10

We know the series

$$ \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{ (-1)^n }{n} $$

converges. The usual argument is to notice $b_n = \frac{1}{n}$ is decreasing, positive and converges to $0$, thus the series converges by the alternating test.

Q: Is there another way to show this series converges?

4 Answers4

13

One can collect the terms in pairs (since the terms go to $0$, this is okay) to get $$ \begin{align} \sum_{n=1}^\infty\left(\frac1{2n-1}-\frac1{2n}\right) &=\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac1{2n(2n-1)}\\ &\le\frac12+\sum_{n=2}^\infty\frac1{2n(2n-2)}\\ &=\frac12+\frac14\sum_{n=2}^\infty\frac1{n(n-1)}\\ &=\frac12+\frac14\lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{k=2}^n\left(\frac1{k-1}-\frac1k\right)\\ &=\frac12+\frac14\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1-\frac1n\right)\\[6pt] &=\frac34 \end{align} $$ As user254665 comments, the terms of the series above are all positive, so the convergence is proven by the fact that the sum is bounded above by $\frac34$.

This is the negative of the series in the question, but a constant times a convergent series is convergent.

robjohn
  • 345,667
9

It's always safe to start with the partial sums, and to that, I will start with the geometric sum:

$$\frac{1-r^N}{1-r}=1+r+r^2+\dots+r^{N-1}$$

Since $r$ can be anything, we can treat it as a variable for integration:

$$\begin{align}\int_0^{-1}\frac{1-r^N}{1-r}dr&=\int_0^{-1}1+r+r^2+\dots+r^{N-1}dr\\&=\left.r+\frac12r^2+\frac13r^3+\dots+\frac1Nr^N\right|_0^{-1}\\&=-1+\frac12-\frac13+\dots+\frac{(-1)^N}N\end{align}$$

Note that the integral has no issues for $r\in(-1,0)$ and since $N\in\mathbb N$, we have no issues with complex numbers. Thus, the partial sums are given as

$$\sum_{n=1}^N\frac{(-1)^n}n=\int_0^{-1}\frac{1-r^N}{1-r}dr$$

Taking the limit to infinity, we have

$$\begin{align}\lim_{N\to\infty}\sum_{n=1}^N\frac{(-1)^n}n&=\lim_{N\to\infty}\int_0^{-1}\frac{1-r^N}{1-r}dr\\&=\int_0^{-1}\frac{1}{1-r}dr\\&=\left.-\ln(1-r)\right|_0^{-1}\\&=-\ln(2)\end{align}$$

where we use the fact that for $|r|<1$, $\lim_{N\to\infty}r^N=0$.

