The squeeze theorem – "Math for Non-Geeks"
The squeeze theorem is a powerful tool to determine the limit of a complicated sequence. It is based on comparison to simpler sequences, for which the limit is easily determinable.
Motivation
[edit | edit source]The intuition behind this theorem is quite simple: We are given a complicated sequence and want to know whether it converges. Often, one can leave out terms in the complicated sequence and get some simpler sequences and . If is a lower bound and an upper bound, then is "caught" in the space between both sequences. If both sequences converge to the same limit , they "squeeze" together this space to this single point and has no other option than to converge towards , as well.

You may also visualize this theorem by a "ham & cheese sandwich" (see image on the right). The upper and lower bounds and act as two "slices of toast", which confine , i.e. the "filling". If you squeeze the toast slices together, the filling in between will also squeeze to this point.
The squeeze theorem
[edit | edit source]The theorem reads as follows:
Let be any sequence. If two sequences and exist with for all and for some common limit , then will also converge towards this limit .
Let and be such that and for some .
We need to prove , i.e. for each there is an , such that for all . Let be arbitrary. By assumption, the convergences and hold.
Hence, there are two thresholds and with for all (lower bounding sequence) and for all (upper bounding sequence). Now, there is for . For each term we distinguish the two cases (above the limit) and (below the limit). In case there is
The other case is treated analogously:
So if the maximum of both thresholds is reached or exceeded by ( i.e. and hold), then for ,
and for ,
So in either case for all , which establishes convergence.
The inequality does not need to be satisfied for all . Assume a finite number of sequence elements are not "caught between and ". Then, after some finite all of these finitely many elements will have been passed and the further sequence elements with will indeed be caught as .
We illustrate the squeeze theorem using the root sequence , whose limit is for an arbitrary but fixed constant .
Two cases need to be distinguished:
Case 1:
Let us choose some , such that . Then, for all with there is , so , i.e. we have an upper bound. A lower bound is given by for any .
In the previous chapter, we have established the limit . So the squeeze theorem yields for any fixed standing inside the root.
Case 2:
In this case, , so we are led to the above case, replacing by . Hence, also and the limit theorems (quotient) yield:
A useful special case
[edit | edit source]We often encounter 0 as a sequence limit (null sequence). Since the squeeze theorem can be used to prove any to be a limit of a sequence , it can also be used for . In particular, for any converging to , the sequence must converge to 0:
Let be a real sequence, , and a null sequence with for all . Then .
We set . For the constant sequence there is (absolute values are always non-negative). Since the squeeze theorem also implies . Therefore, is a null sequence, which is equivalent to the statement that converges to .
This special case of the squeeze theorem is also referred to as direct comparison argument for sequences .
Let us take a look at . Not a simple case: both and tend to . But we can show that their difference converges to 0, since it is bounded by:
Let us prove this inequality. There is so and the difference is positive, i.e. .
Now, we remove the root by squaring it:
The last inequality holds for all and implies
But now, is a null sequence, so the squeeze theorem proves our assertion.
Squeeze theorem: examples and problems
[edit | edit source]Squeeze theorem: example & exercise 1
[edit | edit source]Let us consider the sequence with

We take a look at the first sequence elements . They seem to be alternately positive and negative, and they tend to zero. We use as lower or upper bound and . Then, so we caught for all .
In addition, . The squeeze theorem hence implies .
We could also use and . Or and for any real (not necessarily or ).
Investigate whether the sequence converges, using the squeeze theorem, where
with
For there is a with . By monotonicity of the power function,
Hence
The limit theorems yield
and the root rule gives . Hence, by means of the squeeze theorem .
Squeeze theorem: example & exercise 2
[edit | edit source]Next, we prove that the sequence with
converges to 0.

