Why does $ 1 + frac 13 . frac 14 + frac 15 . frac 1{4^2} + frac 17 . frac 1{4^3} + … = log 3 $? [duplicate]












0















This question already has an answer here:




  • Evaluate $ 1 + frac{1}{3}frac{1}{4}+frac{1}{5}frac{1}{4^2}+frac{1}{7}frac{1}{4^3}+dots$

    1 answer




$ 1 + frac 13 . frac 14 + frac 15 . frac 1{4^2} + frac 17 . frac 1{4^3} + ...$



I evaluated the expression for the first few terms and I find that this number will probably tend to $ log 3 $. I'd like to know why, or how I can prove that it does indeed tend to $ log 3 $. More importantly, I'd like to know the relationship between this particular type of a series and the natural logarithm of numbers.



Why does the natural logarithm of a number show up in such a series?






sequences-and-series logarithms







share|cite|improve this question















marked as duplicate by Martin R, Did, José Carlos Santos sequences-and-series
Users with the  sequences-and-series badge can single-handedly close sequences-and-series questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
 2 days ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.















  • Looks like: $$sum_{r=0}^{infty}{frac{1}{4^r(2r+1)}}$$
    – Rhys Hughes
    2 days ago












  • The general term is $[(2n+1)4^n]^{-1}$ if that helps.
    – John
    2 days ago










  • The reason $log$ appears is simple: its derivative is $frac1x$, which is exactly what allows you to get all the odd numbers to appear in the denominators..
    – Arthur
    2 days ago








  • 3




    You should be careful about writing $+dotsinfty$, it looks like you're adding infinity to all the other fractions. This, however, is not what you mean.
    – Michael Burr
    2 days ago


















0















This question already has an answer here:




  • Evaluate $ 1 + frac{1}{3}frac{1}{4}+frac{1}{5}frac{1}{4^2}+frac{1}{7}frac{1}{4^3}+dots$

    1 answer




$ 1 + frac 13 . frac 14 + frac 15 . frac 1{4^2} + frac 17 . frac 1{4^3} + ...$



I evaluated the expression for the first few terms and I find that this number will probably tend to $ log 3 $. I'd like to know why, or how I can prove that it does indeed tend to $ log 3 $. More importantly, I'd like to know the relationship between this particular type of a series and the natural logarithm of numbers.



Why does the natural logarithm of a number show up in such a series?






sequences-and-series logarithms







share|cite|improve this question















marked as duplicate by Martin R, Did, José Carlos Santos sequences-and-series
Users with the  sequences-and-series badge can single-handedly close sequences-and-series questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
 2 days ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.















  • Looks like: $$sum_{r=0}^{infty}{frac{1}{4^r(2r+1)}}$$
    – Rhys Hughes
    2 days ago












  • The general term is $[(2n+1)4^n]^{-1}$ if that helps.
    – John
    2 days ago










  • The reason $log$ appears is simple: its derivative is $frac1x$, which is exactly what allows you to get all the odd numbers to appear in the denominators..
    – Arthur
    2 days ago








  • 3




    You should be careful about writing $+dotsinfty$, it looks like you're adding infinity to all the other fractions. This, however, is not what you mean.
    – Michael Burr
    2 days ago
















0












0








0








This question already has an answer here:




  • Evaluate $ 1 + frac{1}{3}frac{1}{4}+frac{1}{5}frac{1}{4^2}+frac{1}{7}frac{1}{4^3}+dots$

    1 answer




$ 1 + frac 13 . frac 14 + frac 15 . frac 1{4^2} + frac 17 . frac 1{4^3} + ...$



I evaluated the expression for the first few terms and I find that this number will probably tend to $ log 3 $. I'd like to know why, or how I can prove that it does indeed tend to $ log 3 $. More importantly, I'd like to know the relationship between this particular type of a series and the natural logarithm of numbers.



