I am reading a proof of the fact that a harmonic series does not converge. It seems to me that the proof (of course not the fact itself) is wrong, is it?

We assume that a harmonic series converges to $s \in \mathbb R$ (a proof by contradiction).

For an integer $m > 1$ $$\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{j}=\sum_{j=1}^{m}\frac{1}{j}+\sum_{j=m+1}^{2m}\frac{1}{j}+\sum_{j=2m+1}^{3m}\frac{1}{j}+\cdots$$

My explanation of the statement: it is true because $\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{j}=\lim_{n \to \infty} \sum_{j=1}^{n}\frac{1}{j} = \lim_{n \to \infty} s_n$

$$\sum_{j=1}^{m}\frac{1}{j}+\sum_{j=m+1}^{2m}\frac{1} {j}+\sum_{j=2m+1}^{3m}\frac{1}{j}+\cdots=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{j=(k-1)m+1}^{mk}\frac{1}{j}=\lim_{n \to \infty}\sum_{k=1}^{n}\sum_{j=(k-1)m+1}^{mk}\frac{1}{j}=\lim_{n \to \infty}s'_n$$

Because $s'_n$ is a sub-sequence of $s_n$ and $s_n \to s \implies s'_n \to s$, thus the equality above.

Now the proof proceeds by considering another series $s''_n=\sum_{k=1}^{n}\sum_{j=(k-1)m+1}^{mk}\frac{1}{mk}$. It is clear that $s'_n > s''_n$ $\forall n$, so the author concludes that $\lim_{n \to \infty}s'_n=s>\lim_{n \to \infty}s''_n$ which he presents in the following form as something fully obvious:

$$\sum_{j=1}^\infty \frac{1}{j}>m\left(\frac{1}{m}\right)+m\left(\frac{1}{2m}\right)+m\left(\frac{1}{3m}\right)+\cdots$$

The author finishes the proof by noting that because $s''_n$ is itself a harmonic series we get that $s>s$ (contradiction).

What seems to me wrong is the conclusion $\sum_{j=1}^\infty \frac{1}{j}>m(\frac{1}{m})+m(\frac{1}{2m})+m(\frac{1}{3m})+\cdots$, i.e. $\lim_{n \to \infty}s'_n>\lim_{n \to \infty}s''_n$ because $s'_n > s''_n$ $\forall n$. Does it seem wrong to you?

  • $\begingroup$ His proof seems straightforward to me. He assumes the series converges and ends up with a contradiction. Thus, it doesn't converge. Which part of the proof gives you pause for concern? $\endgroup$
    – Mark Viola
    Mar 26 '15 at 16:05

Certainly, it's not automatically the case that if $(a_n)$ and $(b_n)$ are convergent sequences and $a_n>b_n$ for all $n$, that then $\lim_{n\to\infty}a_n>\lim_{n\to\infty}b_n$. Instead, the most you can say is that $\lim_{n\to\infty}a_n\ge\lim_{n\to\infty}b_n$.

Example: Let $a_n$ be the sequence >$$0,\frac12,\frac23,\frac34,\frac45\dots$$, and let $b_n$ be the same sequence, but lagging behind by one: $$0,0,\frac12,\frac23,\frac34,\dots$$

Then $a_n>b_n$ for all $n$, but both sequences converge to the same limit.

However, if we can bound the difference $a_n-b_n$ below by some constant $\delta>0$, then we must have actual inequality $\lim_{n\to\infty}a_n>\lim_{n\to\infty}b_n$ Exercise: prove this.

And that is exactly what we have in this case. Note that

\begin{align} s_n'=\left(\frac11+\dots+\frac1m\right)+&\dots+\left(\frac1{(n-1)m+1}+\dots+\frac{1}{nm}\right)\\ s_n''=\left(\frac1m+\dots+\frac1m\right)+&\dots+\left(\frac1{nm}+\dots+\frac{1}{nm}\right)\\ \end{align}

Then notice that each (bracketed) term of the sum $s_n''$ is greater than the corresponding term of the sum $s_n'$. This means that we can write $$ s_n'-s_n''>\left(\frac11+\dots+\frac1m\right)-\left(\frac1m+\dots+\frac1m\right)>0 $$ So not only do we know that $s_n'>s_n''$ for all $n$, we can bound the difference below. Therefore, the limit of the $s_n'$, if it exists, must be strictly greater than the limit of the $s_n''$.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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