What are the criteria for proving equivalence of Cauchy sequences?

  • Thread starter Thread starter *melinda*
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cauchy Equivalence
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the criteria for proving the equivalence of Cauchy sequences, particularly in the context of modifying a Cauchy sequence of rational numbers by changing a finite number of terms. The original poster expresses uncertainty about the definitions and properties necessary for establishing equivalence, particularly regarding convergence and the representation of sequences.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Exploratory

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand the concept of equivalence in relation to Cauchy sequences and questions how to represent modified sequences. They speculate that convergence to the same limit might imply equivalence but seek clarification on definitions and criteria.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the definition of equivalence, suggesting that two sequences may be considered equivalent if the sequence of their differences converges to zero. There is an acknowledgment of the need to clarify definitions and the original poster's struggle with abstraction in representing sequences.

Contextual Notes

The original poster notes a lack of definitions in their textbook, which contributes to their confusion regarding the proof and representation of sequences. The discussion also hints at the broader context of constructing the reals from the rationals using Cauchy sequences.

*melinda*
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Question:

Prove that if a Cauchy sequence [itex]x_1, x_2,...[/itex] of rationals is modified by changing a finite number of terms, the result is an equivalent Cauchy sequence.

All the math classes I have taken previously were computational, and my textbook contains almost no definitions.

So, I know that the properties of reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity must be present to have an equivalence. However, I don't know how to show that Cauchy sequences are equivalent. I'm guessing that if they converge to the same limit, then they are equivalent, but that's just my guess. The book remains mute on this and many points.

Once I know the criteria for equivalence (whatever that may be), my next problem is that I don't have a clue how to start this or any proof. I think I need to have a way to represent the sequences.
Lets call them: A, B (modified A), and C (modified B). I think I need three objects to show transitivity.
Now here's the sticky part; I don't know how to represent A,B, or C. My brain has not yet made the jump into abstraction. :blushing:

Any suggestions on a way to write A,B, and C would be greatly appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can't do it without knowing what "equivalence" means in this particular case!

I suspect that two sequences are equivalent if they converge to the same limit, but you really should check your definitions.
 
Notation suggestion- use [tex]x_1,x_2,\ldots[/tex] as your first sequence, [tex]x_1,x_2,\ldots[/tex] as your modified sequence.

Two Cauchy sequences are equivalent if the sequence of their differences, [tex]x_1-y_1,x_2-y_2,\ldots[/tex] converges to zero. They are eventually getting "close" to one another. This isn't quite the same as asking the two sequences to have the same limit point, but they are trying to converge to the same thing (the rationals are not complete, so they may not converge at all within the rationals).

This should be in your book though, and I'm making an assumption on the context (it looks like you're heading towards constructing the reals from the rationals via Cauchy sequences.
 
shmoe said:
Two Cauchy sequences are equivalent if the sequence of their differences, [tex]x_1-y_1,x_2-y_2,\ldots[/tex] converges to zero.

Just a note to *melinda*: That would also address https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=88525 .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K