Why do $sum na_n x^{n-1}$ and $sum na_n x^n$ have the same radius of convergence?












1












$begingroup$


Why is it that $sum na_n x^{n-1}$ and $sum na_n x^n$ have the same radius of convergence $R$?



How can I show that
$$lim sup|na_n|^{1/n} = lim sup |na_n x|^{1/n}$$ since this would mean that both series have the same radius of convergence $R$?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You can directly note they have the same radius of converge because one is just x times the other
    $endgroup$
    – mathworker21
    Dec 18 '18 at 3:54










  • $begingroup$
    That is exactly what I want to prove
    $endgroup$
    – The Bosco
    Dec 18 '18 at 11:51










  • $begingroup$
    can you be more specific?
    $endgroup$
    – mathworker21
    Dec 18 '18 at 11:55
















1












$begingroup$


Why is it that $sum na_n x^{n-1}$ and $sum na_n x^n$ have the same radius of convergence $R$?



How can I show that
$$lim sup|na_n|^{1/n} = lim sup |na_n x|^{1/n}$$ since this would mean that both series have the same radius of convergence $R$?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You can directly note they have the same radius of converge because one is just x times the other
    $endgroup$
    – mathworker21
    Dec 18 '18 at 3:54










  • $begingroup$
    That is exactly what I want to prove
    $endgroup$
    – The Bosco
    Dec 18 '18 at 11:51










  • $begingroup$
    can you be more specific?
    $endgroup$
    – mathworker21
    Dec 18 '18 at 11:55














1












1








1





$begingroup$


Why is it that $sum na_n x^{n-1}$ and $sum na_n x^n$ have the same radius of convergence $R$?



How can I show that
$$lim sup|na_n|^{1/n} = lim sup |na_n x|^{1/n}$$ since this would mean that both series have the same radius of convergence $R$?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




Why is it that $sum na_n x^{n-1}$ and $sum na_n x^n$ have the same radius of convergence $R$?



How can I show that
$$lim sup|na_n|^{1/n} = lim sup |na_n x|^{1/n}$$ since this would mean that both series have the same radius of convergence $R$?







real-analysis sequences-and-series convergence






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 18 '18 at 3:45









The BoscoThe Bosco

541212




541212








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You can directly note they have the same radius of converge because one is just x times the other
    $endgroup$
    – mathworker21
    Dec 18 '18 at 3:54










  • $begingroup$
    That is exactly what I want to prove
    $endgroup$
    – The Bosco
    Dec 18 '18 at 11:51










  • $begingroup$
    can you be more specific?
    $endgroup$
    – mathworker21
    Dec 18 '18 at 11:55














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You can directly note they have the same radius of converge because one is just x times the other
    $endgroup$
    – mathworker21
    Dec 18 '18 at 3:54










  • $begingroup$
    That is exactly what I want to prove
    $endgroup$
    – The Bosco
    Dec 18 '18 at 11:51










  • $begingroup$
    can you be more specific?
    $endgroup$
    – mathworker21
    Dec 18 '18 at 11:55








2




2




$begingroup$
You can directly note they have the same radius of converge because one is just x times the other
$endgroup$
– mathworker21
Dec 18 '18 at 3:54




$begingroup$
You can directly note they have the same radius of converge because one is just x times the other
$endgroup$
– mathworker21
Dec 18 '18 at 3:54












$begingroup$
That is exactly what I want to prove
$endgroup$
– The Bosco
Dec 18 '18 at 11:51




$begingroup$
That is exactly what I want to prove
$endgroup$
– The Bosco
Dec 18 '18 at 11:51












$begingroup$
can you be more specific?
$endgroup$
– mathworker21
Dec 18 '18 at 11:55




$begingroup$
can you be more specific?
$endgroup$
– mathworker21
Dec 18 '18 at 11:55










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

Instead of using any formula for radius of convergence simply use the fact that $sum na_nx^{n-1}$ converges iff $sum na_nx^n$ does, for any $x neq 0$. Obviously, this implies that they have the same radius of convergence.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    But proving that part that one converges iff the other one does is what I don't get.
    $endgroup$
    – The Bosco
    Dec 18 '18 at 11:09










