If $a_n$ is a sequence such that $$a_1 \leq a_2 \leq a_3 \leq \dotsb$$ and has the property that $a_{n+1}-a_n \to 0$, then can we conclude that $a_n$ is convergent?

I know that without the condition that the sequence is increasing, this is not true, as we could consider the sequence given in this answer to a similar question that does not require the sequence to be increasing.

$$0, 1, \frac12, 0, \frac13, \frac23, 1, \frac34, \frac12, \frac14, 0, \frac15, \frac25, \frac35, \frac45, 1, \dotsc$$

This oscillates between $0$ and $1$, while the difference of consecutive terms approaches $0$ since the difference is always of the form $\pm\frac1m$ and $m$ increases the further we go in this sequence.

So how can we use the condition that $a_n$ is increasing to show that $a_n$ must converge? Or is this still not sufficient?

  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Note that while your sequence goes up and down periodically, you could define another sequence with the same step length for each $n$ but with all steps positive. That would be a counterexample to your question. $\endgroup$
    – Adayah
    Feb 17, 2019 at 18:26
  • 15
    $\begingroup$ Have you tried logarithms? $\endgroup$
    – user541686
    Feb 18, 2019 at 6:14
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Note that by writing $b_1=a_1, b_2=a_2-a_1, b_3=a_3-a_2,...$ the question becomes equivalent to asking whether a positive series with a summation term tending to zero must converge. $\endgroup$
    – Bar Alon
    Feb 18, 2019 at 12:44
  • $\begingroup$ The harmonic series should answer this question for you $\endgroup$
    – MPW
    Feb 19, 2019 at 21:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No it converges iff the difference of consecutive terms forms a summable series, which is stronger than just converging to zero. $\endgroup$
    – shalop
    Feb 20, 2019 at 2:29

7 Answers 7


An easy way to visualize why this can't be true is to try putting some points on a number line.

Start with 1 point in [0, 1):

number line showing single point at 0

2 points in [1, 2):

number line showing points at 0, 1, 1.5

And so on:

number line showing points at 0, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.33, 2.67, 3, 3.25, ...

Now you have a sequence that grows to infinity but keeps getting closer together.

  • 24
    $\begingroup$ +1 I'm definitely going to steal that. That's a lovely example, easily understandable even by people who don't know the harmonic series diverges. $\endgroup$ Feb 18, 2019 at 0:21
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ This should be the accepted answer as it's counterexample's divergence is obvious whereas the harmonic series divergence (though famous) is not $\endgroup$
    – gota
    Feb 18, 2019 at 12:33
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ Note that this is (approximately) the same as the sequence $a_n=\sqrt{n}$. $\endgroup$
    – tomasz
    Feb 18, 2019 at 12:41
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ The one small point to note, though admittedly pretty obvious, is that after inserting all those infinitely many points, each point has only a finite number of points to its left, and therefore a finite index (position) in the overall sequence. $\endgroup$ Feb 18, 2019 at 14:07
  • $\begingroup$ @MarcvanLeeuwen That's a great point. If you think of this as building a set, then you do need to show that each point is preceded by finitely many for it to be a sequence. But if you see it as a recursive definition of a sequence (imagine how you'd write this in code), it follows automatically that each point has an index. $\endgroup$
    – Owen
    Feb 18, 2019 at 22:49

No. Just consider the case in which $a_n=1+\frac12+\frac13+\cdots+\frac1n$. Note that then we have$$\lim_{n\to\infty}a_{n+1}-a_n=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac1{n+1}=0.$$But $a_n$ is the $n$th partial sum of the harmonic series, and therefore $(a_n)_{n\in\Bbb N}$ diverges.

  • 8
    $\begingroup$ Rhys: His sequence is $1, \frac32, \frac{11}6, \frac{25}{12},...$. Essentially the sequence of partial sums associated with the harmonic series. This is still a sequence, not a series, since it is a finite sum. $\endgroup$
    – M D
    Feb 17, 2019 at 16:49
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @RhysHughes $a_n=1+\frac12+\cdots+\frac1n$ IS increasing and $a_{n+1}-a_n=\frac{1}{n+1}\to 0$. $\endgroup$
    – Robert Z
    Feb 17, 2019 at 16:49
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't $a_{n+1} - a_n = \frac 1{n+1} - \frac 1n = \frac n{n(n+1)} - \frac{n+1}{n(n+1)} = \frac {n-(n+1)}{n(n+1)} = \frac {-1}{n^2+n} = -\frac 1{n^2+n} \to 0$? $\endgroup$
    – wizzwizz4
    Feb 18, 2019 at 20:28
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @wizzwizz4 No, because $a_n \neq \frac{1}{n}$. Instead, $a_n = 1 + \frac{1}{2} + \ldots + \frac{1}{n}$. So, $$a_{n+1} - a_n = \left(1 + \frac{1}{2} + \ldots + \frac{1}{n} + \frac{1}{n+1}\right) - \left(1 + \frac{1}{2} + \ldots + \frac{1}{n}\right) = \frac{1}{n+1}.$$ $\endgroup$ Feb 18, 2019 at 22:39
  • $\begingroup$ @MD: a series is a sequence. $\endgroup$
    – Taladris
    Feb 19, 2019 at 4:15

Any increasing sequence $\{a_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ has limit in $\mathbb{R}\cup\{+\infty\}$. It is $\sup_{n\geq 1} a_n$. Such $\sup$ or supremum can be a finite number or $+\infty$ (even if we know that $a_{n+1}-a_n\to 0$).

