4.2.12 · D3 · Maths › Calculus II — Integration › Convergence tests for improper integrals — comparison
Intuition Yeh page kya hai
Parent note ne do tools sikhaye the (comparison — DCT aur LCT). Yeh page hai firing range : hum un tools ko handle karne waale har tarah ke situation list karte hain, phir ek-ek example se unhe shoot down karte hain. Jab tum finish kar lo, koi bhi exam integral unfamiliar nahi lagni chahiye.
Shuru karne se pehle, symbols ka ek chhota sa reminder taaki koi symbol achanak aa ke surprise na kare:
Definition Woh symbols jo hum baar baar use karenge
∫ a ∞ f d x ka matlab hai "curve y = f ( x ) ke neeche x = a se hamesha daayein taraf ka total signed area," jo lim t → ∞ ∫ a t f d x ke roop mein compute hota hai. Agar yeh limit ek simple finite number ho toh hum kehte hain converges ; agar yeh ∞ tak jaaye (ya koi limit na ho) toh kehte hain diverges .
f woh mushkil function hai jiske baare mein hum care karte hain; g woh easy benchmark hai jisse hum compare karte hain (almost hamesha ek power x − p ya exponential e − x ).
DCT (Direct Comparison): ek honest inequality 0 ≤ f ≤ g chahiye.
LCT (Limit Comparison): ratio L = lim x → ∞ f / g chahiye jisme 0 < L < ∞ ho.
p woh exponent hai benchmark x − p mein: yeh converge karta hai iff p > 1 .
Har improper-integral-comparison problem in cells mein se ek (ya in ka blend) hai. Pehle table padho; neeche har example us cell ke saath tagged hai jo woh handle karta hai.
Cell
Ise us case ki kya cheez banati hai
Tool ka choice
Example
A. Clean "+constant" tail
f ek 1/ ( polynomial ) hai, dominant power obvious hai
DCT, upar se bound karo
Ex 1
B. Messy denominator (clean inequality nahi)
roots + powers mixed, e.g. x + x
LCT
Ex 2
C. Numerator mein bounded wiggle
sin , cos [ − 1 , 1 ] mein trapped hain
Numerator ko trap karke DCT
Ex 3
D. Slow-growing helper (ln )
ln x powers se aage/peeche rehta hai
DCT, direction ln x < x se
Ex 4
E. Exponential benchmark
e − x kisi bhi power ko crush kar deta hai
g = e − x ke saath DCT
Ex 5
F. Sign-changing f
f ≥ 0 nahi hai; DCT proof toot jaata hai
absolute comparison $
f
G. Degenerate LCT limit L = 0 ya L = ∞
benchmark mismatched hai
one-way LCT, phir fix karo
Ex 7
H. Type-2 (finite point par blow-up)
singularity hai, ∞ nahi
bad point ke paas DCT
Ex 8
I. Word problem / real world
probability, physics tail
translate karo → compare karo
Ex 9
J. Exam twist (convergent lagta hai, nahi hota — ya ulta)
pehli instinct galat
forecast karo phir verify karo
Ex 10
Neeche di gayi figure har cell ke peeche ki mental picture hai: tumhara curve benchmarks ke beech trapped hai.
Ex 1. Kya ∫ 1 ∞ x 3 + 2 x + 7 d x converge karta hai?
Forecast (pehle guess karo!): denominator x 3 ki tarah badhta hai, aur ∫ x − 3 mein p = 3 > 1 hai… toh guess convergent . Isko prove karte hain.
Step 1 — dominant power pehchano. Yeh step kyun? Bade x ke liye, + 2 x + 7 ka x 3 ke saamne koi wajood nahi; tail 1/ x 3 ki tarah behave karta hai. Isse hume benchmark g = 1/ x 3 milta hai.
Step 2 — inequality sahi direction mein laao. Kyunki x 3 + 2 x + 7 > x 3 sabhi x ≥ 1 ke liye (humne sirf positive cheezein joodi hain), reciprocal lene se inequality flip hoti hai:
0 ≤ x 3 + 2 x + 7 1 < x 3 1 .
Upar se bound kyun karte hain? Hum convergence prove karna chahte hain, aur "chhota ≤ convergent ⇒ convergent" woh useful direction hai (mnemonic: squeeze to please ).
Step 3 — benchmark invoke karo. ∫ 1 ∞ x − 3 d x converge karta hai kyunki p = 3 > 1 . DCT se, hamara integral converges . ✅
Verify: benchmark value sanity-check karo: ∫ 1 ∞ x − 3 d x = [ − 2 x − 2 ] 1 ∞ = 2 1 , ek finite number. Hamara area 2 1 se neeche hai, toh definitely finite hai. Consistent hai.
Ex 2. Kya ∫ 1 ∞ 2 x + 3 x d x converge karta hai?
