Can an alternating series with decreasing terms converge to zero?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the convergence of an alternating series represented as ##\sum (-1)^n b_n##, where it is established that if ##\lim_{n \to \infty} b_n = 0## and ##b_n## is monotonically decreasing, the series converges by the alternating series test. However, it is concluded that such a series cannot converge to zero unless all terms are zero, as shown by the argument that ##\sum (-1)^n b_n > |b_1 - b_2|##. The participants clarify that the series converges to zero only if the terms alternate in a specific manner, which contradicts the condition of monotonicity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of alternating series and the alternating series test
  • Knowledge of limits and convergence criteria in calculus
  • Familiarity with the concept of monotonically decreasing sequences
  • Basic grasp of series notation and manipulation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Alternating Series Test in detail
  • Explore the concept of monotonicity in sequences and its implications on convergence
  • Learn about the Comparison Test for series convergence
  • Investigate counterexamples in series convergence, particularly with alternating series
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying calculus, and anyone interested in series convergence, particularly in the context of alternating series and their properties.

member 428835
Hi PF!

The other day I was showing convergence for an alternating series, let's call it ##\sum (-1)^n b_n##. I showed that ##\lim_{n \to \infty} b_n = 0## and that ##b_n## was monotonically decreasing; hence the series converges by the alternating series test. but I needed also to show it did not converge to zero. the argument I used was that since ##|b_1 - b_2| >0## and that since ##b_n## monotonically decreases, we then know ##\sum (-1)^n b_n > |b_1 - b_2|##. Is my intuition correct here? If so, is it ever possible to have a series described above converge to zero?

Let me know what you think!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First thought this was wrong, but yes.

Set ## a_n=b_{2n}-b_{2n+1}\geq 0 ##

## \sum(-1)^n b_n =\sum a_n \geq 0 ## and this can only be zero if ## \forall n, b_n=0 ##

Edit you seem to have the index n starting at 1 instead of 0 so you need to adjust the above a little, but this doesn't change anything except perhaps a sign.
And your argument, assuming the b's are strictly decreasing, works - you can also complete it to cover all cases where b is not identically 0.
 
Last edited:
Thanks! I thought so but wanted reassurance.
 
Wrong conclusion! a_n=0 will hold if pairs of alternate terms have the same magnitude b_{2n}=-b_{2n+1}, and b_{2n} \gt b_{2n+2}.
 
But ##b_n## is monotonically decreasing.
 
Oops you are right of course !

The sum is 0 iff ## \forall n, b_{2n}=b_{2n+1} ## and that's all we can say.

Of course if we know that b is strictly dereasing this cannot happen, but i was trying to avoid needing that since op did not say "strict".

Failed attempt, sorry.

To expand, the generic counterexampe to my initial claim is the altermating sum
## b_0-b_0+...+b_n-b_n+...##
which converges to 0 iff ## b_n\rightarrow 0 ##
 
Last edited:
I'd use comparison test with another series that has similar rate of change as the one you're using.

##\sum \limits_{i} \left | {b_i} \right | \geq \sum \limits_{i} \left | {a_i} \right |##

Where ##a_i \approx b_i## in structure, but ##a_i## is both monotonic and bounded.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K