An example with a finite limit is $a_n=1-1/n\to 1$ and $a_{n+1}-a_n=\frac{1}{n(n+1)}\to 0$.

On the other hand $a_n=\sqrt{n}\to +\infty$ and $a_{n+1}-a_n=\sqrt{n+1}-\sqrt{n}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+1}+\sqrt{n}}\to 0$.

So, the answer is NO, the condition $a_{n+1}-a_n\to 0$ is not sufficient for an increasing sequence $\{a_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ to have a FINITE limit.


Another counterexample is $a_n=\ln n$, for $n\geq1$. The difference of successive terms is $\ln(n+1)-\ln n = \ln (1+1/n) \rightarrow \ln 1 = 0$, as $n \rightarrow \infty$, yet $\ln n$ itself tends to infinity, as $n$ tends to infinity.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Which is, in a way, the same counterexample, because $\sum_{k=1}^n\frac1k = \ln n + \gamma + \mathcal O\left(\frac1n\right)$. $\endgroup$ Feb 18, 2019 at 20:43

No. Consider the sequence $\{a_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ given by

  • $a_n = \sum\limits_{k=1}^{n} \frac{1}{k}$.

It follows that

  • $a_n > a_{n-1}$
  • $a_n - a_{n-1} = \frac{1}{n} \rightarrow 0$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$, but
  • $a_n = \sum\limits_{k=1}^{n} \frac{1}{k} \rightarrow \infty$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$ (by, e.g., integral test).

Note that if we define $b_n=a_{n+1}-a_n$, then $a_n=a_0+\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}b_n$. So this question is equivalent to asking whether the terms of an infinite series going to zero is sufficient for the series to converge. There are a variety of examples of series with terms that go to zero, yet do not converge, with the harmonic series ($\sum \frac 1 n$) being one of the most famous.

And in fact we can construct a counterexample from any sequence by defining a sequence $c_n$ by simply re-indexing the terms. We set $c_0$ equal to $a_0$. Then set $c_{k1}$ equal to $a_1$, where $k_1>a_1-a_0$, and fill in the terms $c_1$ to $c_{k-1}$ with equally spaced terms; this will result in all of the consecutive differences from $c_0$ to $c_{k1}$ being less than $1$. Then set $c_k2$ equal to $a_2$, where $k_2+k_1>2(a_2-a_1)$, which results in consecutive differences between $c_{k1}$ to $c_{k2}$ being less than $\frac 1 2$. Just keep re-indexing each term and filling in more and more new terms, and you can drive the consecutive differences arbitrarily low.

Another approach is to look at a sequence as an approximation of a continuous function, and the difference between successive terms as an approximation of the derivative. Then we just need a function such that $f'(x)$ converges to zero, but $f$ diverges. Two examples of such are the log function, (which gives a sequence very similar to the harmonic sequence) and square root. Note that both of these examples can be obtained by taking the inverse of a function whose derivative is constantly increasing. If $g'$ goes to infinity, then $(g^{-1})'$ goes to zero. But if the domain of $g$ is the whole real line, then the range of $g^{-1}$ is the whole real line, i.e. $g^{-1}$ goes to infinity.


The condition $a_{n+1}-a_n \to 0$ is not sufficient, as José Carlos Santos pointed out. But, a necessary and sufficient condition, that doesn't require the series to be increasing, is that $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}(a_{n+m(n)}-a_n)=0$ for all $m(n)\in \mathbb{N}$, where $m$ is a function of $n$. Sequences which satisfy this property are called Cauchy sequences.

Also, if you show that a sequence is monotonically increasing and bounded from above, then it converges. The same applies for monotonically decreasing sequences which are bounded from below.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Your stated condition $\lim_{n \to \infty} (a_{n+m}-a_n) = 0$ for each $m$ is not equivalent to the Cauchy property, and it does not imply that the sequence $a_n$ converges. Consider $a_n = \log n$. I think what you would want is that $\lim_{n \to \infty} (a_{n+m}-a_n) = 0$ uniformly in $m$. $\endgroup$ Feb 17, 2019 at 17:05
  • $\begingroup$ @NateEldredge But if we take $m=n$, then the condition is not satisfied, is it? $\endgroup$ Feb 17, 2019 at 17:09
  • $\begingroup$ Okay, the revised condition (where $m$ is a function of $n$) is correct, though it seems awkward to work with in practice. $\endgroup$ Feb 17, 2019 at 17:22
  • $\begingroup$ @NateEldredge I formulated it that way because I am more familiar with it. Sorry about any confusion I might have caused. $\endgroup$ Feb 17, 2019 at 17:25
  • $\begingroup$ I think another way of looking at things would be to say that for any specified positive epsilon, there will be some value of n such that for all i > n, |a[i]-a[n]| will be less than epsilon. Would that be correct? $\endgroup$
    – supercat
    Feb 18, 2019 at 19:27

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.