If some (sequence)^2 converges does that mean the original (sequence) always converge

In summary: There's no point in beating around the bush just for the sake of it.In summary, the original statement "if a sequence converges to L, then its square also converges to L squared" is not always true. The converse of this statement, "if a sequence converges to L squared, then it also converges to L," is not equivalent and can be false. A counterexample, such as the sequence a_n = (-1)^n, can be used to demonstrate this. Another example is the Harmonic series, which does not converge but its square does. Therefore, the statement is not always true and it is important to understand the reasoning behind it rather than just copying the answer.
  • #1
cloud360
212
0
If some (sequence)^2 converges does that mean the original (sequence) always converges?

(using mobile version)

attempted solution:

All i know is if {an} converges to L==> {an}^2 converges to L^2
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


any help please, i really need. would be very grateful
 
  • #3


I think this is false. Try using a sequence that oscillates between values for a counterexample.
 
  • #4


but if its true that if {an} converges to L==> {an}^2 converges to L^2, then how can it be false?

going backwards means {an}^2 converges to L^2{an} converges to L


why am i wrong?
 
  • #5


Consider the sequence [itex] a_n = (-1)^n [/itex] as motivation to what spamiam said. Clearly [itex] a_n^2 = (-1)^{2n} = 1 [/itex] is the constant sequence and so converges. However, the original clearly does not converge as it oscillates between -1 and +1 indefinitely.

Edit: Fixed wording
 
  • #6


As for the statement as how the other could be wrong, this is called the converse and is logically not equivalent to the original statement.

All dogs are mammals is true. The converse is that all mammals are dogs, and this is not true.
 
  • #7


The converse of a true statement is not always true. Take the classic Alice In Wonderland example: I always breathe when I sleep, but this doesn't mean I always sleep when I breathe.

In other words, "P implies Q" does not mean that "Q implies P".

In any case, there's a very simple sequence that serves as a counterexample: try using my hint.
 
  • #8


Kreizhn: I understand you're trying to help (which is great), but giving the exact answer is not the idea of PF, as that let's the OP simply copy the answer given onto their sheet without possibly understanding it/going through the thought procedure
 
  • #9


If you are not satisfied with this boring example, try using the Harmonic series instead. Define
[tex] a_n = \frac1n [/itex]
It is very well known that this series does not converge. However,
[tex] a_n^2 = \frac1{n^2} [/tex]
does converge.
 
  • #10


thanks so much :)
 
  • #11


mr. vodka said:
Kreizhn: I understand you're trying to help (which is great), but giving the exact answer is not the idea of PF, as that let's the OP simply copy the answer given onto their sheet without possibly understanding it/going through the thought procedure

I know what you're trying to say, but at this point the answer has already been made clear. The issue is no longer that the answer has been given, but instead the motivation should be to clearly demonstrate why the solution is the way it is.
 

What does it mean for a sequence squared to converge?

When a sequence is squared, it means that each term in the original sequence is multiplied by itself. So, if the original sequence is denoted as (an), the squared sequence would be (an)2 = (an) * (an).

Does the convergence of a squared sequence guarantee the convergence of the original sequence?

No, the convergence of a squared sequence does not necessarily guarantee the convergence of the original sequence. The convergence of a squared sequence is dependent on the convergence of the original sequence, but the converse is not always true.

Under what conditions does the convergence of a squared sequence imply the convergence of the original sequence?

If the original sequence is non-negative (all terms are greater than or equal to 0), then the convergence of the squared sequence will imply the convergence of the original sequence. This is because multiplying by itself will not change the sign of the terms, so the original sequence will still be non-negative and thus converge.

Are there any counterexamples to the statement "if a squared sequence converges, then the original sequence also converges"?

Yes, there are counterexamples where the squared sequence converges, but the original sequence does not. For example, consider the sequence (-1)n which oscillates between -1 and 1. When squared, this sequence becomes 1, which clearly converges to 1. However, the original sequence does not converge as it oscillates infinitely between -1 and 1.

How can we determine the convergence of a squared sequence and its relation to the convergence of the original sequence?

To determine the convergence of a squared sequence and its relation to the convergence of the original sequence, we can use the comparison test. This test compares the terms of two sequences and their behaviors as n approaches infinity. By comparing the squared sequence to the original sequence, we can determine if the convergence of the squared sequence implies the convergence of the original sequence, or if there are any exceptions.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
876
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
231
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
803
Replies
1
Views
567
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
169
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
888
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
281
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
977
Back
Top