How to approximate $sumlimits_{k=n}^{infty}frac{(ln(k))^{2}}{k^{3}}$?












2












$begingroup$


I am a bit perplexed in trying to find values $a,b,c$ so that the approximation is as precise as possible:



$$sum_{k=n}^{infty}frac{(ln(k))^{2}}{k^{3}} approx frac{1}{n^{2}}[a(ln (n))^{2}+b ln(n) + c]$$



I can see from Wolfram that $ln(x)$ could be written in many different ways and that the sum starting from $1$ can be written with Riemann zeta function here. They are probably not something I am looking here. The decreasing exponent hints me that perhaps the term in the sum can be approximated with its derivations, the first derivate here and the second here but when I try to approximate something goes wrong, perhaps wrong premise. Let $z=frac{ln(k)^{2}}{k^{3}}$ then



$$sum_{k=n}^{infty} z approx z' z-z' z^3/2!$$



by the Taylor approximation for the odd function ($ln(x)$ is odd, $x^3$ is odd and the oddity is preserved after the operations, maybe wrong, so $z$ is odd like $sin(x)$), I get:



$$sum_{k=n}^{infty} z approx (frac{1}{x^3}(2ln(x) - 3(ln(x))^2)) -frac{1}{x^2}(6 ln(x)^2-7 ln(x)+1)$$



something wrong because the first term has $x^3$ instead of $x^2$. I am sorry if this hard to read but stuck here. So is it the correct way to approximate the sum? Is it really with Riemann zeta function or does Taylor work here, as I am trying to do above?



I labeled the question with parity because I think it is central here. I feel I may be misunderstanding how the oddity works over different operations, hopefully shown in my vague explanations, and hence the error.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Sorry, I don't think parity tag is the right tag. I have removed it.
    $endgroup$
    – Aryabhata
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:09


















2












$begingroup$


I am a bit perplexed in trying to find values $a,b,c$ so that the approximation is as precise as possible:



$$sum_{k=n}^{infty}frac{(ln(k))^{2}}{k^{3}} approx frac{1}{n^{2}}[a(ln (n))^{2}+b ln(n) + c]$$



I can see from Wolfram that $ln(x)$ could be written in many different ways and that the sum starting from $1$ can be written with Riemann zeta function here. They are probably not something I am looking here. The decreasing exponent hints me that perhaps the term in the sum can be approximated with its derivations, the first derivate here and the second here but when I try to approximate something goes wrong, perhaps wrong premise. Let $z=frac{ln(k)^{2}}{k^{3}}$ then



$$sum_{k=n}^{infty} z approx z' z-z' z^3/2!$$



by the Taylor approximation for the odd function ($ln(x)$ is odd, $x^3$ is odd and the oddity is preserved after the operations, maybe wrong, so $z$ is odd like $sin(x)$), I get:



$$sum_{k=n}^{infty} z approx (frac{1}{x^3}(2ln(x) - 3(ln(x))^2)) -frac{1}{x^2}(6 ln(x)^2-7 ln(x)+1)$$



something wrong because the first term has $x^3$ instead of $x^2$. I am sorry if this hard to read but stuck here. So is it the correct way to approximate the sum? Is it really with Riemann zeta function or does Taylor work here, as I am trying to do above?



I labeled the question with parity because I think it is central here. I feel I may be misunderstanding how the oddity works over different operations, hopefully shown in my vague explanations, and hence the error.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Sorry, I don't think parity tag is the right tag. I have removed it.
    $endgroup$
    – Aryabhata
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:09
















2












2








2


2



$begingroup$


I am a bit perplexed in trying to find values $a,b,c$ so that the approximation is as precise as possible:



$$sum_{k=n}^{infty}frac{(ln(k))^{2}}{k^{3}} approx frac{1}{n^{2}}[a(ln (n))^{2}+b ln(n) + c]$$



I can see from Wolfram that $ln(x)$ could be written in many different ways and that the sum starting from $1$ can be written with Riemann zeta function here. They are probably not something I am looking here. The decreasing exponent hints me that perhaps the term in the sum can be approximated with its derivations, the first derivate here and the second here but when I try to approximate something goes wrong, perhaps wrong premise. Let $z=frac{ln(k)^{2}}{k^{3}}$ then



$$sum_{k=n}^{infty} z approx z' z-z' z^3/2!$$



by the Taylor approximation for the odd function ($ln(x)$ is odd, $x^3$ is odd and the oddity is preserved after the operations, maybe wrong, so $z$ is odd like $sin(x)$), I get:



$$sum_{k=n}^{infty} z approx (frac{1}{x^3}(2ln(x) - 3(ln(x))^2)) -frac{1}{x^2}(6 ln(x)^2-7 ln(x)+1)$$



something wrong because the first term has $x^3$ instead of $x^2$. I am sorry if this hard to read but stuck here. So is it the correct way to approximate the sum? Is it really with Riemann zeta function or does Taylor work here, as I am trying to do above?



