1. The test

2. Examples
     Convergent because L < 1    Divergent because L > 1    Inconclusive because L = 1  

3. Proof

4. Extensions for L = 1
     De Morgan hierarchy   1. d’Alembert’s ratio test  2. Raabe's test  Proof of Raabe's test   3. Bertrand’s test    4. Gauss’s test    5. Kummer’s test    Special cases   Proof of Kummer's test   Second ratio test  

5. See also

6. Footnotes

7. References

In mathematics, the ratio test is a test (or "criterion") for the convergence of a series

where each term is a real or complex number and {{mvar|a_n}} is nonzero when {{mvar|n}} is large. The test was first published by Jean le Rond d'Alembert and is sometimes known as d'Alembert's ratio test or as the Cauchy ratio test.^[1]

The test

The usual form of the test makes use of the limit

The ratio test states that:

• if L < 1 then the series converges absolutely;
• if L > 1 then the series is divergent;
• if L = 1 or the limit fails to exist, then the test is inconclusive, because there exist both convergent and divergent series that satisfy this case.

It is possible to make the ratio test applicable to certain cases where the limit L fails to exist, if limit superior and limit inferior are used. The test criteria can also be refined so that the test is sometimes conclusive even when L = 1. More specifically, let

.

Then the ratio test states that:^[2][3]

• if R < 1, the series converges absolutely;
• if r > 1, the series diverges;
• if for all large n (regardless of the value of r), the series also diverges; this is because is nonzero and increasing and hence {{mvar|a_n}} does not approach zero;
• the test is otherwise inconclusive.

If the limit L in ({{EquationNote|1}}) exists, we must have L = R = r. So the original ratio test is a weaker version of the refined one.

Examples

Convergent because L < 1

Consider the series or sequence of series

Applying the ratio test, one computes the limit

Since this limit is less than 1, the series converges.

Divergent because L > 1

Consider the series

Putting this into the ratio test:

Thus the series diverges.

Inconclusive because L = 1

Consider the three series

The first series (1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ⋯) diverges, the second one (the one central to the Basel problem) converges absolutely and the third one (the alternating harmonic series) converges conditionally. However, the term-by-term magnitude ratios of the three series are respectively       and   . So, in all three cases, one has that the limit is equal to 1. This illustrates that when L = 1, the series may converge or diverge, and hence the original ratio test is inconclusive. In such cases, more refined tests are required to determine convergence or divergence.

Proof

Below is a proof of the validity of the original ratio test.

Suppose that . We can then show that the series converges absolutely by showing that its terms will eventually become less than those of a certain convergent geometric series. To do this, let . Then r is strictly between L and 1, and for sufficiently large n (say, n greater than N). Hence for each n > N and i > 0, and so

That is, the series converges absolutely.

On the other hand, if L > 1, then for sufficiently large n, so that the limit of the summands is non-zero. Hence the series diverges.

Extensions for L = 1

As seen in the previous example, the ratio test may be inconclusive when the limit of the ratio is 1. Extensions to the ratio test, however, sometimes allows one to deal with this case.^{[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]}

In all the tests below one assumes that Σa_n is a sum with positive a_n. These tests also may be applied to any series with a finite number of negative terms. Any such series may be written as:

where a_N is the highest-indexed negative term. The first expression on the right is a partial sum which will be finite, and so the convergence of the entire series will be determined by the convergence properties of the second expression on the right, which may be re-indexed to form a series of all positive terms beginning at n=1.

Each test defines a test parameter (ρ_n) which specifies the behavior of that parameter needed to establish convergence or divergence. For each test, a weaker form of the test exists which will instead place restrictions upon lim_n->∞ρ_n.

All of the tests have regions in which they fail to describe the convergence properties of ∑a_n. In fact, no convergence test can fully describe the convergence properties of the series.^[4][10] This is because if ∑a_n is convergent, a second convergent series ∑b_n can be found which converges more slowly: i.e., it has the property that lim_n->∞ (b_n/a_n) = ∞. Furthermore, if ∑a_n is divergent, a second divergent series ∑b_n can be found which diverges more slowly: i.e., it has the property that lim_n->∞ (b_n/a_n) = 0. Convergence tests essentially use the comparison test on some particular family of a_n, and fail for sequences which converge or diverge more slowly.

De Morgan hierarchy

The ratio test parameters () below all generally involve terms of the form . This term may be multiplied by to yield . This term can replace the former term in the definition of the test parameters and the conclusions drawn will remain the same. Accordingly, there will be no distinction drawn between references which use one or the other form of the test parameter.

1. d’Alembert’s ratio test

The first test in the De Morgan hierarchy is the ratio test as described above.

2. Raabe's test

This extension is due to Joseph Ludwig Raabe. Define:

(and some extra terms, see Ali, Blackburn, Feld, Duris (none), Duris2)

The series will:^[7][10][9]

• Converge when there exists a c>1 such that for all n>N.
• Diverge when for all n>N.
• Otherwise, the test is inconclusive.

For the limit version,^[12] the series will:

• Converge if (this includes the case ρ = ∞)
• Diverge if .
• If ρ = 1, the test is inconclusive.

When the above limit does not exist, it may be possible to use limits superior and inferior.^[4] The series will:

• Converge if
• Diverge if
• Otherwise, the test is inconclusive.

Proof of Raabe's test

Defining , we need not assume the limit exists; if , then diverges, while if the sum converges.

The proof proceeds essentially by comparison with . Suppose first that . Of course

if then for large , so the sum diverges; assume then that . There exists such that for all , which is to say that . Thus , which implies that

for ; since this shows that diverges.