Why does the natural logarithm of a number show up in such a series?






sequences-and-series logarithms







share|cite|improve this question
















This question already has an answer here:




  • Evaluate $ 1 + frac{1}{3}frac{1}{4}+frac{1}{5}frac{1}{4^2}+frac{1}{7}frac{1}{4^3}+dots$

    1 answer




$ 1 + frac 13 . frac 14 + frac 15 . frac 1{4^2} + frac 17 . frac 1{4^3} + ...$



I evaluated the expression for the first few terms and I find that this number will probably tend to $ log 3 $. I'd like to know why, or how I can prove that it does indeed tend to $ log 3 $. More importantly, I'd like to know the relationship between this particular type of a series and the natural logarithm of numbers.



Why does the natural logarithm of a number show up in such a series?





This question already has an answer here:




  • Evaluate $ 1 + frac{1}{3}frac{1}{4}+frac{1}{5}frac{1}{4^2}+frac{1}{7}frac{1}{4^3}+dots$

    1 answer







sequences-and-series logarithms




sequences-and-series logarithms






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 days ago









Eevee Trainer

4,9321634




4,9321634










asked 2 days ago









WorldGov

2629




2629




marked as duplicate by Martin R, Did, José Carlos Santos sequences-and-series
Users with the  sequences-and-series badge can single-handedly close sequences-and-series questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
 2 days ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.






marked as duplicate by Martin R, Did, José Carlos Santos sequences-and-series
Users with the  sequences-and-series badge can single-handedly close sequences-and-series questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
 2 days ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.














  • Looks like: $$sum_{r=0}^{infty}{frac{1}{4^r(2r+1)}}$$
    – Rhys Hughes
    2 days ago












  • The general term is $[(2n+1)4^n]^{-1}$ if that helps.
    – John
    2 days ago










  • The reason $log$ appears is simple: its derivative is $frac1x$, which is exactly what allows you to get all the odd numbers to appear in the denominators..
    – Arthur
    2 days ago








  • 3




    You should be careful about writing $+dotsinfty$, it looks like you're adding infinity to all the other fractions. This, however, is not what you mean.
    – Michael Burr
    2 days ago




















  • Looks like: $$sum_{r=0}^{infty}{frac{1}{4^r(2r+1)}}$$
    – Rhys Hughes
    2 days ago












  • The general term is $[(2n+1)4^n]^{-1}$ if that helps.
    – John
    2 days ago










  • The reason $log$ appears is simple: its derivative is $frac1x$, which is exactly what allows you to get all the odd numbers to appear in the denominators..
    – Arthur
    2 days ago








  • 3




    You should be careful about writing $+dotsinfty$, it looks like you're adding infinity to all the other fractions. This, however, is not what you mean.
    – Michael Burr
    2 days ago


















Looks like: $$sum_{r=0}^{infty}{frac{1}{4^r(2r+1)}}$$
– Rhys Hughes
2 days ago






Looks like: $$sum_{r=0}^{infty}{frac{1}{4^r(2r+1)}}$$
– Rhys Hughes
2 days ago














The general term is $[(2n+1)4^n]^{-1}$ if that helps.
– John
2 days ago




The general term is $[(2n+1)4^n]^{-1}$ if that helps.
– John
2 days ago












The reason $log$ appears is simple: its derivative is $frac1x$, which is exactly what allows you to get all the odd numbers to appear in the denominators..
– Arthur
2 days ago






The reason $log$ appears is simple: its derivative is $frac1x$, which is exactly what allows you to get all the odd numbers to appear in the denominators..
– Arthur
2 days ago






3




3




You should be careful about writing $+dotsinfty$, it looks like you're adding infinity to all the other fractions. This, however, is not what you mean.
– Michael Burr
2 days ago






You should be careful about writing $+dotsinfty$, it looks like you're adding infinity to all the other fractions. This, however, is not what you mean.
– Michael Burr
2 days ago












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















4














Your series is:
$$f(x) = sum_{n=0}^inftydfrac{x^n}{2n+1}$$
with $x = dfrac{1}{4}.$ The standard way to go about this kind of problem is to observe that $f(x)$ only converges uniformly for $|x|leq r<1$ for any such $r$ and then manipulate the series into something we know already, usually involving taking derivatives.



