Proof of $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}a_n=\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}b_n$ with $\epsilon-N$

In summary: Yes, delta-epsilon proofs are a common tool in real analysis. They also require a good understanding of limits and continuity. So as you progress through your math courses and delve deeper into concepts like calculus, you will definitely become more skilled at delta-epsilon proofs. Don't worry, it takes practice and perseverance to master them!
  • #1
Dethrone
717
0
Let ${a_n}$ and ${b_n}$ be two convergent sequences such that $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}|a_n-b_n|=0$. Give an $\epsilon-N$ proof to show that $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}a_n=\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}b_n$.

Right now, I've just said without loss of generality, assume that $a_n>b_n$ for all $n>N$, then since $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}|a_n-b_n|=0$, we have $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}a_n-\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}b_n=0$ and the results follow.
But I haven't used "$\epsilon$" at all...I'm thinking I need to prove that $\forall \epsilon >0$, $\exists N$ s.t whenever $n>N, |a_n-\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}b_n|=\epsilon$.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Rido12 said:
Let ${a_n}$ and ${b_n}$ be two convergent sequences such that $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}|a_n-b_n|=0$. Give an $\epsilon-N$ proof to show that $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}a_n=\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}b_n$.

Right now, I've just said without loss of generality, assume that $a_n>b_n$ for all $n>N$, then since $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}|a_n-b_n|=0$, we have $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}a_n-\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}b_n=0$ and the results follow.
But I haven't used "$\epsilon$" at all...I'm thinking I need to prove that $\forall \epsilon >0$, $\exists N$ s.t whenever $n>N, |a_n-\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}b_n|=\epsilon$.

Hi Rido12, :)

You are given that, $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}|a_n-b_n|=0$. Hence for all $\epsilon > 0$ there exist $N_1>\mathbb{N}$ such that,

\[|a_n-b_n|<\epsilon\mbox{ whenever }n>N_1\]

Suppose, $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}a_n=L_1$ and $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}b_n=L_2$. Hence for all $\epsilon > 0$ there exist $N_2>\mathbb{N}$ such that,

\[|a_n-L_1|<\epsilon\mbox{ whenever }n>N_2\]

and for all $\epsilon > 0$ there exist $N_3>\mathbb{N}$ such that,

\[|b_n-L_2|<\epsilon\mbox{ whenever }n>N_3\]

Adding the above two inequalities and using the triangle inequality we get,

\[|(a_n-b_n)-(L_1-L_2)|<2\epsilon\mbox{ whenever }n>\mbox{Max }(N_2,N_3)\]

Adding the first inequality to the above result and again using the triangle inequality we get,

\[|L_1-L_2|<3\epsilon\mbox{ whenever }n>\mbox{Max }(N_1, N_2, N_3)\]

Hence,

\[L_1=L_2\]
 
  • #3
Sudharaka said:
Hi Rido12, :)

You are given that, $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}|a_n-b_n|=0$. Hence for all $\epsilon > 0$ there exist $N_1>\mathbb{N}$ such that,

\[|a_n-b_n|<\epsilon\mbox{ whenever }n>N_1\]

Suppose, $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}a_n=L_1$ and $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}b_n=L_2$. Hence for all $\epsilon > 0$ there exist $N_2>\mathbb{N}$ such that,

\[|a_n-L_1|<\epsilon\mbox{ whenever }n>N_2\]

and for all $\epsilon > 0$ there exist $N_3>\mathbb{N}$ such that,

\[|b_n-L_2|<\epsilon\mbox{ whenever }n>N_3\]

Adding the above two inequalities and using the triangle inequality we get,

\[|(a_n-b_n)-(L_1-L_2)|<2\epsilon\mbox{ whenever }n>\mbox{Max }(N_2,N_3)\]

Adding the first inequality to the above result and again using the triangle inequality we get,

\[|L_1-L_2|<3\epsilon\mbox{ whenever }n>\mbox{Max }(N_1, N_2, N_3)\]

Hence,

\[L_1=L_2\]

Oh wow, that makes a lot of sense, thanks! Just one clarification, so at the end, we can pick $\epsilon^*=3\epsilon$ and so it follows the standard form that whenever $n>\mbox{Max }(N_1, N_2, N_3)$, $|L_1-L_2|<\epsilon^*$? Should we be concerned that $\epsilon^*>\epsilon$, or does it not matter because it is arbitrary?
 
  • #4
Rido12 said:
Let ${a_n}$ and ${b_n}$ be two convergent sequences such that $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}|a_n-b_n|=0$. Give an $\epsilon-N$ proof to show that $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}a_n=\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}b_n$.

Right now, I've just said without loss of generality, assume that $a_n>b_n$ for all $n>N$, then since $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}|a_n-b_n|=0$, we have $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}a_n-\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}b_n=0$ and the results follow.
But I haven't used "$\epsilon$" at all...I'm thinking I need to prove that $\forall \epsilon >0$, $\exists N$ s.t whenever $n>N, |a_n-\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}b_n|=\epsilon$.
Actually, that is a very serious loss of generality. There is no reason to think that one of the sequences will always be greater than the other. For example, you might have $a_n = \dfrac{(-1)^n}n$ and $b_n = \dfrac{(-1)^{n-1}}n$. In that example, both sequences converge to $0$, and both sequences alternate in sign. But whenever one of them is positive the other one is negative. So you cannot say that either of them is always greater than the other.

