c):}$ $\frac1{2m-1}\ge\frac1{2m}$

Furthermore, the sequence is bounded by $1$: $$ \begin{align} \sum_{k=n+1}^{2n}\frac1k &\lt\sum_{k=n+1}^{2n}\frac1n\tag{2a}\\[3pt] &=1\tag{2b} \end{align} $$ Explanation:
$\text{(2a):}$ each term in the sum is less than $\frac1n$
$\text{(2b):}$ there are $n$ terms in the sum

Thus, $\sum\limits_{k=n+1}^{2n}\frac1k$ is an increasing sequence that is bounded above by $1$. Therefore, the sequence converges to a limit not exceeding $1$.


Limit

Using Bernoulli's Inequality, Telescoping Products, and the Squeeze Theorem, we can compute the limit.

Lemma: For all $x\in\mathbb{R}$, $$ e^x\ge1+x\tag3 $$ Proof: For $x\lt-1$, $(3)$ is immediate since the left side is positive and the right side is negative. So we will assume that $x\ge-1$.

Define $$ e^x=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1+\frac xn\right)^n\tag4 $$ For $n\ge1$, Bernoulli's Inequality says that $$ \left(1+\frac xn\right)^n\ge1+x\tag5 $$ Taking the limit of $(5)$ as $n\to\infty$ and applying $(4)$ yields $(3)$.

$\large\square$

Substituting $x\mapsto-x$ in $(3)$ and taking reciprocals yields, for $x\lt1$, $$ e^x\le\frac1{1-x}\tag6 $$ Applying $(3)$ gives $$ \begin{align} e^{\frac1{n+1}+\frac1{n+2}+\cdots+\frac1{2n}} &\ge\frac{n+2}{n+1}\frac{n+3}{n+2}\cdots\frac{2n+1}{2n}\tag{7a}\\[6pt] &=\frac{2n+1}{n+1}\tag{7b}\\[4 pt] &=2-\frac1{n+1}\tag{7c} \end{align} $$ Explanation:
$\text{(7a):}$ apply $(3)$
$\text{(7b):}$ telescoping product
$\text{(7c):}$ simplify

Applying $(6)$ gives $$ \begin{align} e^{\frac1{n+1}+\frac1{n+2}+\cdots+\frac1{2n}} &\le\frac{n+1}n\frac{n+2}{n+1}\cdots\frac{2n}{2n-1}\tag{8a}\\[6pt] &=\frac{2n}n\tag{8b}\\[9 pt] &=2\tag{8c} \end{align} $$ Explanation:
$\text{(8a):}$ apply $(6)$
$\text{(8b):}$ telescoping product
$\text{(8c):}$ simplify

Taking logs of $(7)$ and $(8)$ yields $$ \log\left(2-\frac1{n+1}\right)\le\frac1{n+1}+\frac1{n+2}+\cdots+\frac1{2n}\le\log(2)\tag9 $$ Taking the limit of $(9)$ as $n\to\infty$, the Squeeze Theorem gives $$ \lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{k=n+1}^{2n}\frac1k=\log(2)\tag{10} $$

robjohn
  • 345,667
  • btw I think there's a simpler way to boundedness: $\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{1}{n+i}<\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{1}{n}=1$. Not a downvoter but your solution as posted seems to have been derived by knowing the answer and taking exponents on it. I like that such a basic derivation is possible, though. – Al.G. Mar 12 '23 at 10:18
  • 1
    You are correct. I had started proving that this truncated partial sum (from $n+1$ to $2n$) is actually the partial sum of the alternating harmonic series (from $1$ to $2n$); this is $\text{(2b)}$. Then showed that that sum was majorized by the telescoping sum in $\text{(2c)}$. However, what you say is indeed simpler, and in the interest of simplicity, which is what I am trying for in this answer, I will change $(2)$. – robjohn Mar 12 '23 at 11:11
  • As for using that $\frac{m+1}m\le e^{\frac1m}\le\frac m{m-1}$, this is a useful inequality when dealing with partial sums of the Harmonic Series, and an alternative to using integrals. Of course, the thing that comes to mind first is Riemann Sums, if one knows them, which the OP said they did not. – robjohn Mar 12 '23 at 11:21