Forecast: neeche dominant term 3 x hai (x se tez badhta hai), toh f ∼ 3 x 1 , jo 1/ x (p = 1 ) ki tarah behave karta hai — guess divergent .
Step 1 — g = 1/ x choose karo. DCT nahi, LCT kyun? Kyunki 2 x + 3 x ek clean single power nahi hai; DCT inequality force karna jhanjhat bhari baat hai. LCT humein sirf dominant terms match karne deta hai.
Step 2 — ratio limit compute karo.
L = lim x → ∞ 1/ x 1/ ( 2 x + 3 x ) = lim x → ∞ 2 x + 3 x x .
Step 3 — upar aur neeche x se divide karo. Yeh step kyun? Yeh growing terms ko khatam karke limit expose karta hai:
L = lim x → ∞ 2 x − 1/2 + 3 1 = 0 + 3 1 = 3 1 .
Step 4 — verdict padho. 0 < L = 3 1 < ∞ , toh f aur g = 1/ x ka same fate hai. Kyunki ∫ 1 ∞ x − 1 d x diverge karta hai (p = 1 ), hamara integral diverges . ❌
Verify: constant 3 1 finite aur positive hai — exactly woh regime jahan LCT ka clean two-way conclusion valid hai. Achha hai.
Ex 3. Kya ∫ 1 ∞ x 3/2 3 + cos x d x converge karta hai?
Forecast: cos x sirf − 1 aur 1 ke beech wiggle karta hai; "size" 1/ x 3/2 se set hoti hai, aur p = 2 3 > 1 hai — guess convergent .
Step 1 — numerator ko trap karo. Kyun? cos x ki koi limit nahi hai, toh hum ratio nahi le sakte; balki hum ise bound karte hain. Kyunki − 1 ≤ cos x ≤ 1 :
2 ≤ 3 + cos x ≤ 4.
Step 2 — positive x 3/2 se divide karo (inequality direction preserve hoti hai):
0 ≤ x 3/2 3 + c o s x ≤ x 3/2 4 .
Upar se bound kyun? Convergence prove karna → ek convergent benchmark ke neeche squeeze karo.
Step 3 — benchmark. ∫ 1 ∞ 4 x − 3/2 d x converge karta hai (p = 2 3 > 1 ; constant 4 koi fark nahi padta). DCT se, converges . ✅
Verify: ∫ 1 ∞ 4 x − 3/2 d x = 4 ⋅ [ − 1/2 x − 1/2 ] 1 ∞ = 4 ⋅ 2 = 8 , finite. Hamara area 8 se neeche baithta hai. Consistent hai.
Ex 4. Kya ∫ 2 ∞ x ln x d x converge karta hai?
Forecast: dhyan se — ln x badhta hai, toh x l n x , x 1 se bada hai. Kyunki ∫ 1/ x diverge karta hai, aur hum usse upar hain… guess divergent .
Step 1 — inequality laao. x ≥ e ke liye (definitely x ≥ 3 ke liye), ln x ≥ 1 , toh
x l n x ≥ x 1 .
Neeche se bound kyun? Hume divergence ka shakk hai, aur "bada ≥ divergent ⇒ divergent" woh useful direction hai (push to die ).
Step 2 — chhoti window [ 2 , 3 ] handle karo. Kyun? [ 2 , 3 ] par function continuous aur finite hai, jo ek finite bounded chunk contribute karta hai; convergence sirf infinite tail se decide hoti hai, toh x = 3 se compare karna shuru karna safe hai.
Step 3 — benchmark. ∫ 3 ∞ x − 1 d x diverge karta hai, aur hamara function uske upar lie karta hai, toh DCT se diverges . ❌
Verify: directly compute karo, ∫ 2 t x l n x d x = [ 2 ( l n x ) 2 ] 2 t = 2 ( l n t ) 2 − ( l n 2 ) 2 → ∞ . Divergence exactly confirm ho gayi.
Ex 5. Kya ∫ 0 ∞ x 2 e − x d x converge karta hai?
Forecast: exponentials polynomials ko crush kar dete hain, toh x 2 e − x → 0 tez — guess convergent .
Step 1 — g = e − x /2 choose karo. Yeh benchmark kyun, power kyun nahi? Ek power x − p x 2 e − x ko dominate nahi kar sakta — lekin e − x kisi bhi power se tez decay karta hai, toh thoda weakly exponential e − x /2 polynomial factor ko bhi swallow kar leta hai aur trivially integrable hai.
Step 2 — inequality banao. Bade x ke liye, x 2 e − x = x 2 e − x /2 ⋅ e − x /2 , aur x 2 e − x /2 → 0 , toh yeh ≤ 1 hoga jab x ≥ X 0 . Phir
0 ≤ x 2 e − x ≤ e − x /2 ( x ≥ X 0 ) .