To prove the result, you need to use some argument like the proof that Sudharaka suggests.
 
  • #5
Rido12 said:
Oh wow, that makes a lot of sense, thanks! Just one clarification, so at the end, we can pick $\epsilon^*=3\epsilon$ and so it follows the standard form that whenever $n>\mbox{Max }(N_1, N_2, N_3)$, $|L_1-L_2|<\epsilon^*$? Should we be concerned that $\epsilon^*>\epsilon$, or does it not matter because it is arbitrary?

It doesn't matter since $\epsilon$ is arbitrary. Hence $\epsilon*$ is also arbitrary. If you had selected $\frac{\epsilon}{3}$ as the arbitrary value in the beginning instead of $\epsilon$ then you would have ended up with $\epsilon$ at the end. Some people do this but I prefer to just go with $\epsilon$ since even if you end up with a multiplication of $\epsilon$ it doesn't really matter as it's again arbitrary. :)
 
  • #6
Sudharaka said:
It doesn't matter since $\epsilon$ is arbitrary. Hence $\epsilon*$ is also arbitrary. If you had selected $\frac{\epsilon}{3}$ as the arbitrary value in the beginning instead of $\epsilon$ then you would have ended up with $\epsilon$ at the end. Some people do this but I prefer to just go with $\epsilon$ since even if you end up with a multiplication of $\epsilon$ it doesn't really matter as it's again arbitrary. :)

Ah, yes, I'm used to seeing $\epsilon/3$. I always thought it was neat to end a proof with $\epsilon /3 + \epsilon/3+\epsilon/3=\epsilon$. I'm not too great at delta-epsilon proofs...is that a skill that gets honed with more advanced courses like real analysis (not really sure what that is actually :P)? (Wondering)
 
  • #7
Epsilon-delta proofs are nice as a "first principles" tool to really understand what is going on, the various conditions needed, etc.. once you prove the basic limit theorems relating to function continuity, those are much easier to use. For instance your question instantly follows from the continuity of the absolute value function.
 
  • #8
Rido12 said:
Ah, yes, I'm used to seeing $\epsilon/3$. I always thought it was neat to end a proof with $\epsilon /3 + \epsilon/3+\epsilon/3=\epsilon$. I'm not too great at delta-epsilon proofs...is that a skill that gets honed with more advanced courses like real analysis (not really sure what that is actually :P)? (Wondering)

Ha ha... I don't know. Perhaps you can improve by doing more problems of this kind or it might also come with getting a more thorough understanding about the concepts itself in which case the below link might help. Works differently for different people I guess. :p :)

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/differential-calculus/limits_topic/epsilon_delta
 

1. What does "proof of $\lim_{n\to\infty}a_n=\lim_{n\to\infty}b_n$ with $\epsilon-N$" mean?

The statement "proof of $\lim_{n\to\infty}a_n=\lim_{n\to\infty}b_n$ with $\epsilon-N$" means that we are trying to prove that two sequences, $a_n$ and $b_n$, have the same limit as $n$ approaches infinity, using the epsilon-delta definition of a limit.

2. Why is it important to prove that $\lim_{n\to\infty}a_n=\lim_{n\to\infty}b_n$ with $\epsilon-N$?

Proving that two sequences have the same limit is important because it allows us to compare the behavior of the sequences as n approaches infinity. It can also help us determine if two different functions have the same limit at a given point.

3. What is the epsilon-delta definition of a limit?

The epsilon-delta definition of a limit states that for a function $f(x)$, the limit as $x$ approaches $a$ is equal to $L$ if for every positive number $\epsilon$, there exists a corresponding positive number $\delta$ such that if $0<|x-a|<\delta$, then $|f(x)-L|<\epsilon$.

4. How do we use the epsilon-delta definition to prove that $\lim_{n\to\infty}a_n=\lim_{n\to\infty}b_n$ with $\epsilon-N$?

To prove that $\lim_{n\to\infty}a_n=\lim_{n\to\infty}b_n$ using the epsilon-delta definition, we need to show that for any positive number $\epsilon$, there exists a positive integer $N$ such that if $n>N$, then $|a_n-b_n|<\epsilon$. This means that the difference between the two sequences, $a_n$ and $b_n$, becomes smaller than any given positive number $\epsilon$ as $n$ becomes larger than $N$.

5. Are there any limitations to using the epsilon-delta definition to prove $\lim_{n\to\infty}a_n=\lim_{n\to\infty}b_n$?

Yes, the epsilon-delta definition can only be used to prove that two sequences have the same limit if the limit exists for both sequences. It also requires a lot of algebraic manipulation and may not be the most efficient method for proving this statement in some cases.

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
891
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
173
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Calculus
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top