Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Was reading Thomas Calculus and found this loophole which I can't fill up could someone give an outline of this prove/explain? Much appreciated!

Prove that SEQUENCE (not series) of terms of a power series must diverge outside the radius of convergence of a power series, except possibly ON the boundary point of interval of convergence

eg. consider the series sum(x^n/n) radius of convergence: [-1,1), sequence nevertheless converges at x=1 (harmonic series), but diverges elsewhere, we need to show that other series like as the harmonic series does not exist elsewhere outside the radius of convergence

What I tried was considering power series at c and c+epsilon, but the binomial expansion of the latter became quite complicated and I do not know how to use the fact that the series diverges for all numbers greater than c

share|cite|improve this question
"sequence nevertheless converges at x=1 (harmonic series)", is false. The harmonic series is divergent. – George V. Williams Jan 1 '13 at 23:57
@GeorgeV.Williams: the sequence the sum is over converges; not the sequence of partial sums. That is, $\lim x^n/n$ converges for all $|x|\leq 1$ while it diverges if $|x|>1$ (as l'Hopital's shows). – Clayton Jan 2 '13 at 0:57
∑n=1∞xn is not a power series – Zhanfeng Lim Jan 2 '13 at 1:29

I assume that the radius of convergence $R<\infty$, otherwise there is nothing to do.

You have $\frac{1}{R} = \limsup_{n \to \infty} \sqrt[n]{|a_n|}$. Hence for some subsequence, you have $\frac{1}{R} = \lim_{k \to \infty} \sqrt[n_k]{|a_{n_k}|}$, or equivalently, $1 = \lim_{k \to \infty} \sqrt[n_k]{|a_{n_k}|R^{n_k}}$.

Now suppose that $|x-x_0| > R$, and consider the $n_k$th term of the power series. You have $|a_{n_k}||x-x_0|^{n_k} = |a_{n_k}R^{n_k}| (\frac{|x-x_0|}{R})^{n_k} = (\sqrt[n_k]{|a_{n_k}|R^{n_k}}\frac{|x-x_0|}{R})^{n_k}$. Since $\lim_{k \to \infty} (\sqrt[n_k]{|a_{n_k}|R^{n_k}}\frac{|x-x_0|}{R})^{n_k} = \infty$, the terms $a_{n_k}(x-x_0)^{n_k}$ do not converge to zero, hence the series diverges.

share|cite|improve this answer

The fact that power series have a radius of convergence is usually proved by the root test, which boils down to comparing it to a geometric series. Geometric series diverge when their sequence diverge and converge when their sequence converges, except when the ratio is 1. The ratio being 1 corresponds to the boundary for power series. So, I would take the proof that power series have a radius of convergence, and tweak the part that uses the root test.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you! That was concise and insightful – Zhanfeng Lim Jan 2 '13 at 1:30

Let $\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n (x-a)^n$ be your power series.

Then, the radius of convergence is given by

$$r= \frac{1}{\limsup_n \sqrt[n]{a_n}} \,.$$

then if $|x-a| >r$ we have

$$\limsup_n |x-a|\sqrt[n]{a_n}=b >1 \,.$$

This implies that for infinitely many $n$ we have

$$\left|a_n (x-a)^n \right| > (\frac{b+1}{2})^n $$

and since $(b+1)>2$ youa re done.


Assume by contradiction that $\lim_n a_n(x-a)^n =l$ for some $|x-a|>r$. Then $a_n(x-a)^n$ is bounded. Pick some $y$ so that

$$r< |y-a| < |x-a|$$


$$a_n |y-a|^n = a_n |x-a|^n (\frac{|y-a|}{|x-a|})^n \leq b (\frac{|y-a|}{|x-a|})^n$$

This shows that $\sum a_n |y-a|^n$ is convergent since it is less than a convergent geometric series. But this contradicts the fact taht $|y-a| >r$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks! Your alternate solution was clear to me. I haven't had a course in analysis though so I need some time for the first solution – Zhanfeng Lim Jan 2 '13 at 1:35
Why the last contradiction? – mavavilj Oct 19 '15 at 15:24
@mavavilj What is the definition of the radius of convergence? Note that if $\sum a_n |y-a|^n$ is convergent, then the power series $\sum a_n |x-a|^n$ is absolutely convergent for all $|x-a| \leq |y-a|$. This implies that $r> |y-a|$. – N. S. Oct 19 '15 at 15:33

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.