Step 3 — benchmark. ∫ 0 ∞ e − x /2 d x = 2 converge karta hai. Finite window [ 0 , X 0 ] ek bounded, continuous chunk contribute karta hai. DCT se, converges . ✅
Verify: yeh Gamma integral hai ∫ 0 ∞ x 2 e − x d x = Γ ( 3 ) = 2 ! = 2 , ek clean finite number. Convergence exact value 2 ke saath confirm ho gayi.
Ex 6. Kya ∫ 1 ∞ x 2 sin x d x converge karta hai?
Forecast: sin x aadhe time negative hai, toh DCT ka "f ≥ 0 " rule toot jaata hai. Lekin ∣ sin x ∣ ≤ 1 , toh size ≤ 1/ x 2 hai — guess (absolutely) convergent .
Step 1 — absolute value par switch karo. Kyun? DCT ke proof ko ek increasing area function chahiye, jiske liye f ≥ 0 zaroori hai. Sign changes ke saath, ∣ f ∣ compare karo (dekho Absolute vs conditional convergence ):
x 2 s i n x = x 2 ∣ s i n x ∣ ≤ x 2 1 .
Step 2 — ∣ f ∣ par benchmark. ∫ 1 ∞ x − 2 d x converge karta hai, toh DCT se ∫ 1 ∞ x 2 s i n x d x converges .
Step 3 — original par upgrade karo. Absolute convergence ordinary convergence kyun deta hai? Kyunki "absolutely convergent ⇒ convergent" — positive aur negative pieces dono finite hain, toh unka difference bhi finite hai. Iss tarah ∫ 1 ∞ x 2 s i n x d x converges . ✅
Verify: tail bounded hai: ∫ 1 ∞ x 2 s i n x d x ≤ ∫ 1 ∞ x 2 1 d x = 1 . Finite bound convergence confirm karta hai.
Ex 7. Kya ∫ 1 ∞ x 3 ln x d x converge karta hai, naive LCT se test karke?
Forecast: ln x itna dhire badhta hai ki x 3 ke saamne barely matter karta hai — guess convergent , lekin LCT ka trap dekho.
Step 1 — naive benchmark g = 1/ x 3 try karo.
L = lim x → ∞ 1/ x 3 ( l n x ) / x 3 = lim x → ∞ ln x = ∞.
Yeh problem kyun hai? LCT ka clean two-way rule 0 < L < ∞ chahiye. Yahan L = ∞ hai, toh hume sirf one-way implication milti hai: agar g diverge karta, toh hum kuch useful nahi seekh paate. Kyunki g converge karta hai, L = ∞ koi conclusion nahi deta — dead end.
Step 2 — thoda weaker benchmark g = 1/ x 2 choose karke fix karo. x − 2 kyun? Hum slow ln x ko extra decay mein absorb karna chahte hain. Kyunki ln x ≤ x 1/2 bade x ke liye (x ki koi bhi power ln x ko beat karti hai):
x 3 l n x ≤ x 3 x 1/2 = x 5/2 1 .
Step 3 — benchmark. ∫ 1 ∞ x − 5/2 d x converge karta hai (p = 2 5 > 1 ). DCT se, converges . ✅
Verify: integration by parts se directly ∫ 1 ∞ x 3 l n x d x = 4 1 milta hai (finite). Convergence confirm ho gayi; exact value 4 1 hai.
Ex 8. Kya ∫ 0 1 x + x 2 d x converge karta hai?
Forecast: problem x = 0 par hai (dekho Improper integrals — infinite discontinuities (type 2) ), jahan x → 0 integrand ko blow up karta hai. 0 ke paas, x , x 2 ko dominate karta hai, toh f ∼ 1/ x = x − 1/2 . Singularity ke paas p-test kehta hai ∫ 0 1 x − p d x converge karta hai iff p < 1 . Yahan p = 2 1 < 1 — guess convergent .
Step 1 — singularity locate karo. Kyun? Comparison wahan honi chahiye jahan integrand misbehave kare — yahan x → 0 + par, ∞ par nahi.
Step 2 — 0 ke paas inequality. 0 < x ≤ 1 ke liye, x + x 2 > x , toh
0 ≤ x + x 2 1 < x 1 .
Upar se bound kyun? Convergence prove karna → ek convergent benchmark ke neeche squeeze karo.
Step 3 — type-2 endpoint ke liye benchmark. ∫ 0 1 x − 1/2 d x = [ 2 x ] 0 1 = 2 , finite (converge karta hai kyunki p = 2 1 < 1 ). DCT se, converges . ✅
Verify: benchmark value 2 finite hai; hamara integrand chhota hai, toh uska integral 2 se neeche hai. Consistent hai.
