# proof analysis

by evagelos
Tags: analysis, proof
 P: 308 Suppose we are asked to prove : If $$\lim_{n\to\infty}x_{n} = L$$ and $$x_{n}$$ is decreasing,then $$\forall n[n\in N\Longrightarrow x_{n}\geq L]$$. On the following proof give a list of all the thoerems ,axioms,definitions and the laws of logic that take place in the proof proof: Suppose that there exists $$n_1\in\mathbb N$$ such that $$x_{n_1}\max\{n_1,n_2\}$$. Then we have that $$x_{n_1} PF Patron Sci Advisor Thanks Emeritus P: 15,673 Hi evagelos! Let's start with  Quote by evagelos proof: Suppose that there exists [tex]n_1\in\mathbb N$$ such that $$x_{n_1} What things do you need for this? P: 308  Quote by micromass Hi evagelos! Let's start with What things do you need for this? No axioms no theorems ,only the definition definition: [tex]\forall\epsilon[ \epsilon>0\Longrightarrow\exists k(k\in N\wedge\forall n(n\geq k\Longrightarrow |x_{n}-L|<\epsilon))]$$.

The question now is,what laws of logic

PF Patron
Thanks
Emeritus
P: 15,673

## proof analysis

 Quote by evagelos No axioms no theorems ,only the definition definition: $$\forall\epsilon[ \epsilon>0\Longrightarrow\exists k(k\in N\wedge\forall n(n\geq k\Longrightarrow |x_{n}-L|<\epsilon))]$$.
We didn't use convergence yet. So that's not the definition we need.
We do use some definitions and axioms here. For example, you use $\mathbb{N}$, you need to define this in some way and there are quite a lot of axioms that you need to define the natural numbers.

Furthermore, you use the inequality relation < and the difference operation -. In order for these to be well-defined, you had to use some axioms and definitions.

And what about $x_{n_1}$ this is an element of a sequence, that is you have a function $x:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, but what is a function? You'll need axioms and definitions to precisely define functions. Furthermore, in this function, the codomain is $\mathbb{R}$, and this set needs some axioms and definitions too.

 The question now is,what laws of logic
Since we did not do any logical derivations yet, we didn't use much logical laws yet!
P: 308
 Quote by micromass We didn't use convergence yet. So that's not the definition we need. We do use some definitions and axioms here. For example, you use [latex]\mathbb{Nitex], you need to define this in some way and there are quite a lot of axioms that you need to define the natural numbers. Furthermore, you use the inequality relation < and the difference operation -. In order for these to be well-defined, you had to use some axioms and definitions. And what about $x_{n_1}$ this is an element of a sequence, that is you have a function $x:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, but what is a function? You'll need axioms and definitions to precisely define functions. Furthermore, in this function, the codomain is $\mathbb{R}$, and this set needs some axioms and definitions too. Since we did not do any logical derivations yet, we didn't use much logical laws yet!
O,k then you state the axioms and definitions involved here ,because i am lost.

But surely the application of the laws of logic uppon those axioms and definitions should give us the statement of the proof
 PF Patron Sci Advisor Thanks Emeritus P: 15,673 Well, how did we define the natural numbers? And what axioms do you need for that? An excellent reference for this is staff.science.uva.nl/~vervoort/AST/ast.ps but you'll need to be able to open .ps files...
P: 308
 Quote by micromass Well, how did we define the natural numbers? And what axioms do you need for that? An excellent reference for this is staff.science.uva.nl/~vervoort/AST/ast.ps but you'll need to be able to open .ps files...
Micromass like that we are getting nowhere.

You mean every time we mention the Natural Nos we have to write down their axioms ??

What for ?
PF Patron
Thanks
Emeritus
P: 15,673
 Quote by evagelos Micromass like that we are getting nowhere. You mean every time we mention the Natural Nos we have to write down their axioms ?? What for ?
Judging from your post history, you like it that way. If you don't want it that formal, then you'll have to post from what axioms and definitions you're starting. If you want to take the natural numbers for granted, fine. But then you'll have to say what you're taking for granted and what not...
P: 308
 Quote by micromass Judging from your post history, you like it that way. If you don't want it that formal, then you'll have to post from what axioms and definitions you're starting. If you want to take the natural numbers for granted, fine. But then you'll have to say what you're taking for granted and what not...

O.k

Do you agree that :$$\exists n_{1}[n_{1}\in N\wedge x_{n_{1}}< L]$$ is the negation of the statement:

$$\forall n[n\in N\Longrightarrow x_{n}\geq L]$$ ??
 PF Patron Sci Advisor Thanks Emeritus P: 15,673 Yes, of course.
P: 308
 Quote by micromass Yes, of course.
Hence so far we have no axioms or thoerem or definitions involved.

Do you agree??
 PF Patron Sci Advisor Thanks Emeritus P: 15,673 Not exactly! The converse of $x_n< L$ is not always $x_n\geq L$. We have used here that the order relation is total. I.e. that for every a and b, we have $$a\leq b~\text{or}~b\leq a$$ And of course we used axioms and definitions to define $\mathbb{N}$ and to define the order-relation. But I understand that you take these for granted?
P: 308
 Quote by micromass Not exactly! The converse of $x_n< L$ is not always $x_n\geq L$. We have used here that the order relation is total. I.e. that for every a and b, we have $$a\leq b~\text{or}~b\leq a$$ And of course we used axioms and definitions to define $\mathbb{N}$ and to define the order-relation. But I understand that you take these for granted?

Sorry, i should have mentioned the law of trichotomy (a>b or a=b or a<b),which is the only axiom involved in the proof that:

$$\neg\forall n[n\in N\Longrightarrow x_{n}\geq L]$$ $$\Longrightarrow$$$$\exists n_{1}[n_{1}\in N\wedge x_{n_{1}}< L]$$

the rest is logic
 PF Patron Sci Advisor Thanks Emeritus P: 15,673 Maybe you can give a list (or reference) to all the axioms you're using? To me, trichotomy isn't really an axiom...
P: 308
 Quote by micromass Maybe you can give a list (or reference) to all the axioms you're using? To me, trichotomy isn't really an axiom...
It is not important whether we consider the trichotomy law is an axiom or a theorem .

It is important that we are using it in proving:

$$\neg\forall n[n\in N\Longrightarrow x_{n}\geq L]$$ $$\Longrightarrow$$$$\exists n_{1}[n_{1}\in N\wedge x_{n_{1}}< L]$$

Unless you can produce a proof of the above where you can use different theorems ,axioms e.t.c
PF Patron