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

Is it the case that

$$\lim\limits_{k\to\infty}\sum\limits_{n=k+1}^{2k}{\frac{1}{n}} = 0$$

That is, does the "second half" of the harmonic series go to zero?

share|cite|improve this question
$$\sum_{n=k+1}^{2k}\frac1n\ge\sum_{n=k+1}^{2k}\frac1{2k}=\frac12,$$ so it obviously won't tend to zero. Have you heard of Riemann sums? – Jyrki Lahtonen Oct 18 '11 at 4:07
Can we agree that this sum is at least $\sum_{n=k+1}^{2k} \frac{1}{2k} = \frac{1}{2}$ and at most $\sum_{n=k+1}^{2k} \frac{1}{k} = 1$? – Qiaochu Yuan Jun 7 '12 at 18:22
@QiaochuYuan: what sum? – T. Eskin Jun 7 '12 at 18:35
@Thomas: $\sum_{n=k+1}^{2k} \frac{1}{n}$. The above bounds apply for every value of $k$. – Qiaochu Yuan Jun 7 '12 at 18:36
Before finding a rigorous answer, there is a way to obtain $\ln(2)$ as a conjectured value. We know the dominating term of the asymptotic growth of the harmonic series is $\ln(n)$. For large enough values of $n$, the difference between the harmonic series up to $2n$ and $n$ is $\ln(2n) - \ln(n) = \ln(2) + \ln(n) - \ln(n) = \ln(2)$. ;) – CosmoVibe Jul 23 '15 at 0:58
up vote 123 down vote accepted

Rewriting the sum as $$ \sum_{n=k+1}^{2k}\frac1n=\sum_{n=k+1}^{2k}\frac1k\cdot\frac1{n/k} $$ allows us to identify this as a Riemann sum related to the definite integral $$\int_1^2\frac1x\,dx=\ln 2.$$ To see that, divide the interval $[1,2]$ to $k$ equal length subintervals, and evaluate the function $f(x)=1/x$ at the right end of each subinterval. When $k\to\infty$, the Riemann sums will then tend to the value of this definite integral.

share|cite|improve this answer
This is nice Jyrki. I would not have thought about it in this way! – anthus Oct 18 '11 at 4:46
Thanks @Daniel. My motivation to post this as an answer was that the earlier answers all resorted to asymptotics and Euler-Mascheroni constant, which felt like too high-powered a tool. – Jyrki Lahtonen Oct 18 '11 at 5:14
Good intuition, +1. – Oo3 Jun 7 '12 at 19:35
This has been getting sporadic upvotes since the election. Thank you for your support, but I'm switching this to CW. – Jyrki Lahtonen Jan 2 '15 at 15:24
Nice...........+1 @JyrkiLahtonen – Bhaskara-III Dec 22 '15 at 7:32

The summation you have written converges to $\log(2)$.$$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \sum_{n=k+1}^{2k} \frac1n = \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \left( \sum_{n=1}^{2k} \frac1n - \sum_{n=1}^{k} \frac1n\right) = \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \left( \sum_{n=1}^{2k} \frac1n - \log(2k) - \sum_{n=1}^{k} \frac1n + \log(k) + \log(2) \right).$$ Note that $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty } \left(\sum_{n=1}^{k} \frac1n - \log(k) \right) = \gamma.$$ Let $\displaystyle a_k = \left(\sum_{n=1}^{k} \frac1n - \log(k) \right)$ and we have $\displaystyle \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} a_k = \gamma$. Hence, the summation you have can be written as $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \sum_{n=k+1}^{2k} \frac1n = \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \left(a_{2k} -a_k + \log(2) \right) = \gamma - \gamma + \log(2) = \log(2)$$

share|cite|improve this answer

Well, no, the limit is $\log 2.$ The basic fact is that the finite sum $$ \sum_{m = 1}^W \frac{1}{m} \approx \gamma + \log W,$$ where $\gamma \approx 0.5772156649\ldots$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant. So take the approximation for $W= 2 k$ and subtract the approximation for $W=k.$

share|cite|improve this answer

The sum is equal to $A_n = (1/1 - 1/2 + 1/3 \dots -1/2n)$.

