For nonnegative integrands, domination decides convergence: if 0≤f≤g then ∫g<∞ forces ∫f<∞, and ∫f=∞ forces ∫g=∞.
کارت قضیه کنکور ارشد علوم کامپیوتر
اهمیت
۰/۵
Definition / intuition
An improper integral∫a∞f(x)dx is defined as limb→∞∫abf(x)dx. When f≥0 the partial integrals F(b)=∫abf are monotone increasing in b, so the limit either is a finite number (the integral converges) or is +∞ (it diverges) — it can never oscillate. That monotonicity is exactly what makes a comparison test work: you only need to control the size of the tail, never its sign.
The theorem
Let f,g be continuous on [a,∞) with 0≤f(x)≤g(x) for all large x. Then
The contrapositive is the second line: the smaller function dragging the bigger one up. The benchmark family to compare against is the p-integral
∫1∞xpdxconverges⟺p>1.
How to apply it
Check the integrand is (eventually) nonnegative — the test fails for sign-changing f (there you'd test ∣f∣ for absolute convergence instead).
Find a clean dominating g (to prove convergence) or a clean dominated f (to prove divergence), usually a power x−p or an exponential.
Confirm the inequality holds for all large x — finitely many early exceptions never affect convergence.
Read off the verdict from the benchmark.
A useful limit form: if f,g>0 and limx→∞f(x)/g(x)=L with 0<L<∞, then ∫f and ∫g share the same fate.
Mini-example
Does ∫1∞x2+xdx converge? For x≥1 the denominator exceeds x2, so
0<x2+x1≤x21,∫1∞x2dx=1<∞.
Domination by a convergent p-integral (p=2>1) gives convergence.
Domination as a one-line trick
The konkur favorite: on [1,∞) you have x≥1, hence 0<f(x)≤xf(x) for any positive f. So
∫1∞xf(x)dxconverges⟹∫1∞f(x)dx≤∫1∞xf(x)dx<∞.
No such implication holds for f2 versus f in either direction:
Claim
Verdict
Witness on [1,∞)
∫f<∞⇒∫f2<∞
false
tall thin triangular spikes: area ∑1/n2, squared-area ∑2/3n
∫f2<∞⇒∫f<∞
false
f(x)=1/x: ∫x−2=1 but ∫x−1=∞
∫xf<∞⇒∫f<∞
true
f≤xf on [1,∞)
Pitfall: Comparison needs a nonnegative integrand and a domination in the right direction — a bigger function that converges, or a smaller one that diverges. The reverse pairings (smaller convergent, bigger divergent) say nothing. And squaring or reciprocating an integrand changes its tail unpredictably: there is no general rule linking ∫f to ∫f2 or to ∫1/f, so reach only for monotone domination like f≤xf.
فرمولهای کلیدی
Direct comparison (convergence)
0≤f≤gand∫a∞g<∞⟹∫a∞f<∞
A nonnegative integrand dominated by a convergent one also converges; contrapositive gives the divergence half.
p-integral benchmark
∫1∞xpdx<∞⟺p>1
The standard yardstick for tail behavior at infinity used inside comparisons.
Limit comparison
x→∞limg(x)f(x)=L,0<L<∞⟹∫f,∫gconverge together
When two positive integrands are asymptotically proportional, they share the same convergence verdict.