Undergrad Proof of Alternating Series Test

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the proof of the alternating series test, focusing on why the convergence of odd and even partial sums to the same limit implies the convergence of the entire series. The key point is that if both even and odd indexed partial sums approach the same limit L, then all partial sums must also converge to L, as defined by the limit. This is supported by the Cauchy convergence test, which states that the distance between any two partial sums is bounded by the absolute value of the series' elements, which approaches zero. The participants express confusion about the connection between these concepts, emphasizing the need for clarity in understanding convergence in alternating series. Overall, the discussion highlights the mathematical principles underpinning the convergence of alternating series.
Mr Davis 97
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
44
I'm looking at the proof of the alternating series test, and the basic idea is that the odd and even partial sums converge to the same number, and that this implies that the series converges as a whole. What I don't understand is why the even and odd partial sums converging to the same limit implies that the series converges as a whole.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
that follows immediately from the definition of a limit. I.e. roughly speaking if, in the sequence of partial sums, all elements with large enough even index as well as all those with large enough odd index are as close as you wish to L, then in fact all elements with large enough index are as close as you want to L, and that is the definition of convergence to L.

But to me the basic idea is to use the Cauchy convergence test, since the distance between any two partial sums Sn and Sm, with n<m, is at most equal to the absolute value of the mth series element am, and this goes to zero by hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
984
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K