As an alternating series, it satisfies $|A_n - \log 2| < \frac{1}{2n}$.

The asymptotics of harmonic numbers, using Euler's constant, are not needed to get the $O(1/n)$ convergence or its extension to higher powers of $1/n$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Starting from A_n may be simpler to see. $$A_n = H_{2n} - 2(1/2 + 1/4 + \dots +1/2n) = H_{2n} - H_n$$ which is the sum of interest. The sign is corrected, thanks (@Jyrki). – zyx Oct 18 '11 at 5:32
Oops. I missed that way of looking at it :-) – Jyrki Lahtonen Oct 18 '11 at 5:37

Hint: $\sum_{n=1}^N \frac{1}{n} = \ln(N) + \gamma + O(1/N)$

share|cite|improve this answer

More generally, for $p \geq q>1$ one has

$$\lim\limits_{n \to \infty} \sum\limits_{k=qn+1}^{np} \frac{1}{k}=\log \frac{p}{q}$$

which can be proven using

$$\lim\limits_{n \to \infty} \sum\limits_{k=1}^{np} \frac{1}{k}-\log (pn)=\gamma$$

$$\lim\limits_{n \to \infty} \sum\limits_{k=1}^{nq} \frac{1}{k}-\log (qn)=\gamma$$

in the same spirit as Sivaram's answer.

share|cite|improve this answer
As a series, instead of a limit: $$ \log\left(\frac{p}{q}\right)=\sum_{i=0}^\infty \left(\sum_{j=pi+1}^{p(i+1)}\frac{1}{j}-\sum_{k=qi+1}^{q(i+1)}\frac{1}{k}\right) $$ which expresses Riemann rearrangements of the (conditionally convergent) cancelling harmonic series $$0=1-1+\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2} +\frac{1}{3}-\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{4}-\frac{1}{4}+...$$ $$$$ taking $p$ positive terms and $q$ negative terms at each step. – Jaume Oliver Lafont Feb 1 at 20:54


We may recall the celebre limit that yields Euler-Mascheroni constant, namely:

$$\lim_{n\to\infty} 1+\frac1{2}+\cdots+\frac{1}{n}-\ln{n}={\gamma}$$ $\tag{$\gamma$ is Euler-Mascheroni constant}$ Then everything boils down to: $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n+1}+\frac{1}{n+2}+\cdots+\frac{1}{2n} = \lim_{n\to\infty}{\gamma}+\ln{2n}-{\gamma}-\ln{n}= \ln{2}.$$


Use one of the consequences of the Lagrange's theorem applied on $\ln(x)$ function, namely:

$$\frac{1}{k+1} < \ln(k+1)-\ln(k)<\frac{1}{k} \space , \space k\in\mathbb{N} ,\space k>0$$

Taking $k=n,n+1,...,2n$ values to the inequality and then summing all relations, we get all we need in order to apply Squeeze theorem.


We may use Botez-Catalan identity and immediately get that:

$$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n+1}+\frac{1}{n+2}+\cdots+\frac{1}{2n} = \lim_{n\to\infty} 1 - \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{3} - \frac{1}{4} + \cdots + (-1)^{2n+1}\frac{1}{2n}= $$ $$\lim_{n\to\infty} 1 - \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{3} - \frac{1}{4} + \cdots + (-1)^{n+1}\frac{1}{n}=\ln{2}.$$ The last series' limit is obtained by using Taylor expansion of $\ln(x+1)$ and take $x=1$

The proofs are complete.