I labeled the question with parity because I think it is central here. I feel I may be misunderstanding how the oddity works over different operations, hopefully shown in my vague explanations, and hence the error.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I am a bit perplexed in trying to find values $a,b,c$ so that the approximation is as precise as possible:



$$sum_{k=n}^{infty}frac{(ln(k))^{2}}{k^{3}} approx frac{1}{n^{2}}[a(ln (n))^{2}+b ln(n) + c]$$



I can see from Wolfram that $ln(x)$ could be written in many different ways and that the sum starting from $1$ can be written with Riemann zeta function here. They are probably not something I am looking here. The decreasing exponent hints me that perhaps the term in the sum can be approximated with its derivations, the first derivate here and the second here but when I try to approximate something goes wrong, perhaps wrong premise. Let $z=frac{ln(k)^{2}}{k^{3}}$ then



$$sum_{k=n}^{infty} z approx z' z-z' z^3/2!$$



by the Taylor approximation for the odd function ($ln(x)$ is odd, $x^3$ is odd and the oddity is preserved after the operations, maybe wrong, so $z$ is odd like $sin(x)$), I get:



$$sum_{k=n}^{infty} z approx (frac{1}{x^3}(2ln(x) - 3(ln(x))^2)) -frac{1}{x^2}(6 ln(x)^2-7 ln(x)+1)$$



something wrong because the first term has $x^3$ instead of $x^2$. I am sorry if this hard to read but stuck here. So is it the correct way to approximate the sum? Is it really with Riemann zeta function or does Taylor work here, as I am trying to do above?



I labeled the question with parity because I think it is central here. I feel I may be misunderstanding how the oddity works over different operations, hopefully shown in my vague explanations, and hence the error.







analysis sequences-and-series






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 10 '18 at 18:44









Martin Sleziak

44.7k10118272




44.7k10118272










asked Jan 16 '11 at 16:00









hhhhhh

2,82753578




2,82753578












  • $begingroup$
    Sorry, I don't think parity tag is the right tag. I have removed it.
    $endgroup$
    – Aryabhata
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:09




















  • $begingroup$
    Sorry, I don't think parity tag is the right tag. I have removed it.
    $endgroup$
    – Aryabhata
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:09


















$begingroup$
Sorry, I don't think parity tag is the right tag. I have removed it.
$endgroup$
– Aryabhata
Jan 16 '11 at 19:09






$begingroup$
Sorry, I don't think parity tag is the right tag. I have removed it.
$endgroup$
– Aryabhata
Jan 16 '11 at 19:09












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

You can try using elementary estimates (upper and lower bounds) with integrals (see the end of the answer), or can use the more general and quite useful Euler Mclaurin Summation Formula, which gives us



$$sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = int_{1}^{n} frac{log^2 x}{x^3} text{d}x + frac{log ^2 n}{2n^3} + C + mathcal{O}(frac{1}{n^{3+e}})$$



where $displaystyle e > 0$.



Now $$int_{1}^{n} frac{log^2 x}{x^3} text{d}x = - frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} + 1/4$$



Thus



$$sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = K - frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} + frac{log^2 n}{2n^3} + mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$$



Since the LHS converges we have that



$$sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = sum_{k=1}^{infty}frac{log^2 k}{k^3} - frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} + frac{log^2 n}{2n^3} + mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$$



Thus



$$sum_{k=n+1}^{infty}frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} - frac{log^2 n}{2n^3} + mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$$



And so



$$sum_{k=n}^{infty}frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} + frac{log^2 n}{2n^3} + mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$$



Note that the summation formula allows us to figure out the exact terms which make up the $displaystyle mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$ and so we can make the formula more accurate by including as many lower order terms we need.





