OCMEBilingual mathematics & derivations繁體中文

Explore related knowledge and questions →

Question 757: Zero Denominators, Finite Samples and Signed Ratios Do Not Supply the Ratio-Test Premises

On this page
  1. Original question and givens
  2. Definition and scope
  3. Step-by-step derivation
  4. Reverse checks
  5. Result
  6. This question review and source binding

Return to catalogue page 4

← Question derivation index · Original question batch

P1000-0757 · q-20261015-advance-20261117-r02-ratio-test-series-0082

Original question and givens

Use mode=missing_limit and positive integer scale=8. Give (mode, scale, series_or_ratio_description, scope_or_obstruction, method_application_claim).

  • G001 — Use mode=missing_limit and positive integer scale=8. Give (mode, scale, series_or_ratio_description, scope_or_obstruction, method_application_claim).

Definition and scope

The ratio test needs an eventually nonzero tail, absolute ratios and an existing limit. Boundary items name the failed hypothesis without deciding the series.

Step-by-step derivation

S001 · implies

Before

boundary mode=missing_limit; scale=8

After

check the precise hypothesis that fails

Conditions: none

Identify the failing hypothesis instead of declaring every boundary case divergent.

Step identifiers and dependencies

Rule: ratio_hypothesis_audit · Uses: G001

S002 · implies

Before

absolute ratios alternate

After

one subsequence=1/9; another=9

Conditions: none

Two constant subsequences have different limits.

Step identifiers and dependencies

Rule: two_ratio_subsequences · Uses: G001, S001

S003 · implies

Before

1/9≠9

After

no absolute-ratio limit exists

Conditions: none

Neither one subsequence nor an average can stand in for the required limit.

Step identifiers and dependencies

Rule: nonexistent_ratio_limit · Uses: G001, S002

S004 · implies

Before

missing or misused premise

After

this attempted test is not licensed

Conditions: none

Retain the original boundary verdict without adding an unsupported general convergence conclusion.

Step identifiers and dependencies

Rule: boundary_verdict · Uses: G001, S003

Reverse checks

  • S004 · premise_and_result_audit — Finite checks do not prove an infinite tail; retain this step's quantifiers, nonzero denominators and absolute values.
  • S003 · premise_and_result_audit — Finite checks do not prove an infinite tail; retain this step's quantifiers, nonzero denominators and absolute values.
  • S002 · premise_and_result_audit — Finite checks do not prove an infinite tail; retain this step's quantifiers, nonzero denominators and absolute values.
  • S001 · premise_and_result_audit — Finite checks do not prove an infinite tail; retain this step's quantifiers, nonzero denominators and absolute values.

Result

(missing_limit, 8, absolute_ratios_alternate_between_1/9_and_9, limit_does_not_exist, No)

The full substitutions and premise audits recover the original answer, retaining its field order and verdict meanings.

This question review and source binding

Review date: 2026-10-26

Original questions, answers, step expressions, numeric ASTs and historical records are retained. Source candidate labels remain historical and are not overwritten as formal proof.

Source hashes and review receipts
  • input commit: 0f7be61e2c22317a4075561dc822c87d881a50db
  • original question SHA-256: 77537fc72e8743436303a51fd9e6fdc287d9c5475194afe88caab35a337277d3
  • candidate record SHA-256: e54b705384aa4c54441c7ef353e58779ef7c4a5673914d3fcb927f3d20df4862
  • semantic review receipt SHA-256: 6c2c6d46aded7582a11ac41a8c0b3bdde2669a53bdb6e796eea2039994a02772
  • question-first witness SHA-256: 77e43898df9efdbf8094ad81fe4ab91cf4b4bd82f481eb9b4699b73cb4da612b
  • Lean: NOT_RUN · human review: NOT_PERFORMED
Same-source full JSON