Purely epsilon-N proof of the Leibniz criterion for alternate series

In summary, the Leibniz criterion for alternate series states that if we have an alternating series \sum a_n with a_n \rightarrow 0 and that is decreasing in absolute values, then the sum converges. The proof involves using the sandwich lemma and choosing the appropriate value for \epsilon. However, the hypothesis of a_n\rightarrow 0 is not used, which may be a mistake.
  • #1
quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
4,807
32

Homework Statement


I found a purely epsilon-N proof of the Leibniz criterion for alternate series and it is quite inelegant compared to the classical proof so no wonder I never saw it in any textbook. But at the same time I must wonder if I made a mistake somewhere.

The statement of the Leibniz criterion for alternate series is that if we have an alternating series [itex]\sum a_n[/itex] with [itex]a_n \rightarrow 0[/itex] and that is decreasing in absolute values ([itex]|a_{n+1}\leq |a_n|[/itex]), then the sum converges.

The Attempt at a Solution

I begin by arguing that if for some N, |a_N|=0, then a_n=0 for all subsequent n also. (Because [itex]0\leq |a_{N+k}|\leq |a_N|=0 \Leftrightarrow |a_{N+k}| = 0[/itex]). So if this is the case, then the series converges to [itex]\sum_{n=1}^{N}a_n[/itex]. If a_n is never 0, then we can write

[tex]0< \frac{|a_{n+1}|}{|a_n|}\leq 1[/tex]

and therefor, by the "sandwich lemma",

[tex]0\leq \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{|a_{n+1}|}{|a_n|}\leq 1[/tex]

In the case where the limit is lesser than 1, then the series converges absolutely by the ratio test. In the case where the limit equals 1, the ratio test does not allow us to conclude so we must work a little.

The fact that the limit is 1 means that for all [itex]\epsilon>0[/itex], there is a N s.t.

[tex]n\geq N \ \Rightarrow |\frac{|a_{n+1}|}{|a_n|}-1|<\epsilon \Leftrightarrow 1-\epsilon < \frac{|a_{n+1}|}{|a_n|}<1+\epsilon \Leftrightarrow 1-\epsilon < -\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n}<1+\epsilon[/tex]

(Because {a_n} is alternating)

[tex]\Leftrightarrow -1-\epsilon<\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n}<\epsilon-1 \Leftrightarrow -a_n(\epsilon+1)<a_{n+1}<a_n(\epsilon-1)[/tex].

In particular, if we chose [itex]\epsilon \in (1,2)[/itex], we get [itex](\epsilon-1)\in (0,1)[/itex] and the following "identities":

[tex]-a_N(\epsilon+1)<a_{N+1}<a_N(\epsilon-1) \ \ \ \ (1)[/tex]

[tex]-a_{N+1}(\epsilon+1)<a_{N+2}<a_{N+1}(\epsilon-1)[/tex]

But from equation (1), [itex]-a_{N+1}>-a_{N}(\epsilon-1)[/itex] and [itex]a_{N+1}<a_N(\epsilon-1)[/itex], so

[tex]-a_{N}(\epsilon-1)(\epsilon+1)<a_{N+2}<a_{N}(\epsilon-1)^2 \ \ \ \ (2)[/tex]

[tex]-a_{N+2}(\epsilon+1)<a_{N+3}<a_{N+2}(\epsilon-1)[/tex]

But from equation (2), [itex]-a_{N+2}>-a_{N}(\epsilon-1)^2[/itex] and [itex]a_{N+2}<a_N(\epsilon-1)^2[/itex], so

[tex]-a_{N}(\epsilon-1)^2(\epsilon+1)<a_{N+3}<a_{N}(\epsilon-1)^3[/tex]

Etc., by induction, we get that

[tex]-a_N(\epsilon-1)^{k-1}(\epsilon+1)<a_{N+k}<a_{N}(\epsilon-1)^k[/tex]

Thus, again by the sandwich lemma, the (truncated) alternate series is squeezed btw two geometric series:

[tex]-a_N(\epsilon+1)\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(\epsilon-1)^n\leq \sum_{n=N+1}^{\infty}a_n\leq a_N\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}(\epsilon-1)^k[/tex]Did you notice that I never use the hypothesis [itex]a_n\rightarrow 0[/itex]? Not good. Or did I unknowingly?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The RHS of your inequality doesn't even converge, unless you've made a typo.
 
  • #3
quasar987 said:
(Because {a_n} is alternating)

[tex]\Leftrightarrow -1-\epsilon<\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n}<\epsilon-1 \Leftrightarrow -a_n(\epsilon+1)<a_{n+1}<a_n(\epsilon-1)[/tex].

This does not follow. One of a_n is positive, and one is negative, you don't know which, and can't assume it is a_n that is -ve
 

Related to Purely epsilon-N proof of the Leibniz criterion for alternate series

1. What is the Leibniz criterion for alternate series?

The Leibniz criterion is a mathematical test used to determine whether an alternating series converges or diverges. It states that if the terms of the series decrease in absolute value and approach zero, then the series will converge.

2. How is the Leibniz criterion proved using epsilon-N notation?

The proof using epsilon-N notation involves showing that for any given value of epsilon, there exists an N such that the difference between the partial sum of the series and the actual sum is less than epsilon. This can be done by carefully manipulating the terms of the series and using the fact that the terms decrease in absolute value.

3. Why is epsilon-N notation useful in proving the Leibniz criterion?

Epsilon-N notation provides a precise and rigorous way to prove the convergence of a series. It allows us to show that for any desired level of accuracy (represented by epsilon), we can find a point in the series (represented by N) beyond which the partial sum will be within that level of accuracy of the actual sum. This is essential in proving the Leibniz criterion since it relies on the terms of the series approaching zero.

4. Are there any other ways to prove the Leibniz criterion?

Yes, there are other ways to prove the Leibniz criterion, such as using the Ratio Test or the Integral Test. However, the epsilon-N proof is often considered the most elegant and direct way to prove the convergence of an alternating series.

5. Can the Leibniz criterion be applied to all alternating series?

No, the Leibniz criterion can only be applied to alternating series where the terms decrease in absolute value and approach zero. If these conditions are not met, then the series may not converge. It is important to carefully check the conditions before applying the Leibniz criterion.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
881
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
423
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
642
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
356
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
490
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top