A more elementary way:



If $displaystyle f(x) ge 0$ and is monotonically decreasing then we have that



$$int_{n}^{M+1} f(x) text{d}x le sum_{k=n}^{M} f(k) le f(n) + int_{n}^{M} f(x) text{d}x$$



which can be seen by bounding the area under the curve by rectangles of width $1$.



For $displaystyle f(n) = frac{log ^2 n}{n^3}$, we can take limit as $displaystyle M to infty$ to get the asymptotic formula you need.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    so $a=1/2$, $b=1/2$ and $c=1/4$ ;)
    $endgroup$
    – Nabyl Bod
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:24






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    +1. Almost always when I want to approximate a series I find Euler Mclaurin Summation Formula really really useful.
    $endgroup$
    – user17762
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:24



















2












$begingroup$

Invoke an Integral test for convergence
then two Integration by parts give you (up to a mistake in my calculus)



$a=1/2$, $b=1/2$, and $c=1/4$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Just mentioning the integral test is not enough, even though it gives the right answer in this case. Take $sum_{k=n}^{infty} e^{-k}$ for instance. Your logic gives the constant as $1$...
    $endgroup$
    – Aryabhata
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:27












  • $begingroup$
    I agree with you. However it is enough to get the asymptotic expansion here.
    $endgroup$
    – Nabyl Bod
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:30












  • $begingroup$
    It just happens to give the right answer is not proof enough.
    $endgroup$
    – Aryabhata
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:39










  • $begingroup$
    @Moron. Euler-Mclaurin is definetely the right tool to use. Thanks for your comment.
    $endgroup$
    – Nabyl Bod
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:40










  • $begingroup$
    We can do it more simply too, see the end of my answer (A similar method is actually used in the proof of the integral convergence test, I believe).
    $endgroup$
    – Aryabhata
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:47













Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f17713%2fhow-to-approximate-sum-limits-k-n-infty-frac-lnk2k3%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









5












$begingroup$

You can try using elementary estimates (upper and lower bounds) with integrals (see the end of the answer), or can use the more general and quite useful Euler Mclaurin Summation Formula, which gives us



$$sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = int_{1}^{n} frac{log^2 x}{x^3} text{d}x + frac{log ^2 n}{2n^3} + C + mathcal{O}(frac{1}{n^{3+e}})$$



where $displaystyle e > 0$.



Now $$int_{1}^{n} frac{log^2 x}{x^3} text{d}x = - frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} + 1/4$$



Thus



$$sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = K - frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} + frac{log^2 n}{2n^3} + mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$$



Since the LHS converges we have that



$$sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = sum_{k=1}^{infty}frac{log^2 k}{k^3} - frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} + frac{log^2 n}{2n^3} + mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$$



Thus



$$sum_{k=n+1}^{infty}frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} - frac{log^2 n}{2n^3} + mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$$



And so



$$sum_{k=n}^{infty}frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} + frac{log^2 n}{2n^3} + mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$$



Note that the summation formula allows us to figure out the exact terms which make up the $displaystyle mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$ and so we can make the formula more accurate by including as many lower order terms we need.





A more elementary way:



If $displaystyle f(x) ge 0$ and is monotonically decreasing then we have that



$$int_{n}^{M+1} f(x) text{d}x le sum_{k=n}^{M} f(k) le f(n) + int_{n}^{M} f(x) text{d}x$$



which can be seen by bounding the area under the curve by rectangles of width $1$.



For $displaystyle f(n) = frac{log ^2 n}{n^3}$, we can take limit as $displaystyle M to infty$ to get the asymptotic formula you need.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    so $a=1/2$, $b=1/2$ and $c=1/4$ ;)
    $endgroup$
    – Nabyl Bod
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:24






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    +1. Almost always when I want to approximate a series I find Euler Mclaurin Summation Formula really really useful.
    $endgroup$
    – user17762
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:24
















5












$begingroup$

You can try using elementary estimates (upper and lower bounds) with integrals (see the end of the answer), or can use the more general and quite useful Euler Mclaurin Summation Formula, which gives us



$$sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = int_{1}^{n} frac{log^2 x}{x^3} text{d}x + frac{log ^2 n}{2n^3} + C + mathcal{O}(frac{1}{n^{3+e}})$$



where $displaystyle e > 0$.



