Let’s talk about infinite sums. Consider the following sums:

Since we add infinitely many terms, our sums should be infinite, right? That is the case for
, but surprisingly, not for
. But let’s define what we mean by an infinite sum properly.
We will adopt the convention, as with other topics, that
, so that
. Let
be an ordered field.
Definition 1. Let
be a
-sequence. Inductively define the partial sums sequence
by

Often, we denote

We say that the series
converges to a real number
if
, and diverges otherwise. In this case, we write

Example 1. Given
with partial sums
,
, thus
diverges.
Example 2. Given
, the sequence of partial sums is given by

If
, then

If
, then

If
, then
implies

If
, then
. If
, then

However, if
, then
, a contradiction.
This gives us our first crucial convergence result.
Theorem 1. For any
, the partial sums of
, called the standard geometric series, converges to
if and only if
. In summation notation,

if and only if
.
Example 3. In particular, setting
so that
,

But what other series converge? Recall that we write

if and only if the partial sums
. Let’s expand this latter idea in epsilontics.
Lemma 1. Suppose
converges. Then for any
, there exists
such that for
,

Proof. Fix
. Then there exists
such that

By the triangle inequality, for
,

This is what we mean by a Cauchy sequence.
Definition 2. A
-sequence
is Cauchy if for any
, there exists
such that

By Lemma 1, for any
-seqeunce
, if
converges, then
is Cauchy. Does the reverse hold? Interestingly, when
, the answer is Yes. That is one property that sets
apart from
, and it boils down back to the completeness property.
Lemma 2. If
is Cauchy, then
is bounded.
Proof. Since
is Cauchy, for
, there exists
such that

Then for any
,

This means that if we define
, then for any
,

Thus,
is bounded.
Theorem 2. Let
be an
-sequence. Then
converges if and only if
is Cauchy.
Proof. We have proven
and now turn our attention to prove
.
Let
be a Cauchy
-sequence. Fix
. What convergence theorems do we have to prove that
converges?
We have the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem, but that theorem asserts the convergence of a subsequence of
, not the convergence of
itself. Furthermore, this only works if
is bounded. Thankfully, Lemma 2 tells us that this is, in fact, true. Therefore, there exists a subsequence
of
such that
.
We somehow need to take advantage of the Cauchy property of
. Fix
. Since
, there exists
such that

Since
is Cauchy, there exists
such that

Define
. Then for
, since
,

That’s our proof!
In terms of our main subject of study—infinite series—we get the Cauchy criterion for convergent series.
Corollary 1. Let
be an
-sequence. Then
converges if and only if
is Cauchy.
We have established some convergent series, some divergent series, and a comprehensive test to check for convergence. But math people (and worse, engineers) are lazy and don’t have all the time to derive every detail from first principles. Are there some useful rules-of-thumb to help us create more convergent series?
That is the content, which is quite crucial in all honesty, of our next post.
—Joel Kindiak, 28 Dec 24, 1218H