# Convergence of subsequence of partial sums implies full convergence?

Define $S_n = \sum_{j=1}^n a_j$ a sum of real numers.

Suppose there is a subsequence such that $S_{n_j} \to S$ for some $S$, i.e., the infinite sum converges along this subsequence. Does this imply that $S_n$ converges too?

It seems like it should, since it's simply an index which is increasing but there may be a counterexample I can't think of..

• If all the terms $a_j$ are positive, then it is true. Since $S_n$ is then an increases sequence which converges if and only if it is bounded, if and only if a subsequence is bounded (since it's increasing). – breeden Jun 24 '15 at 17:47

No, if e.g. $a_j = (-1)^j$ then $S_{2k} = 0$ for all $k$ but the series itself does not converge.
• @Johan The sequence $S_n$ is not cauchy. It's $-1$ for odd indexes, and $0$ for even indexes. Cauchy sequence must have elements that get close to each other. – muaddib Jun 24 '15 at 17:53
• @Johan do you mean when $a_n$ are cauchy? Because even that doesn't work (if you are only asking about arbitrary subsequencs), you can just take $a_j$ to be $n^2$ copies of $1/n^2$ and then $n^2$ copies of $-1/n^2$, etc... [edit: Actually, now I think about it, I think you meant when $S_n$ are cauchy and you have a convergent subsequence, which is true] – breeden Jun 24 '15 at 17:56