Now $$int_{1}^{n} frac{log^2 x}{x^3} text{d}x = - frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} + 1/4$$



Thus



$$sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = K - frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} + frac{log^2 n}{2n^3} + mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$$



Since the LHS converges we have that



$$sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = sum_{k=1}^{infty}frac{log^2 k}{k^3} - frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} + frac{log^2 n}{2n^3} + mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$$



Thus



$$sum_{k=n+1}^{infty}frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} - frac{log^2 n}{2n^3} + mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$$



And so



$$sum_{k=n}^{infty}frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} + frac{log^2 n}{2n^3} + mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$$



Note that the summation formula allows us to figure out the exact terms which make up the $displaystyle mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$ and so we can make the formula more accurate by including as many lower order terms we need.





A more elementary way:



If $displaystyle f(x) ge 0$ and is monotonically decreasing then we have that



$$int_{n}^{M+1} f(x) text{d}x le sum_{k=n}^{M} f(k) le f(n) + int_{n}^{M} f(x) text{d}x$$



which can be seen by bounding the area under the curve by rectangles of width $1$.



For $displaystyle f(n) = frac{log ^2 n}{n^3}$, we can take limit as $displaystyle M to infty$ to get the asymptotic formula you need.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    so $a=1/2$, $b=1/2$ and $c=1/4$ ;)
    $endgroup$
    – Nabyl Bod
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:24






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    +1. Almost always when I want to approximate a series I find Euler Mclaurin Summation Formula really really useful.
    $endgroup$
    – user17762
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:24














5












5








5





$begingroup$

You can try using elementary estimates (upper and lower bounds) with integrals (see the end of the answer), or can use the more general and quite useful Euler Mclaurin Summation Formula, which gives us



$$sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = int_{1}^{n} frac{log^2 x}{x^3} text{d}x + frac{log ^2 n}{2n^3} + C + mathcal{O}(frac{1}{n^{3+e}})$$



where $displaystyle e > 0$.



Now $$int_{1}^{n} frac{log^2 x}{x^3} text{d}x = - frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} + 1/4$$



Thus



$$sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = K - frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} + frac{log^2 n}{2n^3} + mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$$



Since the LHS converges we have that



$$sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = sum_{k=1}^{infty}frac{log^2 k}{k^3} - frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} + frac{log^2 n}{2n^3} + mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$$



Thus



$$sum_{k=n+1}^{infty}frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} - frac{log^2 n}{2n^3} + mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$$



And so



$$sum_{k=n}^{infty}frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} + frac{log^2 n}{2n^3} + mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$$



Note that the summation formula allows us to figure out the exact terms which make up the $displaystyle mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$ and so we can make the formula more accurate by including as many lower order terms we need.





A more elementary way:



If $displaystyle f(x) ge 0$ and is monotonically decreasing then we have that



$$int_{n}^{M+1} f(x) text{d}x le sum_{k=n}^{M} f(k) le f(n) + int_{n}^{M} f(x) text{d}x$$



which can be seen by bounding the area under the curve by rectangles of width $1$.



For $displaystyle f(n) = frac{log ^2 n}{n^3}$, we can take limit as $displaystyle M to infty$ to get the asymptotic formula you need.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



You can try using elementary estimates (upper and lower bounds) with integrals (see the end of the answer), or can use the more general and quite useful Euler Mclaurin Summation Formula, which gives us



$$sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = int_{1}^{n} frac{log^2 x}{x^3} text{d}x + frac{log ^2 n}{2n^3} + C + mathcal{O}(frac{1}{n^{3+e}})$$



where $displaystyle e > 0$.



Now $$int_{1}^{n} frac{log^2 x}{x^3} text{d}x = - frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} + 1/4$$



Thus



$$sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = K - frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} + frac{log^2 n}{2n^3} + mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$$



Since the LHS converges we have that



$$sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = sum_{k=1}^{infty}frac{log^2 k}{k^3} - frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} + frac{log^2 n}{2n^3} + mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$$



Thus



$$sum_{k=n+1}^{infty}frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} - frac{log^2 n}{2n^3} + mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$$



And so



$$sum_{k=n}^{infty}frac{log^2 k}{k^3} = frac{2log^2 n + 2 log n + 1}{4n^2} + frac{log^2 n}{2n^3} + mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$$



Note that the summation formula allows us to figure out the exact terms which make up the $displaystyle mathcal{O}left(frac{1}{n^{3+e}}right)$ and so we can make the formula more accurate by including as many lower order terms we need.