  • $begingroup$
    If $sum a_n $ converges then $sum c a_n$ also converges for any constant $c$. Apply this with $c=x$ in one direction and $c =frac 1 x$ in the other direction.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Dec 18 '18 at 11:43











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%2f3044751%2fwhy-do-sum-na-n-xn-1-and-sum-na-n-xn-have-the-same-radius-of-convergen%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









0












$begingroup$

Instead of using any formula for radius of convergence simply use the fact that $sum na_nx^{n-1}$ converges iff $sum na_nx^n$ does, for any $x neq 0$. Obviously, this implies that they have the same radius of convergence.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    But proving that part that one converges iff the other one does is what I don't get.
    $endgroup$
    – The Bosco
    Dec 18 '18 at 11:09










  • $begingroup$
    If $sum a_n $ converges then $sum c a_n$ also converges for any constant $c$. Apply this with $c=x$ in one direction and $c =frac 1 x$ in the other direction.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Dec 18 '18 at 11:43
















0












$begingroup$

Instead of using any formula for radius of convergence simply use the fact that $sum na_nx^{n-1}$ converges iff $sum na_nx^n$ does, for any $x neq 0$. Obviously, this implies that they have the same radius of convergence.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    But proving that part that one converges iff the other one does is what I don't get.
    $endgroup$
    – The Bosco
    Dec 18 '18 at 11:09










  • $begingroup$
    If $sum a_n $ converges then $sum c a_n$ also converges for any constant $c$. Apply this with $c=x$ in one direction and $c =frac 1 x$ in the other direction.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Dec 18 '18 at 11:43














0












0








0





$begingroup$

Instead of using any formula for radius of convergence simply use the fact that $sum na_nx^{n-1}$ converges iff $sum na_nx^n$ does, for any $x neq 0$. Obviously, this implies that they have the same radius of convergence.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Instead of using any formula for radius of convergence simply use the fact that $sum na_nx^{n-1}$ converges iff $sum na_nx^n$ does, for any $x neq 0$. Obviously, this implies that they have the same radius of convergence.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 18 '18 at 5:59









Kavi Rama MurthyKavi Rama Murthy

55.4k42057




55.4k42057












  • $begingroup$
    But proving that part that one converges iff the other one does is what I don't get.
    $endgroup$
    – The Bosco
    Dec 18 '18 at 11:09










  • $begingroup$
    If $sum a_n $ converges then $sum c a_n$ also converges for any constant $c$. Apply this with $c=x$ in one direction and $c =frac 1 x$ in the other direction.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Dec 18 '18 at 11:43


















  • $begingroup$
    But proving that part that one converges iff the other one does is what I don't get.
    $endgroup$
    – The Bosco
    Dec 18 '18 at 11:09










  • $begingroup$
    If $sum a_n $ converges then $sum c a_n$ also converges for any constant $c$. Apply this with $c=x$ in one direction and $c =frac 1 x$ in the other direction.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Dec 18 '18 at 11:43
















$begingroup$
But proving that part that one converges iff the other one does is what I don't get.
$endgroup$
– The Bosco
Dec 18 '18 at 11:09




$begingroup$
But proving that part that one converges iff the other one does is what I don't get.
$endgroup$
– The Bosco
Dec 18 '18 at 11:09












$begingroup$
If $sum a_n $ converges then $sum c a_n$ also converges for any constant $c$. Apply this with $c=x$ in one direction and $c =frac 1 x$ in the other direction.
$endgroup$
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Dec 18 '18 at 11:43




$begingroup$
If $sum a_n $ converges then $sum c a_n$ also converges for any constant $c$. Apply this with $c=x$ in one direction and $c =frac 1 x$ in the other direction.
$endgroup$
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Dec 18 '18 at 11:43


















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%2f3044751%2fwhy-do-sum-na-n-xn-1-and-sum-na-n-xn-have-the-same-radius-of-convergen%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

Bressuire

Cabo Verde

Gyllenstierna