Test Review 5 - limit of a constant sequence

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the limit of a constant sequence converges, specifically using the definition of a limit in the context of sequences.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply the definition of a limit by using the epsilon condition but questions the complexity of their proof. Some participants point out the absence of a delta in the proof, while others clarify that delta is not necessary for sequences.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring the nuances of the limit definition as it applies to sequences versus functions. There is a recognition that the proof can be straightforward, with some guidance offered regarding the correct application of definitions.

Contextual Notes

There is a discussion about the differences between limits of sequences and limits of functions, particularly regarding the use of delta in proofs. Some participants express confusion about the requirements for each case.

cmurphy
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
I need to prove that the limit of a constant sequence converges, using the definition of a limit.

This is what I have:

Let e > 0 be given.
Then |sn - s| < e
But sn = s for all sn, thus
|s - s| < e
|0| < e
0 < e
Thus N can be any number?

This proof is simple, but I am making it complicated! Please help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your solution is close but not correct. Remember, the definition of a limit involves [itex]\epsilon[/itex] AND [itex]\delta[/itex]. There is no mention of a [itex]\delta[/itex] in your proof.
 
Oxymoron said:
Your solution is close but not correct. Remember, the definition of a limit involves [itex]\epsilon[/itex] AND [itex]\delta[/itex]. There is no mention of a [itex]\delta[/itex] in your proof.

No, Oxymoron, there is NO [itex]\delta[/itex] in the proof of a limit of sequenc! That's only for limit of a function in which the variable is takes on continuous values.

CMurphy, your proof is completely correct: N can be taken to be anything. It really is that easy!
 
Sorry guys, didn't realize it was a sequence. Halls is 100% correct, and so are you colleen. However, if it was a function then you need the delta. I hope you realize that you didnt need the delta because you only have a sequence.
 
However, if it was a function then you need the delta.

That's a truth "with modification", since the epsilon-delta definition of limits (or continuity) can be formulated using only sequences.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K