A more elementary way:



If $displaystyle f(x) ge 0$ and is monotonically decreasing then we have that



$$int_{n}^{M+1} f(x) text{d}x le sum_{k=n}^{M} f(k) le f(n) + int_{n}^{M} f(x) text{d}x$$



which can be seen by bounding the area under the curve by rectangles of width $1$.



For $displaystyle f(n) = frac{log ^2 n}{n^3}$, we can take limit as $displaystyle M to infty$ to get the asymptotic formula you need.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jan 16 '11 at 21:12

























answered Jan 16 '11 at 19:06









AryabhataAryabhata

70k6156246




70k6156246












  • $begingroup$
    so $a=1/2$, $b=1/2$ and $c=1/4$ ;)
    $endgroup$
    – Nabyl Bod
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:24






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    +1. Almost always when I want to approximate a series I find Euler Mclaurin Summation Formula really really useful.
    $endgroup$
    – user17762
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:24


















  • $begingroup$
    so $a=1/2$, $b=1/2$ and $c=1/4$ ;)
    $endgroup$
    – Nabyl Bod
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:24






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    +1. Almost always when I want to approximate a series I find Euler Mclaurin Summation Formula really really useful.
    $endgroup$
    – user17762
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:24
















$begingroup$
so $a=1/2$, $b=1/2$ and $c=1/4$ ;)
$endgroup$
– Nabyl Bod
Jan 16 '11 at 19:24




$begingroup$
so $a=1/2$, $b=1/2$ and $c=1/4$ ;)
$endgroup$
– Nabyl Bod
Jan 16 '11 at 19:24




1




1




$begingroup$
+1. Almost always when I want to approximate a series I find Euler Mclaurin Summation Formula really really useful.
$endgroup$
– user17762
Jan 16 '11 at 19:24




$begingroup$
+1. Almost always when I want to approximate a series I find Euler Mclaurin Summation Formula really really useful.
$endgroup$
– user17762
Jan 16 '11 at 19:24











2












$begingroup$

Invoke an Integral test for convergence
then two Integration by parts give you (up to a mistake in my calculus)



$a=1/2$, $b=1/2$, and $c=1/4$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Just mentioning the integral test is not enough, even though it gives the right answer in this case. Take $sum_{k=n}^{infty} e^{-k}$ for instance. Your logic gives the constant as $1$...
    $endgroup$
    – Aryabhata
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:27












  • $begingroup$
    I agree with you. However it is enough to get the asymptotic expansion here.
    $endgroup$
    – Nabyl Bod
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:30












  • $begingroup$
    It just happens to give the right answer is not proof enough.
    $endgroup$
    – Aryabhata
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:39










  • $begingroup$
    @Moron. Euler-Mclaurin is definetely the right tool to use. Thanks for your comment.
    $endgroup$
    – Nabyl Bod
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:40










  • $begingroup$
    We can do it more simply too, see the end of my answer (A similar method is actually used in the proof of the integral convergence test, I believe).
    $endgroup$
    – Aryabhata
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:47


















2












$begingroup$

Invoke an Integral test for convergence
then two Integration by parts give you (up to a mistake in my calculus)



$a=1/2$, $b=1/2$, and $c=1/4$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Just mentioning the integral test is not enough, even though it gives the right answer in this case. Take $sum_{k=n}^{infty} e^{-k}$ for instance. Your logic gives the constant as $1$...
    $endgroup$
    – Aryabhata
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:27












  • $begingroup$
    I agree with you. However it is enough to get the asymptotic expansion here.
    $endgroup$
    – Nabyl Bod
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:30












  • $begingroup$
    It just happens to give the right answer is not proof enough.
    $endgroup$
    – Aryabhata
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:39










  • $begingroup$
    @Moron. Euler-Mclaurin is definetely the right tool to use. Thanks for your comment.
    $endgroup$
    – Nabyl Bod
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:40










  • $begingroup$
    We can do it more simply too, see the end of my answer (A similar method is actually used in the proof of the integral convergence test, I believe).
    $endgroup$
    – Aryabhata
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:47
















2












2








2





$begingroup$

Invoke an Integral test for convergence
then two Integration by parts give you (up to a mistake in my calculus)



