Purely epsilon-N proof of the Leibniz criterion for alternate series

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion presents a purely epsilon-N proof of the Leibniz criterion for alternating series, which states that an alternating series \(\sum a_n\) converges if \(a_n \rightarrow 0\) and \(|a_{n+1}| \leq |a_n|\). The proof involves establishing bounds using the sandwich lemma and analyzing the behavior of the ratio \(\frac{|a_{n+1}|}{|a_n|}\) as \(n\) approaches infinity. The author expresses concern about the proof's elegance and whether the hypothesis \(a_n \rightarrow 0\) was adequately utilized. The discussion highlights potential errors in the reasoning regarding the convergence of the series.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Leibniz criterion for alternating series
  • Familiarity with epsilon-N definitions in calculus
  • Knowledge of the sandwich lemma in mathematical analysis
  • Experience with convergence tests, particularly the ratio test
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the classical proof of the Leibniz criterion for alternating series
  • Learn about the application of the sandwich lemma in convergence proofs
  • Explore the implications of the ratio test in series convergence
  • Investigate common pitfalls in proofs involving limits and convergence
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and researchers interested in series convergence, particularly those focusing on alternating series and proof techniques in analysis.

quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32

Homework Statement


I found a purely epsilon-N proof of the Leibniz criterion for alternate series and it is quite inelegant compared to the classical proof so no wonder I never saw it in any textbook. But at the same time I must wonder if I made a mistake somewhere.

The statement of the Leibniz criterion for alternate series is that if we have an alternating series \sum a_n with a_n \rightarrow 0 and that is decreasing in absolute values (|a_{n+1}\leq |a_n|), then the sum converges.

The Attempt at a Solution

I begin by arguing that if for some N, |a_N|=0, then a_n=0 for all subsequent n also. (Because 0\leq |a_{N+k}|\leq |a_N|=0 \Leftrightarrow |a_{N+k}| = 0). So if this is the case, then the series converges to \sum_{n=1}^{N}a_n. If a_n is never 0, then we can write

0< \frac{|a_{n+1}|}{|a_n|}\leq 1

and therefor, by the "sandwich lemma",

0\leq \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{|a_{n+1}|}{|a_n|}\leq 1

In the case where the limit is lesser than 1, then the series converges absolutely by the ratio test. In the case where the limit equals 1, the ratio test does not allow us to conclude so we must work a little.

The fact that the limit is 1 means that for all \epsilon>0, there is a N s.t.

n\geq N \ \Rightarrow |\frac{|a_{n+1}|}{|a_n|}-1|<\epsilon \Leftrightarrow 1-\epsilon < \frac{|a_{n+1}|}{|a_n|}<1+\epsilon \Leftrightarrow 1-\epsilon < -\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n}<1+\epsilon

(Because {a_n} is alternating)

\Leftrightarrow -1-\epsilon<\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n}<\epsilon-1 \Leftrightarrow -a_n(\epsilon+1)<a_{n+1}<a_n(\epsilon-1).

In particular, if we chose \epsilon \in (1,2), we get (\epsilon-1)\in (0,1) and the following "identities":

-a_N(\epsilon+1)<a_{N+1}<a_N(\epsilon-1) \ \ \ \ (1)

-a_{N+1}(\epsilon+1)<a_{N+2}<a_{N+1}(\epsilon-1)

But from equation (1), -a_{N+1}>-a_{N}(\epsilon-1) and a_{N+1}<a_N(\epsilon-1), so

-a_{N}(\epsilon-1)(\epsilon+1)<a_{N+2}<a_{N}(\epsilon-1)^2 \ \ \ \ (2)

-a_{N+2}(\epsilon+1)<a_{N+3}<a_{N+2}(\epsilon-1)

But from equation (2), -a_{N+2}>-a_{N}(\epsilon-1)^2 and a_{N+2}<a_N(\epsilon-1)^2, so

-a_{N}(\epsilon-1)^2(\epsilon+1)<a_{N+3}<a_{N}(\epsilon-1)^3

Etc., by induction, we get that

-a_N(\epsilon-1)^{k-1}(\epsilon+1)<a_{N+k}<a_{N}(\epsilon-1)^k

Thus, again by the sandwich lemma, the (truncated) alternate series is squeezed btw two geometric series:

-a_N(\epsilon+1)\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(\epsilon-1)^n\leq \sum_{n=N+1}^{\infty}a_n\leq a_N\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}(\epsilon-1)^kDid you notice that I never use the hypothesis a_n\rightarrow 0? Not good. Or did I unknowingly?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The RHS of your inequality doesn't even converge, unless you've made a typo.
 
quasar987 said:
(Because {a_n} is alternating)

\Leftrightarrow -1-\epsilon<\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n}<\epsilon-1 \Leftrightarrow -a_n(\epsilon+1)<a_{n+1}<a_n(\epsilon-1).

This does not follow. One of a_n is positive, and one is negative, you don't know which, and can't assume it is a_n that is -ve
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K