  • 1
    Why can you exchange limit and integral? – user159517 Nov 12 '16 at 01:50
  • Can you please explain how Integration part thing became equal to the given summation ? – Dimenein Nov 12 '16 at 01:54
  • 1
    @VinayakAgarwal After evaluating the geometric sum/integral, note that it is equal to the summation in the lines below. – Simply Beautiful Art Nov 12 '16 at 01:56
  • @user159517 It has to do with uniform convergence, that is, the convergence of $\frac{1-r^N}{1-r}\to\frac1{1-r}$ does not depend on the value of $r$ for $r\in(-1,0)$. – Simply Beautiful Art Nov 12 '16 at 01:58
  • @SimpleArt I know how to justify it, I wanted to tell you that your answer is missing an argument in my opinion. Your way of explaining uniform convergence seems a little unorthodox to me btw. – user159517 Nov 12 '16 at 02:03
  • @user159517 Yeah, I haven't really learned anything like real analysis rigorously. I can, of course, show it converges uniformly, as this particular case is rather easy to handle for me. – Simply Beautiful Art Nov 12 '16 at 02:04
  • 1
    The convergence is not uniform. If we take $x_n=-1+1/n$ then $\left | \frac{1-\left ( -1+1/n \right )^{n}}{1-(-1+1/n)}-\frac{1}{1-(-1+1/n)} \right |=\left | \frac{(1-1/n)^n}{2+1/n} \right |\to 1/2e$ – Matematleta Nov 12 '16 at 02:37
  • 1
    @SimpleArt I don't think we have uniform convergence of $\frac{1-r^N}{1-r}$ to $\frac1{1-r}$ on the interval $(-1,0)$. The difference between these is at least $|r|^N/2$, which does not converge uniformly to zero. – grand_chat Nov 12 '16 at 02:39
  • Oh, my bad then. :/ As I said, I don't do these things very well. – Simply Beautiful Art Nov 12 '16 at 02:42
  • :) It's ok if you guys don't feel fully justified. I'm simply not there yet to justify everything I want to justify. – Simply Beautiful Art Nov 12 '16 at 02:49
  • @simpleart Justification is provided by the Dominated Convergence Theorem. – Mark Viola Nov 12 '16 at 14:04
  • @Dr.MV Thanks for that. Man, I wish I could sit down and learn how to do that, but then I need to learn this and that, so I leave it with "I'll get there eventually". – Simply Beautiful Art Nov 12 '16 at 14:08
  • @SimpleArt All you need to show is that there is a function $f(r)$, independent of $N$, that is integrable and such that $\left|\frac{1-r^N}{1-r}\right|\le f(r)$. Then, $$\lim_{N\to \infty}\int_0^{-1}\frac{1-r^N}{1-r},dr=\int_0^{-1}\lim_{N\to \infty }\left(\frac{1-r^N}{1-r}\right),dr=-\log(2)$$ – Mark Viola Nov 12 '16 at 14:32
  • @Dr.MV Ah, thanks. That was probably some image I tried to imagine, but couldn't quite make out. Am I allowed to consider even and odd cases separately? – Simply Beautiful Art Nov 12 '16 at 14:36
  • @SimpleArt How do you mean? – Mark Viola Nov 12 '16 at 14:49
2

As shown by @robjohn, we can write the alternating harmonic series as

$$\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{(-1)^n}{n}=-\sum_{n=1}^\infty\left(\frac{1}{2n-1}-\frac1{2n}\right)$$

Next, we note that

$$\begin{align} \sum_{n=1}^{N}\left(\frac{1}{2n-1}-\frac{1}{2n}\right)&=\sum_{n=1}^{N}\left(\frac{1}{2n-1}+\frac{1}{2n}\right)-\sum_{n=1}^{N}\frac1n \tag 1\\\\ &=\sum_{n=1}^{2N}\frac1n -\sum_{n=1}^{N}\frac1n \tag 2\\\\ &=\sum_{n=N+1}^{2N}\frac1n \\\\ &=\sum_{n=1}^{N}\frac{1}{n+N} \\\\ &=\frac1N \sum_{n=1}^{N}\frac{1}{1+n/N} \tag 3 \end{align}$$

In going from $(1)$ to $(2)$ we simply noted that the sum, $\sum\limits_{n=1}^{2N}\frac1n$, can be written in terms of sums of even and odd indexed terms.

Finally, we observe that limit of $(3)$ is the Riemann sum for the integral $$\int_0^1 \frac{1}{1+x}\,dx=\log(2).$$

Putting it all together reveals

$$\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{(-1)^n}{n}=-\log(2)$$

And we are done!

Mark Viola
  • 179,405
0

I suggest to use the Dirichlet test. To conclude that the series $$ \sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}a_nb_n $$ converges, it is by this test sufficient to check that

  1. the positive sequence $(a_n)$ is monotonically decreasing to $0$, which is clear for $a_n=1/n$, and
  2. the sequence of partial sums $\sum_{n=1}^Nb_n$ is bounded. This is also clear in this case, since the partial sum is altering between $-1$ (if $N$ is odd) and $0$ (if $N$ is even).

The nice thing with this approach is that the Dirichlet test is quite strong, used sometimes in the theory of Fourier series, and easily proven with the summation by parts formula (which reminds of the integration by parts dito). It also opens up for an easy proof (but perhaps not that intuitive) of the special case that Leibniz test really is.

mickep
  • 19,962