share|cite|improve this answer

$\newcommand{\+}{^{\dagger}} \newcommand{\angles}[1]{\left\langle\, #1 \,\right\rangle} \newcommand{\braces}[1]{\left\lbrace\, #1 \,\right\rbrace} \newcommand{\bracks}[1]{\left\lbrack\, #1 \,\right\rbrack} \newcommand{\ceil}[1]{\,\left\lceil\, #1 \,\right\rceil\,} \newcommand{\dd}{{\rm d}} \newcommand{\down}{\downarrow} \newcommand{\ds}[1]{\displaystyle{#1}} \newcommand{\expo}[1]{\,{\rm e}^{#1}\,} \newcommand{\fermi}{\,{\rm f}} \newcommand{\floor}[1]{\,\left\lfloor #1 \right\rfloor\,} \newcommand{\half}{{1 \over 2}} \newcommand{\ic}{{\rm i}} \newcommand{\iff}{\Longleftrightarrow} \newcommand{\imp}{\Longrightarrow} \newcommand{\isdiv}{\,\left.\right\vert\,} \newcommand{\ket}[1]{\left\vert #1\right\rangle} \newcommand{\ol}[1]{\overline{#1}} \newcommand{\pars}[1]{\left(\, #1 \,\right)} \newcommand{\partiald}[3][]{\frac{\partial^{#1} #2}{\partial #3^{#1}}} \newcommand{\pp}{{\cal P}} \newcommand{\root}[2][]{\,\sqrt[#1]{\vphantom{\large A}\,#2\,}\,} \newcommand{\sech}{\,{\rm sech}} \newcommand{\sgn}{\,{\rm sgn}} \newcommand{\totald}[3][]{\frac{{\rm d}^{#1} #2}{{\rm d} #3^{#1}}} \newcommand{\ul}[1]{\underline{#1}} \newcommand{\verts}[1]{\left\vert\, #1 \,\right\vert} \newcommand{\wt}[1]{\widetilde{#1}}$ Is $\ds{\lim_{k \to \infty}\sum_{n = k + 1}^{2k}{1 \over n} = 0\ {\large ?}}$

\begin{align} \color{#c00000}{\lim_{k \to \infty}\sum_{n = k + 1}^{2k}{1 \over n}}&= \lim_{k \to \infty}\sum_{n = 0}^{k - 1}{1 \over n + k + 1} =\lim_{k \to \infty}\sum_{n = 0}^{k - 1}\int_{0}^{1}t^{n + k}\,\dd t =\lim_{k \to \infty}\int_{0}^{1}\sum_{n = 0}^{k - 1}t^{n + k}\,\dd t \\[3mm]&=\lim_{k \to \infty}\int_{0}^{1}{t^{k}\pars{t^{k} - 1} \over t - 1}\,\dd t =-\lim_{k \to \infty}\int_{0}^{1} \ln\pars{1 - t}\bracks{2kt^{2k - 1} - kt^{k - 1}}\,\dd t \end{align}

$$ \color{#c00000}{\lim_{k \to \infty}\sum_{n = k + 1}^{2k}{1 \over n}} =\lim_{k \to \infty}\bracks{{\cal F}\pars{k} - {\cal F}\pars{2k}} \quad\mbox{where}\quad {\cal F}\pars{k}\equiv k\int_{0}^{1}\ln\pars{1 - t}t^{k - 1}\,\dd t\tag{1} $$

Let's evaluate ${\cal F}\pars{k}$: \begin{align} \color{#c00000}{{\cal F}\pars{k}}&=k\lim_{\mu \to 0}\partiald{}{\mu} \int_{0}^{1}\pars{1 - t}^{\mu}t^{k - 1}\,\dd t =k\lim_{\mu \to 0}\partiald{}{\mu}\bracks{% \Gamma\pars{\mu + 1}\Gamma\pars{k} \over \Gamma\pars{\mu + 1 + k}} \\[3mm]&=\Gamma\pars{k + 1}\braces{{\Gamma\pars{1} \over \Gamma\pars{1 + k}} \bracks{\Psi\pars{1} - \Psi\pars{1 + k}}}=\color{#c00000}{% \Psi\pars{1} - \Psi\pars{1 + k}} \end{align}

With expression $\pars{1}$: \begin{align} \color{#00f}{\large\lim_{k \to \infty}\sum_{n = k + 1}^{2k}{1 \over n}} &=\lim_{k \to \infty}\bracks{\Psi\pars{2k + 1} - \Psi\pars{k + 1}} =\lim_{k \to \infty}\bracks{\ln\pars{2k + 1} - \ln\pars{k + 1}} \\[3mm]&=\lim_{k \to \infty}\ln\pars{2k + 1 \over k + 1} =\color{#00f}{\large\ln\pars{2}} \not=0 \end{align}

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.