We know that the Cauchy Criterion of a series is as follow (proof is taken as excerpt from an analysis book):

Theorem: A series $\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}a_j$ converges iff for all $\epsilon>0$ there is an $N\in \mathbb{N}$ so that for all $n\ge m \ge N$ we have $|\sum_{j=m}^{n} a_j|< \epsilon$.

Let $s_n$ denotes partial sum $\sum_{j=1}^n a_j$.

We know that the proof of $\Rightarrow$ direction makes use of the fact that convergent series implies the sequence of partial sum converges and thus is Cauchy in $\mathbb{R}$. So here is part of the proof, since sequence of partial sum is Cauchy, therefore given $\epsilon>0$, there exists $N \in \mathbb{N}$ such that for all $n \ge m \ge N$, $|s_n - s_{m-1}|< \epsilon$.

I do not get the $s_{m-1}$ part, i.e. I do not get why you can pick $m-1$, since there is possibility for $m=N$, and thus having $m-1<N$, which in this case you cannot guarantee the sequence of partial sum Cauchy.

When I was thinking about this, I was rather confused, and my original thought was following:

  1. Starting from the sequence of partial sum being Cauchy, $|s_n-s_m|< \epsilon$, for all $n,m\ge N$ (the definition of Cauchy sequence), and without loss of generality we can pick $n>m$ such that $|s_n- s_m|=|\sum_{j=m+1}^{n} a_j|< \epsilon$, but this differs from the statement of the theorem somehow.
  2. I was also thinking of having $m \ne N$ and $m>N$ so that we have $m-1\ge N$ and that the original proof of the theorem that I showed right after the theorem is valid.
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Pick your $N$ such that $n, m \geq N$ implies $|s_n - s_m| < \varepsilon$. Then use $N + 1$ instead. I agree that this is not symbol for symbol how one defines Cauchy, but playing little games with indices is something one has to get used to. $\endgroup$ – Dylan Moreland Jul 18 '12 at 21:52
  • $\begingroup$ these are subtleties that always drive me nuts $\endgroup$ – Daniel Jul 18 '12 at 22:04

It makes no difference at all if you use $n\geq m > N$ in the definition of Cauchy sequnces, so I guess your 2 option is a good solution to your problems. It is just a problem of what name you give to the numbers. If the sequence of partial sums is a Cauchy sequences there exists such $N$ as you defined. Now call $N' = N+1$ and conclude what you want.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Shouldn't it be there exists such $N'$ $\endgroup$ – Daniel Jul 18 '12 at 22:07

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.