If you want the challenge, then let me give you a hint: For $0<x<1$, consider $xf(x^2)$ and then take its derivative to get something you can easily calculate.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • @J.G. you are right, that was a mistake.
    – dezdichado
    2 days ago


















1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









4














Your series is:
$$f(x) = sum_{n=0}^inftydfrac{x^n}{2n+1}$$
with $x = dfrac{1}{4}.$ The standard way to go about this kind of problem is to observe that $f(x)$ only converges uniformly for $|x|leq r<1$ for any such $r$ and then manipulate the series into something we know already, usually involving taking derivatives.



If you want the challenge, then let me give you a hint: For $0<x<1$, consider $xf(x^2)$ and then take its derivative to get something you can easily calculate.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • @J.G. you are right, that was a mistake.
    – dezdichado
    2 days ago
















4














Your series is:
$$f(x) = sum_{n=0}^inftydfrac{x^n}{2n+1}$$
with $x = dfrac{1}{4}.$ The standard way to go about this kind of problem is to observe that $f(x)$ only converges uniformly for $|x|leq r<1$ for any such $r$ and then manipulate the series into something we know already, usually involving taking derivatives.



If you want the challenge, then let me give you a hint: For $0<x<1$, consider $xf(x^2)$ and then take its derivative to get something you can easily calculate.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • @J.G. you are right, that was a mistake.
    – dezdichado
    2 days ago














4












4








4






Your series is:
$$f(x) = sum_{n=0}^inftydfrac{x^n}{2n+1}$$
with $x = dfrac{1}{4}.$ The standard way to go about this kind of problem is to observe that $f(x)$ only converges uniformly for $|x|leq r<1$ for any such $r$ and then manipulate the series into something we know already, usually involving taking derivatives.



If you want the challenge, then let me give you a hint: For $0<x<1$, consider $xf(x^2)$ and then take its derivative to get something you can easily calculate.






share|cite|improve this answer














Your series is:
$$f(x) = sum_{n=0}^inftydfrac{x^n}{2n+1}$$
with $x = dfrac{1}{4}.$ The standard way to go about this kind of problem is to observe that $f(x)$ only converges uniformly for $|x|leq r<1$ for any such $r$ and then manipulate the series into something we know already, usually involving taking derivatives.



If you want the challenge, then let me give you a hint: For $0<x<1$, consider $xf(x^2)$ and then take its derivative to get something you can easily calculate.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 2 days ago

























answered 2 days ago









dezdichado

6,2551929




6,2551929












  • @J.G. you are right, that was a mistake.
    – dezdichado
    2 days ago


















  • @J.G. you are right, that was a mistake.
    – dezdichado
    2 days ago
















@J.G. you are right, that was a mistake.
– dezdichado
2 days ago




@J.G. you are right, that was a mistake.
– dezdichado
2 days ago



-

Popular posts from this blog

1300-talet

Image
Den här artikeln handlar om hundraårsperioden 1300–1399. För decenniet 1300–1309, se 1300-talet (decennium). .mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output ...
Read more

1300-talet

Image
Den här artikeln handlar om hundraårsperioden 1300–1399. För decenniet 1300–1309, se 1300-talet (decennium). .mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output ...
Read more

Has there ever been an instance of an active nuclear power plant within or near a war zone?

Image
36 3 The question Has there ever been a military combat going on around an active (running or in outage but not decommissioned) commercial nuclear power plant? Or dangerously near it? If yes, how did the plant and its personnel fare in such situation? Why I ask Let's assume for the scope of this question modern commercial nuclear power plants (CANDU, PWR, BWR of generation II plus all of gen III and newer) are usually reasonably safe to operate given that the engineering has been done right and there is a whole cohort of very well trained personnel on-site at all times, well rested and with considerable resources on their hands. Things hard to get with an armed conflict like the recent Syrian war raging around. I can't seem to find any reference or a comprehensive article about this, hence this question. ...
Read more