Apply the Leibniz rule for the th derivative of a product. Only the first three terms survive, because all derivatives of of order greater than two vanish and every derivative of is :
At this gives
The epsilon-delta definition of continuity says that is continuous at if
Here belongs to the domain of , and the implication is required for every in that domain. The number may depend on and , but must work for all such simultaneously.
The bound gives when . If , given any , choose . Then implies
the inequality also holds at . This proves continuity using the epsilon-delta definition of continuity.
For necessity, take the positive sequence . Then , so . For this equals ; for it tends to . In neither case does it tend to , so continuity fails. Consequently
This is an instance of the general continuity and differentiability thresholds for a damped oscillation.
The difference quotient at zero is
If , its absolute value is at most , so is differentiable at zero with derivative .
To exclude , use and . The difference quotient equals along the first sequence, and along the second. For the first value is , while for it is unbounded. Hence a common finite limit is impossible. Therefore
For the positive terms , the consecutive ratio is
The ratio test therefore proves that the series converges absolutely. More explicitly, for all sufficiently large the ratio is at most a fixed , so the tail is bounded by a convergent geometric series.
Compare the positive terms with those of the harmonic series:
By the limit comparison test, the given series has the same convergence behaviour as , which diverges. Thus the series diverges to .

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.