Held under a convergent series
Comparison judges a series of non-negative terms against a simpler series whose behavior is already known, usually a p-series or a geometric series.
Suppose for every n, and converges to B. The partial sums of climb, since no term is negative, and each one is at most the matching partial sum of , which is at most B. A total that climbs and never passes B settles on a limit, so converges, to at most B.
Held above a divergent series
The other direction: if for every n and diverges, then diverges. The partial sums of grow past every number, and those of are at least as large.
So the inequality must point the right way for the verdict wanted. Below a convergent series proves convergence. Above a divergent series proves divergence.
An example of each
converges. Its denominator is bigger than , so each term is smaller than , and is a p-series with p = 2, which converges. The sum is less than , about 1.645; it is about 1.077.
diverges. For , , so , and the harmonic series diverges.
The terms for n = 1 to 6, with the vertical scale stretched: , , , , , . Each lies under the gold curve , at the matching term of .
When the inequality points the wrong way
Take . Since , each term is at most . But being smaller than a divergent series proves nothing: is smaller still and converges. That comparison is the wrong way round.
Choose the comparison the other way. Since 2n − 1 < 2n, each term is more than . And is half the harmonic series, which diverges. Now the inequality points the right way, and diverges.
Sometimes no simple inequality points the right way. Take . Its terms behave like , but since , each is at least . Being bigger than a convergent series proves nothing.
The limit comparison test
Compare the sizes of the terms instead, by their ratio. If and are positive and tends to a limit L with , then and both converge or both diverge.
The reason: for large n the ratio is close to L, so it lies between and 2L. Then lies between and . If converges, so does the series with terms , and is held under it. If diverges, so does the series with terms , and is held above it. Direct comparison does the rest.
For against , the ratio is , which tends to 1. So the series converges, like .
A limit of 0 or infinity decides nothing by itself: it means the terms are of different sizes, and the comparison series was the wrong choice.
Choosing what to compare with
Keep the highest power of n in the top and in the bottom. In the top behaves like 2n and the bottom like , so the term behaves like . Compare with .
The ratio is . Dividing the top and the bottom by gives , which tends to 2. Since and converges, converges.
The same way, behaves like . The ratio against is , which tends to 1, and diverges, so diverges.
The ratio for n = 1 to 10: 0.5, 1.54, 1.97, then just over 2, highest at about 2.12 when n = 6, and falling back toward the gold line at 2.
The usual mistakes
Comparing in the wrong direction: showing a series is smaller than a divergent one, or bigger than a convergent one. Neither proves anything.
Using direct comparison with negative terms. Each term of −1 − 1 − 1 − … is less than , and the series diverges. The test needs .
Comparing with the wrong power. Against , the ratio for tends to infinity; against , it tends to 0. Neither decides.
Reading a limit of 0 or infinity as a verdict. Only a finite, non-zero L lets the two series share their behavior.
Two aerials
In the application below, one aerial's harmonics are held under three times , and the other's are held above the harmonic series, so one total is finite and the other is not.
Worked example: Two Aerials and the Power in Their Harmonics: One Total Finite, the Other Not
Question The power radiated by the nth harmonic of an aerial is Pn = 2n+1n3+n microwatts. A second aerial of another design radiates Qn = 2n+1n2+n microwatts in its nth harmonic. (a) Show that the first aerial's total power over all its harmonics is finite, and give an upper bound for it. (b) The second aerial must be switched off once its total passes 10 microwatts. How many harmonics does that take?
1.Compare Pn with a simpler term. For every n ≥ 1, 2n + 1 ≤ 3n and n3 + n ≥ n3, so Pn = 2n+1n3+n ≤ 3nn3 = 3n2.
Every Pn ≤ 3n2, because 2n + 1 ≤ 3n and n3 + n ≥ n3. 2.The series ∑ 3n2 is three times the p-series with p = 2, which converges. By the comparison test a series of positive terms lying under the terms of a convergent series converges as well, so ∑ Pn converges.
∑ 3n2 = 3 × π26 = π22 ≈ 4.93 microwatts. 3.(a) The total power is finite, and it is at most 3 ∑ 1n2 = 3 × π26 = π22 ≈ 4.93 microwatts. Adding the first forty harmonics gives about 2.78 microwatts, comfortably inside that bound.
(a) The first total is finite: forty harmonics give about 2.78 microwatts. 4.Turn to the second aerial. Here n2 + n = n(n+1) and 2n + 1 = n + (n+1), so Qn = 1n+1 + 1n, which is larger than 1n. The harmonic series diverges, so by the comparison test ∑ Qn diverges and its total passes every number.
Qn = 1n + 1n+1 > 1n, and the harmonic series diverges. 5.(b) Add the terms until the total passes 10. The first is Q1 = 32 = 1.5 and the second is Q2 = 56, and the totals reach 9.99 microwatts after 136 harmonics and 10.01 microwatts after 137. The aerial is switched off after 137 harmonics.
(b) The second aerial passes 10 microwatts after 137 harmonics.
Answer: (a) Finite: every Pn ≤ 3n2, so the total is at most π22 ≈ 4.93 microwatts; (b) 137 harmonics
Common mistakes
- Comparing on the wrong side. To prove a series of positive terms converges, its terms must be bounded above by the terms of a convergent series, and to prove one diverges its terms must be bounded below by the terms of a divergent series. Showing that Pn ≥ 1n3 would prove nothing at all.
- Judging Qn to converge because it looks like Pn with a smaller power. The power on the bottom is exactly what decides it: 2n+1n3+n behaves like 2n2 and converges, while 2n+1n2+n behaves like 2n and diverges.