Bernoulli numbers alternate signs Michael  Spivak in Calculus, Fourth ed., Chapter 27, Problem 16 (page 572) defines the Bernoulli numbers based on
$$
\frac{z}{e^z-1} = \sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{B_nz^n}{n!}.
$$
He asks the reader to prove that $B_n = 0$ if $n$ is odd and $> 1$.
This is easy with the suggestion that Spivak provides.
In a footnote he remarks that the numbers $B_{2n}$ alternate in sign but says "we will not prove this."
I didn't see how to do it and embarked on a web search to find a relatively simple proof but failed.
Can anyone point me to an easy proof?
 A: Apparently the Bernoulli numbers can be defined in terms of the Riemann-zeta function;
$$B_n=-n\zeta(n-1)$$
An application of the zeta functional equation and the gamma reflection formula yields;
$$B_{2n}={{(-1)^{n+1}\cdot n \cdot (2n)!}\over{(2\pi)^{2n}}}\zeta(2n)$$
A: The hint below is key to the following argument.
I should have clarified that I wanted to use the definition of Bernoulli numbers based on
$$
\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{B_nx^n}{n!}=\frac{x}{e^x-1}.
$$
From this one can show that
$$
\tan(x)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty(-1)^{n-1}B_{2n}a_nx^{2n-1},\tag 1
$$
where $a_n>0$ for all $n$.
See Bernoulli numbers, taylor series expansion of tan x for a proof.
It is easy to prove by induction that for even $n$ the $n^{th}$ derivative of $\tan(x)$ is of the form
$$
\tan^{(n)}(x)=\sum_{j=0}^{n/2}b_{n,j}\tan^{2j+1}(x)
$$
and for odd $n$ of the form
$$
\tan^{(n)}(x)=\sum_{j=0}^{(n+1)/2}b_{n,j}\tan^{2j}(x),
$$
where $b_{i,j}>0$ for all $i$ and $j$.
The proof depends on the fact that $\tan^{'}(x) = 1 + \tan^2(x)$.
The Maclaurin expansion is therefore
$$
\tan(x)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac {b_{(2n-1),0}}{(2n-1)!}x^{2n-1}\tag 2
$$
Equating the coefficients in (1) and (2), we see that $(-1)^{n-1}B_{2n} > 0$.
A: HINT: Use the definition of the Bernoulli numbers and the following fact: the function $\tan x$ has a Taylor expansion at $0$ with all coefficients $\ge 0$. This can be shown by induction using the equality
$$(\tan x)' = 1 + \tan^2 x$$
and $\tan 0 = 0$.
A: There is also a purely formal proof. The details are given in Corollary 1.16 of [T. Arakawa, T. Ibukiyama, M. Kaneko, Bernoulli Numbers and Zeta Functions, Springer, 2014].