The proof of the other half is entirely analogous, with most of the inequalities simply reversed. We need a preliminary inequality to use

in place of the simple that was used above: Fix and . Note that

. So ; hence .

Suppose now that . Arguing as in the first paragraph, using the inequality established in the previous paragraph, we see that there exists such that for ; since this shows that converges.

3. Bertrand’s test

This extension is due to Joseph Bertrand and Augustus De Morgan.

Defining:

Bertrand's test^[4][10] asserts that the series will:

• Converge when there exists a c>1 such that for all n>N.
• Diverge when for all n>N.
• Otherwise, the test is inconclusive.

For the limit version, the series will:

• Converge if (this includes the case ρ = ∞)
• Diverge if .
• If ρ = 1, the test is inconclusive.

When the above limit does not exist, it may be possible to use limits superior and inferior.^[4][9][13] The series will:

• Converge if
• Diverge if
• Otherwise, the test is inconclusive.

4. Gauss’s test

This extension is due to Carl Friedrich Gauss.

Assuming a_n > 0 and r > 1, if a bounded sequence C_n can be found such that for all n:^{[5][7][9][10]}

then the series will:

• Converge if
• Diverge if

5. Kummer’s test

This extension is due to Ernst Kummer.

Let ζ_n be an auxiliary sequence of positive constants. Define

Kummer's test states that the series will:^{[5][6][10][11]}

• Converge if there exists a such that for all n>N. (Note this is not the same as saying )
• Diverge if for all n>N and diverges.

For the limit version, the series will:^[14][7][9]

• Converge if (this includes the case ρ = ∞)
• Diverge if and diverges.
• Otherwise the test is inconclusive

When the above limit does not exist, it may be possible to use limits superior and inferior.^[4] The series will

• Converge if
• Diverge if and diverges.

Special cases

All of the tests in De Morgan’s hierarchy except Gauss’s test can easily be seen as special cases of Kummer’s test:^[4]

• For the ratio test, let ζ_n=1. Then:

• For Raabe’s test, let ζ_n=n. Then:

• For Bertrand’s test, let ζ_n=n ln(n). Then:

Using and approximating for large n, which is negligible compared to the other terms, ρ_Kummer may be written:

Note that for these three tests, the higher they are in the De Morgan hierarchy, the more slowly the 1/ζ_n series diverges.

Proof of Kummer's test

If then fix a positive number . There exists

a natural number such that for every

Since , for every

In particular for all which means that starting from the index

the sequence is monotonically decreasing and

positive which in particular implies that it is bounded below by 0. Therefore the limit

exists.

This implies that the positive telescoping series

is convergent,

and since for all

by the direct comparison test for positive series, the series

is convergent.

On the other hand, if , then there is an N such that is increasing for . In particular, there exists an for which for all , and so diverges by comparison with .

Second ratio test

A more refined ratio test is the second ratio test:^[7][9]

For define:

By the second ratio test, the series will:

• Converge if
• Diverge if
• If then the test is inconclusive.

If the above limits do not exist, it may be possible to use the limits superior and inferior. Define:

Then the series will:

• Converge if
• Diverge if
• If then the test is inconclusive.

The second ratio test can be generalized to an m-th ratio test, but higher orders are not found to be as useful.^[7][9]

See also

• Root test
• Radius of convergence

Footnotes

References

• {{citation | last1=d'Alembert| first1=J.|authorlink=Jean le Rond d'Alembert| year=1768 | title=Opuscules |volume=V|pages=171–183| url=http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k62424s.image.f192}}.
• {{Citation | last1=Apostol | first1=Tom M. | author1-link=Tom M. Apostol | title=Mathematical analysis | publisher=Addison-Wesley | edition=2nd | isbn=978-0-201-00288-1 | year=1974}}: §8.14.
• {{citation|last=Knopp|first=Konrad|title=Infinite Sequences and Series|location=New York |publisher=Dover Publications|year=1956|isbn=978-0-486-60153-3|bibcode=1956iss..book.....K}}: §3.3, 5.4.
• {{citation|last=Rudin|first=Walter|authorlink=Walter Rudin|title=Principles of Mathematical Analysis|edition=3rd|publisher=McGraw-Hill, Inc.|location=New York|year=1976|isbn=978-0-07-054235-8}}: §3.34.
• {{springer|title=Bertrand criterion|id=p/b015780}}
• {{springer|title=Gauss criterion|id=p/g043420}}
• {{springer|title=Kummer criterion|id=p/k055950}}
• {{citation|last2=Whittaker|first2=E. T.|last1=Watson|first1=G. N.|title=A Course in Modern Analysis|edition=4th|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=1963|isbn=978-0-521-58807-2}}: §2.36, 2.37.

• Kaleb Canales
• Kaleb Cowart
• Kaleb Simmonds
• Kaleb tedla
• Kaleb Tedla
• Kale, Burma
• Kale (cabbage)
• Kalec Castle
• Kalecik Dam (Elazig)
• Kalecik Dam (Elazığ)
• Kalecik Dam (Osmaniye)
• Kalecik (disambiguation)
• Kalecik Karasi
• Kaleczew
• Kaleczyn
• Kaleczyn, Ciechanow County
• Kaleczynek
• Kaleczyn, Grodzisk Mazowiecki County
• Kaleczyn, Makow County
• Kaleczyn, Ostrow Mazowiecka County
• Kaleczyn, Podlaskie Voivodeship
• Kaleczyn, Pultusk County
• Kaleczyn-Walochy
• Kaleczyn, Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship
• Kaleczyn, Wegrow County