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

Prove that the sequence $a_n= 1+\dfrac{1}{2}+\dfrac{1}{3} + \ldots+\dfrac{1}{n}$ is not a cauchy sequence

The proof that my book has goes like this :

$a_ {2n }-a_n= \dfrac{1}{n+1} + \dfrac{1}{n+2}+\ldots + \dfrac{1}{2n} > n\cdot\dfrac{1}{2n}=\dfrac{1}{2}$

Then for every $n_0$ there exists $\epsilon=\dfrac{1}{2}$ , $p=n>n_0$ , $q=2n>n_0$ so that $|a_p-a_q|>\epsilon$

So its not cauchy.

I dont understand this. i thought that $p$ and $ q$ could be anything and that if i cant find any $p$ and $q$ so that $|a_p-a_q|>\epsilon$, then the sequence is not cauchy. For example, for the above proof, u can pick $p=2$ and $q=3$ and see that $|a_p-a_q|<\epsilon$ . Am i wrong? If yes, please explain it to me

share|cite|improve this question
Compare your definition with this. – S.B. Jul 15 '13 at 23:45
ah... now i get it -_- he proves that for every N there are at least one p and q so that |blabla|>ε .... pfft.. thanks , u can delete the post, stupid question – Plom Jul 15 '13 at 23:52
Intuitively speaking, $\left< a_n\right>$ is Cauchy sequence means difference $|a_m-a_n|$ can be arbitrary small, if $m$ and $n$ are arbitary large, and this proof shows existence of a lower bound of $|a_m-a_n|$, it means $|a_m-a_n|$ is not arbitrary small, even $m$ and $n$ are arbitrary large. – Hanul Jeon Jul 16 '13 at 1:14

The point is that you don't have to find any $p$ and $q$.

For a given $\epsilon$ it must be always possible to find a $n_0$ ( this is what you have to find) such that for every $p$ and $q$ with $p,q \geq n_0$ the following is satisfied : $|a_p-a_q|<\epsilon$

In your special case such $n_0$ does not exist if we set $\epsilon:=1/2$, since the condition $|a_p-a_q|<\epsilon$ is not satisfied for every $p,q \geq n_0$. Infact if such a $n_0$ would exist then the condition would not be satisfied for $p:=n_0$ and $q:=2n_0$ as your book proofs.

I hope i could help a bit.

share|cite|improve this answer
yes, u helped a bunch, thanks for the answer :D – Plom Jul 16 '13 at 0:33

Here is a hint. Look at $$\sum_{k = 2^n}^{2^{n + 1} -1} {1\over k}.$$

share|cite|improve this answer

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.