Does the sum of a series match the limit of its power series at 1?
If the series converges, the power series heads to the same value as x nears 1, as in the formula below. Even the divergent Grandi series points to one half in this limit. But that value is an Abel sum, a separate convention, not the sum.
For example, imagine a 🧑 friend shouting 1 and 0 in turns. If each shout is a bit quieter than the last, the running average settles near one half.
Prove by summation by parts that if the partial sums Sn=a0+⋯+an converge to S, then limx→1−∑n=0∞anxn=S.
n=0∑Nanxn=SNxN+1+(1−x)n=0∑NSnxn
n=0∑∞anxn−S=(1−x)n=0∑∞(Sn−S)xn
Convergent example at x=0.9: S40(0.9)≈0.6420, closed form ln(1.9)≈0.6419 — the Abel sum points the same way as the ordinary sum ln2.Show proof
With S−1:=0 we have an=Sn−Sn−1. Since ∑n=0N(Sn−Sn−1)xn=∑n=0NSnxn−x∑n=0N−1Snxn, rearranging gives ∑n=0Nanxn=SNxN+1+(1−x)∑n=0NSnxn — Abel's transformation (summation by parts).
For fixed ∣x∣<1, letting N→∞ kills the boundary term SNxN+1→0 (SN is convergent hence bounded, xN+1→0). Thus ∑n=0∞anxn=(1−x)∑n=0∞Snxn — the right side converges absolutely since Sn is bounded.
Since (1−x)∑n=0∞xn=1, we get ∑anxn−S=(1−x)∑n=0∞(Sn−S)xn. Given ε>0, pick N0 with ∣Sn−S∣<ε/2 for all n>N0, and split the sum at N0.
M is a fixed constant, so this tends to 0 as x→1−.
For x close enough to 1 the total is below ε.
Hence limx→1−∑anxn=S. ∎
Prove the Abel sum of Grandi's series ∑n=0∞(−1)n is 21.
Be explicit that the series itself diverges.
n=0∑N(−x)n=1+x1−(−x)N+1N→∞1+x1(∣x∣<1)
x→1−lim1+x1=21
x=0.99, N=100: S100(0.99)≈0.6846, closed form 1/1.99≈0.5025 — raising N and sending x→1− drives it to 1/2.Show proof
First, honestly: ∑n=0∞(−1)n diverges.
The partial sums Sk=1 (k even), 0 (k odd) bounce forever with no limit (see the Grandi scene).
What we compute now is not "the sum" of the series, but its Abel sum.
For ∣x∣<1 the geometric formula gives ∑n=0N(−x)n=1+x1−(−x)N+1. E.g. at x=0.9, N=20: S20(0.9)=1.91−(−0.9)21≈0.5839, with exact error 1.9∣(−0.9)21∣≈0.0576.
For ∣x∣<1, (−x)N+1→0, so letting N→∞ gives ∑n=0∞(−1)nxn=1+x1. At x=0.9 this is 1/1.9≈0.5263 — the true target of the S20 above.
Now let x→1−: 1+x1→21.
Hence the Abel sum limx→1−∑n=0∞(−1)nxn=21.
It coincides with the Cesàro sum 21, but neither is "the sum" of a divergent series. ∎
Apply Abel's theorem to the alternating harmonic series ∑n=0∞n+1(−1)n=ln2 to prove limx→1−∑n=0∞n+1(−1)nxn+1=ln2.
x=0.99, N=100: S100(0.99)≈0.6899, closed form ln(1.99)≈0.6881 — tending to ln2≈0.6931 as x→1−.Show proof
Set an=n+1(−1)n. Then ∑n=0∞an converges by the Leibniz test (alternating, n+11↘0), and its value is ln2≈0.6931 (numerical check: at N=100000 the partial sum is ≈0.69315218, error ≈5.0×10−6).
Abel's theorem (Problem 1) gives limx→1−∑n=0∞anxn=ln2. But ∑n=0∞n+1(−1)nxn+1=x⋅∑n=0∞anxn, and x→1, so the desired limit is 1⋅ln2=ln2.
A direct check agrees: restrict to 0≤x<1.
Then t on the integration interval [0,x] satisfies 0≤t≤x<1 and 1+t≥1.
Integrating ∑n=0N(−t)n=1+t1−(−t)N+1 (for ∣t∣<1) from 0 to x gives ∑n=0Nn+1(−1)nxn+1=ln(1+x)−RN(x) with ∣RN(x)∣≤∫0x1+ttN+1dt≤∫0xtN+1dt=N+2xN+2→0 (N→∞), using 1+t≥1.
So for 0≤x<1 the power series sums to exactly ln(1+x).
The case x=1 then follows by Abel's theorem (continuity), not by this integration step.
Since ln(1+x)→ln2 (x→1−), the limit is ln2≈0.6931 — matching Abel's theorem's prediction. This shows the Abel sum never contradicts the ordinary sum for a convergent series. ∎