$a=1/2$, $b=1/2$, and $c=1/4$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Invoke an Integral test for convergence
then two Integration by parts give you (up to a mistake in my calculus)



$a=1/2$, $b=1/2$, and $c=1/4$.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Jan 16 '11 at 17:09









Nabyl BodNabyl Bod

44624




44624








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Just mentioning the integral test is not enough, even though it gives the right answer in this case. Take $sum_{k=n}^{infty} e^{-k}$ for instance. Your logic gives the constant as $1$...
    $endgroup$
    – Aryabhata
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:27












  • $begingroup$
    I agree with you. However it is enough to get the asymptotic expansion here.
    $endgroup$
    – Nabyl Bod
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:30












  • $begingroup$
    It just happens to give the right answer is not proof enough.
    $endgroup$
    – Aryabhata
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:39










  • $begingroup$
    @Moron. Euler-Mclaurin is definetely the right tool to use. Thanks for your comment.
    $endgroup$
    – Nabyl Bod
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:40










  • $begingroup$
    We can do it more simply too, see the end of my answer (A similar method is actually used in the proof of the integral convergence test, I believe).
    $endgroup$
    – Aryabhata
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:47
















  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Just mentioning the integral test is not enough, even though it gives the right answer in this case. Take $sum_{k=n}^{infty} e^{-k}$ for instance. Your logic gives the constant as $1$...
    $endgroup$
    – Aryabhata
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:27












  • $begingroup$
    I agree with you. However it is enough to get the asymptotic expansion here.
    $endgroup$
    – Nabyl Bod
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:30












  • $begingroup$
    It just happens to give the right answer is not proof enough.
    $endgroup$
    – Aryabhata
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:39










  • $begingroup$
    @Moron. Euler-Mclaurin is definetely the right tool to use. Thanks for your comment.
    $endgroup$
    – Nabyl Bod
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:40










  • $begingroup$
    We can do it more simply too, see the end of my answer (A similar method is actually used in the proof of the integral convergence test, I believe).
    $endgroup$
    – Aryabhata
    Jan 16 '11 at 19:47










1




1




$begingroup$
Just mentioning the integral test is not enough, even though it gives the right answer in this case. Take $sum_{k=n}^{infty} e^{-k}$ for instance. Your logic gives the constant as $1$...
$endgroup$
– Aryabhata
Jan 16 '11 at 19:27






$begingroup$
Just mentioning the integral test is not enough, even though it gives the right answer in this case. Take $sum_{k=n}^{infty} e^{-k}$ for instance. Your logic gives the constant as $1$...
$endgroup$
– Aryabhata
Jan 16 '11 at 19:27














$begingroup$
I agree with you. However it is enough to get the asymptotic expansion here.
$endgroup$
– Nabyl Bod
Jan 16 '11 at 19:30






$begingroup$
I agree with you. However it is enough to get the asymptotic expansion here.
$endgroup$
– Nabyl Bod
Jan 16 '11 at 19:30














$begingroup$
It just happens to give the right answer is not proof enough.
$endgroup$
– Aryabhata
Jan 16 '11 at 19:39




$begingroup$
It just happens to give the right answer is not proof enough.
$endgroup$
– Aryabhata
Jan 16 '11 at 19:39












$begingroup$
@Moron. Euler-Mclaurin is definetely the right tool to use. Thanks for your comment.
$endgroup$
– Nabyl Bod
Jan 16 '11 at 19:40




$begingroup$
@Moron. Euler-Mclaurin is definetely the right tool to use. Thanks for your comment.
$endgroup$
– Nabyl Bod
Jan 16 '11 at 19:40












$begingroup$
We can do it more simply too, see the end of my answer (A similar method is actually used in the proof of the integral convergence test, I believe).
$endgroup$
– Aryabhata
Jan 16 '11 at 19:47






$begingroup$
We can do it more simply too, see the end of my answer (A similar method is actually used in the proof of the integral convergence test, I believe).
$endgroup$
– Aryabhata
Jan 16 '11 at 19:47




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f17713%2fhow-to-approximate-sum-limits-k-n-infty-frac-lnk2k3%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Plaza Victoria

In PowerPoint, is there a keyboard shortcut for bulleted / numbered list?

How to put 3 figures in Latex with 2 figures side by side and 1 below these side by side images but in...