elementary convergence

by meemoe_uk
Tags: convergence, elementary
meemoe_uk is offline
May31-03, 06:21 AM
P: 118
Hi everyone,
I'm doing a course which contains foundation work on convergence.
I was suprised to see the book I am using uses phrases such as....
" This sequence clearly doesn`t converge "
for sequences such as 2,0,2,0,2,0,2,0.....
I was expecting it to say something like " By theorem 4.5, this sequence doesn`t converge "
I wouldn`t feel comfortable writing " This sequence clearly doesn`t converge " if, in an exam, I got a question which said " Prove that 2,0,2,0,2,0 doesn`t converge ".
Can anyone point me to basic theorems on convergence which are used to tackle simple questions like this?
Phys.Org News Partner Mathematics news on Phys.org
Researchers help Boston Marathon organizers plan for 2014 race
'Math detective' analyzes odds for suspicious lottery wins
Pseudo-mathematics and financial charlatanism
HallsofIvy is offline
May31-03, 08:19 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 38,886
I don't (like your book) see any reason to appeal to a "theorem".
When your text says "clearly" what it means is that it follows directly from the definition.

A sequence of numbers {an} converges to a limit, L, if, by going far enough on the sequence all the numbers past that point are arbitrarily close to L. Formally: for any [epsilon]>0, there exist an integer N such that if n> N, |an-L|< [epsilon].
("n> N" is "far enough on the sequence", "|an-L|" measures the distance from an to L and "< [epsilon]" is the "arbitrarily close" part.)

Take [epsilon]= 1/2. Two consecutive terms are 2 and 0 and they can't both be with distance 1/2 of anything.
meemoe_uk is offline
May31-03, 10:10 AM
P: 118
Well, if I wanted to decide if 2,0,2,0,2 converged then I wouldn`t need to study a bunch of theorems to convince myself it didn`t, because it is clear to my intuition that it doesn`t. But I can`t just write that in an exam. Since I started this maths degree, there's been loads of questions I've been confronted with where the answers are so blatently obvious that I feel like writing " Because it just bloody is! OK? ", but you can`t write that. You've gotta apply the fundamental theorems.

Have you attempted a direct proof in what you've written?
Looks OK, part from the last line.
If there's no theorem to fall back on, then I spose I'd have to construct one myself, maybe with induction method.

I like the way you write "theorem", like you think it's a word I've made up.

Hurkyl is offline
May31-03, 12:12 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,101

elementary convergence

Have you attempted a direct proof in what you've written?
Do an indirect proof.

Suppose both 2 and 0 are within distance 1/2 of L.
IOW |2 - L| < 1/2 and |L - 0| < 1/2
Now apply the triangle inequality:
2 = |2 - 0| = |2 - L + L - 0| < |2 - L| + |L - 0| < 1/2 + 1/2 = 1
So 2 < 1
So the supposition was false, and both 2 and 0 cannot be within distance 1/2 from the same number.

(the triangle inequality is one of your best friends when working with &epsilon;-&delta; proofs)
meemoe_uk is offline
May31-03, 04:51 PM
P: 118
Thanks hurkyl

Register to reply

Related Discussions
Elementary particle Introductory Physics Homework 7
What physically is the BETA of a transistor? Electrical Engineering 0
Elementary Charges Introductory Physics Homework 1
Once i find the radius of convergence, how do i find the interval of convergence? Calculus & Beyond Homework 3
help with 'elementary' question.. Chemistry 4