So let $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}a_n = a$ and for simplicity let $\{a_n\}$ be increasing and $a>0$. Now consider $\sum_n (a- a_n)$. I wrote a proof that this doesn't converge, and I'm wondering where I went wrong, or if it just works because we have an increasing sequence (part of the proof relies on it being monotone).

Proof: For any $\epsilon > 0$ we have that there exists an $N$ so that the terms of the series $a-a_n = b_n <\epsilon$ for all $n>N$. In particular consider $\epsilon$ of the form $\frac{1}{k}$ for some integer $k$. We have that for every $k\geq 1$ that there exists an $N$ so that $b_n < \frac{1}{k}$ for all $n>N$.

Now since $\{a_n\}$ is increasing, we know that $b_n$ is bounded above by $a- a_0$. Let $k_0$ be the floor of $\frac{1}{a-a_0}$. Then for every integer $k>k_0$, there exists an integer $M$ so that for all $n\leq M$ we have that $b_n \geq \frac{1}{k}$.

Thus we have $\sum b_n \geq \sum_{k=k_0+1}^\infty \alpha_k\frac{1}{k}$ where the $\alpha_k$ are integer weights. They represent the distance between the $M$ we obtain for each consecutive $k$. In particular, $\alpha_k \geq 1$ for all $k$. Thus we have $\sum b_n \geq \sum_{k=k_0+1}^\infty \frac{1}{k}$ which proves divergence by the comparison test.

This completes the proof. Hopefully this is easy to read!

edit: seems that the critical problem is where I assumed that $\alpha_k \geq 1$ for all $k$. Since $\alpha_k$ = $M_k - M_{k-1}$ (where these $M$ come from paragraph 3) it could easily be the case that $\alpha_k = 0$, if the sequence approaches its limit fast enough.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Well, this statement is untrue when $a_n=1-\frac{1}{2^n}$, so try to figure out why this fails there. $\endgroup$ – Thomas Andrews Feb 7 '18 at 20:09
  • $\begingroup$ You want $a_n=1-\frac{1}{n}$ as your second example, to make it increasing. @lulu $\endgroup$ – Thomas Andrews Feb 7 '18 at 20:11
  • $\begingroup$ Of course, there is no reason to assume the $k$ is not the same for multiple $n.$ For your proof to work, you need $b_k\geq \frac{1}{k+k_0}.$ $\endgroup$ – Thomas Andrews Feb 7 '18 at 20:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Basically, a lot of your $\alpha_n$ are zero. $\endgroup$ – Thomas Andrews Feb 7 '18 at 20:15
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah Thomas I think that's exactly the problem - $b_n$ could decrease so fast that many of the alphas are zero. $\endgroup$ – Ten Times Feb 7 '18 at 20:17

The result itself is definitely not true: it can happen that $a_k$ converges rapidly enough that its deviations from its eventual limit are summable. For example this happens if $a_k=\sum_{n=1}^k 2^{-n}$.

The real error in your proof is that actually not all the $\alpha_k$ are $\geq 1$. For instance with this example $a_k$, the only $\alpha_k$ that are positive are those with $k$ given by a power of $2$.

  • $\begingroup$ @DanielSchepler Oh, yes, we're comparing to the limit not just neighboring terms. Let me fix it... $\endgroup$ – Ian Feb 7 '18 at 20:17
  • $\begingroup$ I didn't mean to give a lower bound on $b_n$, but to say that $b_n$ is decreasing and that $a-a_0$ is its maximum, so if I choose a number smaller than $a-a_0$ and greater than $0$ then there will be a finite number of $b_n$ that are greater than it. $\endgroup$ – Ten Times Feb 7 '18 at 20:18
  • $\begingroup$ @TenTimes Your emphasis in your proof was backwards then: you wanted to say that $\{ n: b_n \geq 1/k \}=\{ 1,\dots,M(k) \}$. And that is true, but then it will happen that many of your $\alpha_k$ are in fact zero. For instance in my example, $\alpha_3=\alpha_5=\alpha_6=\alpha_7=0$. $\endgroup$ – Ian Feb 7 '18 at 20:20
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah I'm sorry; I need to get better at writing clearer; especially when I'm making up notation on the fly. Thanks for pointing this out. $\endgroup$ – Ten Times Feb 7 '18 at 20:23

Let $$\beta_k=\left|\left\{n\mid b_n\geq \frac{1}{k}\right\}\right|$$

Then you are assuming that $\beta_k\geq k-k_0.$ Your assumption that $\alpha_k>0$ for each $k>k_0$ means that you assume that $\beta_k\geq k-k_0$ for each $k>k_0$. That's not going to happen when $b_n$ converges to $0$ very quickly.

For example, with $b_n=\frac{1}{2^n},$ you have that $\beta_k=\left\lfloor \log_2 k\right\rfloor$.

Now, $\beta_k$ is an increasing sequence of integers that converges to $+\infty$. If $k=O(\beta_k)$, then you get "enough" to ensure that the series $\sum b_n$ is bounded below by some constant times the harmonic series.


On the contrary, every convergent series $\sum a_n $ enjoys the condition that $lim_{n\to \infty } a_n =0.$

Thus $\sum (a_n-a) = \sum (a_n-0) =\sum a_n $ has to converge.

  • $\begingroup$ Those $a_n$ are not increasing and converging to a positive value. (You are correct that OP is wrong, but this answer is not helpful.) $\endgroup$ – Thomas Andrews Feb 7 '18 at 20:17
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the comment. My point was that you can not have convergence under the given condition at all. $\endgroup$ – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani Feb 7 '18 at 20:28

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.