This sequence is bounded from below as all elements are positive for all . An upper bound can be found by multiplying out and :
Obviously, both bounding sequences converge to zero: . So the squeeze theorem implies .
Use the squeeze theorem to show that and with
both converge to 0.
Part 1: The trick is multiplying out again. This time, for and :
Since , the squeeze theorem implies .
Part 2:
Again, the elements are positive, i.e. . Bounding from above can be done using for all . This inequality can be shown by induction:
Induction basis: .
Induction step: .
So for all ,
Since , the squeeze theorem implies .
Squeeze theorem: example & exercise 3
[edit | edit source]Now, let us consider the root sequences and with
and
First sequence: For , monotonicity of the -th root implies
as well as
For those two bounding sequences, the limit theorems imply
and
The squeeze theorem hence implies .
Second sequence: For the root function is monotone, as well
and
We use the limit theorems for the upper and lower bounding sequences
and
So the squeeze theorem implies .
Use the squeeze theorem to determine the limits of the sequences and with
Part 1: For the -th root is monotone, so
further, for
Hence, there is
The limit theorems for the bounding sequences yield
and
So the squeeze theorem implies .
Part 2: For we again have monotonicity of the -th root
Further,
The limit theorems for the bounding sequences render
And by means of the squeeze theorem .
Squeeze theorem: example & exercise 4
[edit | edit source]Let be the sequence of finite sums
Then, for all we bound:
and hence
For the lower bound,
For the upper bound,
So the squeeze theorem implies .
Investigate the limits of the two sequences of finite sums and defined by
using the squeeze theorem.
Part 1: For all we have:
so we have some bounds
For the lower bound,
For the upper bound,
So the squeeze theorem implies .
Part 2: For all and there is:
so we have the bounds
The lower bound is just 0 and for the upper bound,
So the squeeze theorem implies .
Squeeze theorem: example & exercise 5
[edit | edit source]Does the sequence converge? If yes, what is its limit? Provide proofs for your claims.
Perhaps, you have already encountered the sequence which converges to Euler's number . This is an upper bound for , so with that knowledge, we may assert that it is bounded above. But what is the limit? Maybe, we should start by computing some initial sequence elements:
It looks as if converges to . This gets particularly clear, if we plot the sequence elements in a diagram:

What makes determining the limit hard is the exponent of . Otherwise, we could use some limit theorems or an epsilon proof and would be done quite fast. Luckily, there is a trick to get rid of the exponent: Bernoulli's inequality:
The sequence is hence a lower bound on and it clearly converges to . We hence set as a lower bound for the squeeze theorem.
How to get an upper bound converging to 1? This is quite easy, since is always smaller than : The expression lies in and therefore, also every positive integer power of it is smaller than . This includes being smaller than .
So for the squeeze theorem, we have for all the inequality:
Both the lower and the upper bounding sequences converge to the identical limit . So by means of the squeeze theorem, there must also be .
Bernoulli's inequality implies
And there is
So we get the bounds
Both bounding sequences converge to , so by means of the squeeze theorem, which was to be shown.
If you are allowed to use and , then you can also obtain the result directly, using the third binomial formula:
Does the sequence converge? If yes, what is its limit? Prove your assertions.
Again, Bernoulli's inequality can be used for getting rid of the exponent . There is
so we have a bound from below converging to . But is already a lower bound converging to . So Bernoulli's inequality doesn't help us in this form. What we need is an upper bound converging to . This can be done by a little trick: we put expressions from the numerator in the denominator and apply Bernoulli's inequality afterwards:
Hence, we have an upper bound . Dividing the numerator and denominator of the bound by gives a quotient of convergent sequences, both with limit , and the quotient rule gives . Therefore, we have two bounding sequences converging to and by the squeeze theorem .
Let and . There is :
The bounding sequences converge to and (by means of the limit theorem):
So there is and the squeeze theorem implies .
If the exponential series is known, one can also use the binomial theorem for a bound. A lower bound is given by . For the upper bound, we use the binomial theorem :
This yields a suitable upper bound, and we get . The squeeze theorem then implies that converges to .
We may use for a direct proof. The sequence is a subsequence of and converges to the same limit:
Hence, for some , there is for all . The sequence can be recovered from this by taking the root . So for all :
With , the squeeze theorem again implies that converges to .
Examples & exercises: squeeze theorem for null sequences
[edit | edit source]First, an easy example: we prove .
We estimate by the null sequence as follows:
Since , is a null sequence. We can use as an upper and as a lower bound for . The squeeze theorem then implies .
Now, it gets a bit more complicated: We fix any and prove that . This can be done by bounding from above using a null sequence . The trick is to use Bernoulli's inequality, which will yield the upper bound :
This implies
So we have
The squeeze theorem for null sequences directly implies .
Prove that .
In order to use the squeeze theorem, we need to bound from above by a null sequence. The binomial theorem can be used for this bounding. In case :
This inequality implies
So the desired bound reads
And by means of the squeeze theorem , which was to be shown.

