Proving an equivalence concerning sequences

In summary, the equivalence between the existence of a pair of sequences x_n in A and y_n in B such that |x_n - y_n| -> 0 as n -> infinity and the non-empty intersection of A and B has been proven using the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem and the fact that closed sets contain all of their limit points.
  • #1
RVP91
50
0
given closed subsets, A and B, of R^d with A bounded prove the equivalence of:
1) There exists a pair of sequences x_n in A and y_n in B such that |x_n - y_n| -> 0 as n -> infinity
2) A intersection B is non empty.


I have attempted this question but am a bit stuck on proving 1 implies 2 and not sure about my attempt at 2 implies 1.

For 2 implies 1:

Let p be a point of intersection between A and B.
Then let x_n be a sequence in A that tends to p as n -> infinity.
Let y_n be a sequence in B that tends to p as n -> infinity.
Then we have that ||x_n - y_n|| -> 0 as n ->infinity.
Thus we have shown a pair of sequences exists.

For 1 implies 2:
I'm actually clueless as to where to start. I've been told the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem may help. I know this says that each bounded sequence in R^d has a convergent subsequence. I don't know how to use this though or really where to begin at all.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
x_n is a sequence in A. A is bounded. So x_n must be a bounded sequence in R^d. Now keep going.
 
  • #3
x_n is a sequence in A. A is bounded. So x_n must be a bounded sequence in R^d.
Then using B-W we know a bounded sequence has a a convergent subsequence let us call it x_n_k and so we have x_n_k -> Q.
Now ||x_n - y_n|| -> 0 and ||x_n_k - Q|| -> 0 then the subsequence of y_n, y_n_k -> Q since
||y_n_k - Q||-> 0 = ||y_n_k - x_n_k + x_n_k - Q||-> 0 = ||y_n_k - x_n_k|| + ||x_n_k - Q|| -> 0
and we know ||x_n_k - Q|| tends to 0 and so ||y_n_k - x_n_k|| must tend to 0 ans this implies x_n_k = y_n_k and so y_n_k also tends to Q.
This implies the sets E and F have a intersection point and thus E intersection F is non empty.

Is this correct?
Apologies for the fact the proof above is probably rather messy.

Also was my proof for 2 implies 1 correct?
 
  • #4
RVP91 said:
x_n is a sequence in A. A is bounded. So x_n must be a bounded sequence in R^d.
Then using B-W we know a bounded sequence has a a convergent subsequence let us call it x_n_k and so we have x_n_k -> Q.
Now ||x_n - y_n|| -> 0 and ||x_n_k - Q|| -> 0 then the subsequence of y_n, y_n_k -> Q since
||y_n_k - Q||-> 0 = ||y_n_k - x_n_k + x_n_k - Q||-> 0 = ||y_n_k - x_n_k|| + ||x_n_k - Q|| -> 0
and we know ||x_n_k - Q|| tends to 0 and so ||y_n_k - x_n_k|| must tend to 0 ans this implies x_n_k = y_n_k and so y_n_k also tends to Q.
This implies the sets E and F have a intersection point and thus E intersection F is non empty.

Is this correct?
Apologies for the fact the proof above is probably rather messy.

Also was my proof for 2 implies 1 correct?

Yes, the proof is written pretty sloppily. I'd try and clean it up. But you didn't say why Q is in either A or B! You've got the right idea, though. For 2->1 you can't just say that there is a sequence a_n->p. You'd better show that there is one.
 
  • #5
Would the explanation of why Q is in A be because A is closed and bounded and so the sequence must tend to a point in A? And then since Q is in A and we have a sequence in B that converges to Q, the point Q must be in both A and B and hence A intersection B is non-empty? Also where I bought in a subsequence and used y_n_k in the proof would it have worked if I had just used y_n and showed that converges to Q?

How would I show there is a sequence a_n->p? Could you give me a hint please.

Thanks for the help s far and any future help, it is much appreciated!
 
  • #6
RVP91 said:
Would the explanation of why Q is in A be because A is closed and bounded and so the sequence must tend to a point in A? And then since Q is in A and we have a sequence in B that converges to Q, the point Q must be in both A and B and hence A intersection B is non-empty? Also where I bought in a subsequence and used y_n_k in the proof would it have worked if I had just used y_n and showed that converges to Q?

How would I show there is a sequence a_n->p? Could you give me a hint please.

Thanks for the help s far and any future help, it is much appreciated!

Closed sets contain all of their limit points, don't they? And {p,p,p,p,p,...} is a in A. What does it converge to?
 
  • #7
Oh right, so Q must be in A since A is a closed set and so contains it's limit points?

And {p,p,p,p,...} is a constant sequence and so converges to p?
 
  • #8
RVP91 said:
Oh right, so Q must be in A since A is a closed set and so contains it's limit points?

And {p,p,p,p,...} is a constant sequence and so converges to p?

Why the question marks?
 
  • #9
Just wanted to make sure :)

Thanks for the help
 

Related to Proving an equivalence concerning sequences

1. What does it mean to prove an equivalence concerning sequences?

Proving an equivalence concerning sequences means to show that two sequences have the same limit or converge to the same value. This is often done using mathematical proofs and techniques such as the epsilon-delta method.

2. How do you prove that two sequences are equivalent?

To prove that two sequences are equivalent, you must show that the limit of the difference between the two sequences approaches 0. This can be done by using mathematical techniques such as the limit definition, squeeze theorem, or Cauchy's criterion.

3. What is the importance of proving equivalence concerning sequences?

Proving equivalence concerning sequences is important because it allows us to make mathematical statements about the behavior of sequences. It also allows us to compare and analyze different sequences, which can be useful in various fields such as physics, engineering, and statistics.

4. Can you provide an example of proving equivalence concerning sequences?

One example of proving equivalence concerning sequences is showing that the sequences 2n and n+1 have the same limit. This can be done by using the limit definition and showing that the limit of the difference between the two sequences approaches 0.

5. Are there any common mistakes to avoid when proving equivalence concerning sequences?

Common mistakes to avoid when proving equivalence concerning sequences include assuming that the two sequences have the same limit without proper proof, using incorrect mathematical techniques, and not clearly defining the variables and terms used in the proof. It is also important to carefully consider the domain and range of the sequences to ensure that the proof is valid.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
976
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
296
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
893
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
357
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
905
Back
Top