Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Cauchy Criterion for Series

  1. Nov 8, 2004 #1
    I know that if the series of (a)n (n is a subscript) converges, then the lim (a)n=0. How can I show that if the series of (a)n converges, then lim n(a)n=0?

    Or rather if a1 +a2 +a3 +...+an=0, then lim n*(a)n=0?

    Not sure how to show this, but I know the proof involves the cauchy criterion for series. Help anyone?
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 8, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper


    Notice that
  4. Nov 8, 2004 #3
    I am sorry but can I ask you for another hint. I understand that what you wrote is true, but what am I supposed to do with it. Using the Caucy Criterion for series, I know that there is an N such that for all n>m>N,
    sn-sm< for all epsilon >0. But where do I go from here? Sorry for my slowness in comprehension.
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2004
  5. Nov 8, 2004 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Oh, actually my hint goes with a proof that doesn't use the Cauchy criterion.
    Just assume the series is convergent and take the limit on both sides of the equation.

    Ok, so the Cauchy criterion is:
    A series is a Cauchy-series if for every [itex]\epsilon>0[/itex] there is a N>0, such that [itex]|S_n-S_m|<\epsilon[/itex] voor any n,m>N.

    In particular, it holds for m=n+1.
    Now write out [itex]|S_n-S_m|[/itex] and see what you get for m=n+1.
  6. Nov 8, 2004 #5
    So this is sort of an inductive proof? We show the inequality holds for n=m+1, and since the an terms are non increasing, we know Sn-Sm<epsilon will hold where n>m+1. Correct?
  7. Nov 8, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    NO! It's not an inductive proof.
    We have to show that IF a series [itex]\sum a_n[/itex] converges, then [itex]\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} a_n= 0[/itex].

    So we ASSUME our series is convergent, then we know that for any [itex]\epsilon >0[/itex] we can find an N such that [itex]|Sn-Sm|<\epsilon[/itex] for all n,m>N.

    From the above assumption we have to show that:
    for any [itex]\epsilon>0[/itex] there exists an N, such that [itex]|a_n|<\epsilon[/itex] whenever n>N.
    (This is just the definition of [itex]\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} a_n= 0[/itex].)

    What I meant was. If you plug m=n+1 in |Sm-Sn| and write it in terms of sums, then....

    (it's still a hint).
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2004
  8. Nov 9, 2004 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    No, that wasn't the original question.

    The problem was to prove that "If [itex]\Sigma a_n[/itex] converges, then
    [itex]lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}na_n= 0[/itex].
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook