Talk:Direct comparison test
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Questions
[edit]"if an <= bn for all n, and suppose that sum (from n= 0 to infinty) bn is convergent. Then sum an is convergent."
(Craw, 2002)
Notice "for all n". Wiki says that "for sufficiently large n".
Also, please explain why comparing the ratios of a series to another known series is betten than comparing the ratio to 1, as in the d'Alembert test. I'm sure there must be a reason, but I can't figure it.
Craw, I., 2002, The Comparison Test, The University of Aberdeen, Available from
http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/~igc/tch/ma2001/notes/node50.html
212.159.75.167 17:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Timbo
Comparison test of the second kind
[edit]In my opinion the described comparison test of the second kind is plain wrong. As a counterexample you can take a series with and a series with (i.e. a converging and a non-converging geometric series) and obviously the condition is fulfilled with , but as obivously is not converging while is. This could be fixed by requiring , but then I could directly use the ratio test (at least, I can't see a point in comparing to another series in that case). So, I would vote for removal of this passage and any references to it. 134.169.77.186 10:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC) (ezander)
- The material on the "comparison test of the second kind" was completely incorrect, and has now been deleted. Jim 00:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well... not completely incorrect. Just incorrect. [w] I've re-added a similar so-called "ratio comparison test" from Buck's Advanced Calculus. BTW, Buck uses the RCT to prove both the ratio test and Raabe's test, so I assume this means the RCT is somewhat useful in and of itself. - dcljr (talk) 05:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Name of Test
[edit]The test is also taught as the "direct comparison test", to separate it from the "limit comparison test", at least at my university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasOwens (talk • contribs) 16:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Proof flawed?
[edit]In the proof it assumes that S_n <= T_n but a_1 could be a_1 = 999.000.000, what I mean it could be really big as the condition a_n < b_n only is required for very large n, so that asumption I think is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.18.76.220 (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
relation with limit comparison test
[edit]They are often confused, so I mentioned they are different at the beginning of the article. Why is the direct comparison test called CQT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arathron (talk • contribs) 00:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I couldn't find a reference for "CQT" using Google that wasn't just quoting this article, so I've removed it. If someone has a reference, they can put it back with a citation. - dcljr (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Move
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved. Andrewa (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Comparison test → Direct comparison test – This current name should be a disambiguation for DCT and limit comparison test. As mentioned, the term can refer to both. Ranze (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Seems reasonable. This is probably one of those rare cases where a dab with only two entries is appropriate, give that "comparison test" is vague. --BDD (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Assessment comment
[edit]The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Direct comparison test/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Upgraded to mid priority. This articles needs some examples, better references, a discussion of the relation with other convergence tests, an explanation of the comparison test for improper integrals, and so forth. Jim 00:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 06:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 02:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
More questions
[edit]In § For series the DCT is stated in two variants:
- once for convergence, and
- again for absolute convergence.
In each case, the test provides two statements:
- that a series dominated by a [or, an absolutely] convergent series also converges [absolutely];
- that a series that dominates a [or, an absolutely] divergent series also diverges [absolutely].
This is all fine. Now we come to § For integrals (and resp. § Ratio comparison test), which doesn't mention absolute convergence or divergence of the integrals (resp. real-valued series). Nor does the RCT mention divergence at all.
Questions: Are analogues of all four statements for the DCT for series also available for integrals? And for the RCT? If so, shouldn't the article also cover them? And if not – which would be surprising! – shouldn't the article explain why not?