If L=1, it cannot be determined, so other methods must be used to judge whether the series converges or diverges. The statement of the theorem is similar to Non-Decision Method.
(c)
If L=1, it could either converge or diverge. Looking at the series ∑n21,
n→∞limnn21=n→∞limn−2/n=n→∞lim(eln(n−2/n))=n→∞lim(e(−2/n)ln(n))=en→∞lim(−2/n)lnn
The last equality holds because the exponential function is a continuous function. By L’Hopital’s Rule,
n→∞lim(−2/n)lnn=−2n→∞limnlnn=−2n→∞limn1=0
Thus, L=1. The series converges because it is the p− series, which satisfies p=2.
On the other hand, considering the series ∑(nn+1)n,
n→∞limn(nn+1)n=n→∞limnn+1=1
Thus, it is L=1, but since it satisfies n→∞lim(nn+1)n=n→∞lim(1+n1)n=e by the divergence test, the series diverges. These two examples show that if L=1, one cannot determine the convergence of the series.
Proof
(a)
The idea of the proof is to compare it with a converging geometric series. Since L<1, there exists a positive number r that satisfies L<r<1. Then, from n→∞limn∣an∣=L, the following holds for some sufficiently large N.
n∣an∣<r,for all n≥N
Rewriting it,
∣an∣<rn,for all n≥N
However, the series n=N∑∞rn is a geometric series and satisfies ∣r∣<1, so it converges. Therefore, by comparison test, n=N∑∞∣an∣ also converges. In other words, ∑an absolutely converges. (Finite terms before large N do not affect the convergence of the series)
■
(b)
If L>1 or L=∞, then the following holds for sufficiently large N.
n∣an∣>1,for all n≥N
⟹∣an∣>1,for all n≥N
Therefore, n→∞liman=0, and by the divergence test, ∑an diverges.
■
James Stewart, Daniel Clegg, and Saleem Watson, Calculus (early transcendentals, 9E), p776-777 ↩︎