Ex 9. Ek radioactive sensor ek signal emit karta hai jiska power tail time x ≥ 1 seconds ke baad P ( x ) = x 2 + x 1 watts hai. Kya total emitted energy ∫ 1 ∞ P ( x ) d x (joules mein) finite rehti hai?
Forecast: 1/ x 2 -jaisi tail tez decay karti hai; finite energy physically sensible hai — guess convergent (finite energy) .
Step 1 — dominant behaviour identify karo. Bade x ke liye, x 2 + x ∼ x 2 , toh P ∼ 1/ x 2 ; benchmark g = 1/ x 2 .
Step 2 — inequality. Kyunki x 2 + x > x 2 ,
0 ≤ x 2 + x 1 < x 2 1 .
Step 3 — benchmark. ∫ 1 ∞ x − 2 d x = 1 converge karta hai, toh DCT se energy converges (finite) . ✅
Verify (exact, kyunki yahan kar sakte hain): partial fractions x 2 + x 1 = x 1 − x + 1 1 se ∫ 1 ∞ = [ ln x + 1 x ] 1 ∞ = 0 − ln 2 1 = ln 2 ≈ 0.693 joules milte hain. Finite — hamari forecast se match karta hai, aur wakai benchmark 1 se neeche hai.
Ex 10. Kya ∫ 2 ∞ x ln x d x converge karta hai?
Forecast (the trap): yeh 1/ x kuch > 1 jaisa lagta hai kyunki neeche extra ln x hai jo ise aur chhota banata hai — bahut se students guess convergent karte hain. Suspicious raho.
Step 1 — power ke saath comparison clean kyun nahi chalta. g = 1/ x try karo: L = lim 1/ x 1/ ( x l n x ) = lim l n x 1 = 0 . L = 0 ke saath LCT sirf one-way info deta hai aur g diverge karta hai, toh koi conclusion nahi — twist real hai.
Step 2 — substitution se directly integrate karo. Kyun? Jab comparison ruk jaaye, evaluate karo. u = ln x lao, toh d u = x d x :
∫ x l n x d x = ∫ u d u = ln ∣ u ∣ = ln ( ln x ) .
Step 3 — limit lo.
∫ 2 t x l n x d x = ln ( ln t ) − ln ( ln 2 ) t → ∞ ∞.
Kyunki ln ( ln t ) → ∞ (dhire, lekin zaroor), integral diverges . ❌ Extra ln x ise tame karne ke liye kaafi nahi tha — instinct busted.
Verify: ln ( ln t ) t → ∞ ke saath unbounded hai, toh antiderivative ki koi finite limit nahi. Divergence exactly confirm ho gayi.
Common mistake Teen traps jo is page ne drill kiye
Galat inequality direction (Ex 1 vs Ex 4): divergent g se neeche hona kuch prove nahi karta; convergent g se upar hona kuch prove nahi karta. Sirf convergent ke neeche squeeze karo ya divergent ke upar push karo kaam aata hai.
LCT mein L = 0 ya L = ∞ (Ex 7, Ex 10): two-way conclusion ke liye 0 < L < ∞ chahiye; warna benchmark badlo ya integrate karo.
f ≥ 0 bhool jaana (Ex 6): sign changes DCT ke proof ko tod dete hain — ∣ f ∣ compare karo aur absolute convergence use karo.
"Power → DCT; mush → LCT; wiggle → trap; exp → sab ko beat karta hai; ln → slow hai lekin sneaky hai; sign → absolute; blow-up ke paas → p-rule flip karo (p < 1 )."
∫ 1 ∞ x 3 + 2 x + 7 d x ke liye kaunsa benchmark aur kya verdict?g = 1/ x 3 , upar se bound, converges (p = 3 > 1 ).
∫ 1 ∞ 2 x + 3 x d x par LCT kya L aur kya verdict deta hai?L = 1/3 , 1/ x ke saath same fate, diverges.
∫ 2 ∞ x l n x d x ko g = 1/ x ke saath LCT se kyun settle nahi kiya ja sakta?L = 0 (sirf one-way); integrate karo: antiderivative ln ( ln x ) → ∞ , diverges.
0 par type-2 singularity ke paas, ∫ 0 1 x − p d x kab converge karta hai?Jab p < 1 ho (∞ tail rule ka ulta).
∫ 1 ∞ x 2 s i n x d x ko kaise handle karte hain?∣ f ∣ ≤ 1/ x 2 compare karo; absolutely convergent ⇒ convergent.
x 2 e − x ko dominate karne ke liye e − x /2 kyun use karte hain?x 2 e − x /2 → 0 , toh polynomial absorb ho jaata hai aur e − x /2 integrable hai.
∫ 0 ∞ x 2 e − x d x ki value?Γ ( 3 ) = 2 ! = 2 .
∫ 1 ∞ x 2 + x d x ki value?ln 2 ≈ 0.693 (converges, finite energy).