A formal proof for an affirmation about sequences

  • Thread starter Thread starter DorelXD
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Sequences
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the convergence of a sequence, specifically that the sequence \( x_n \to x \) if and only if there exists a constant \( M > 0 \) such that for all \( \epsilon > 0 \), there exists \( n_\epsilon \in \mathbb{N} \) with \( n \geq n_\epsilon \) satisfying \( |x_n - x| < \epsilon M \). The first implication is established by setting \( M = 1 \), aligning with the epsilon-convergence theorem. The challenge lies in proving the reverse implication, where the user attempts to manipulate \( \epsilon \) and \( M \) to find a suitable \( n_{\epsilon_1} \) that meets the theorem's requirements.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of sequences and limits in mathematical analysis
  • Familiarity with the epsilon-delta definition of convergence
  • Basic knowledge of mathematical notation and proofs
  • Experience with manipulating inequalities and constants in proofs
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the epsilon-convergence theorem in detail
  • Learn about formal proofs in mathematical analysis
  • Explore examples of sequences and their convergence properties
  • Practice writing proofs involving inequalities and limits
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying real analysis, educators teaching convergence concepts, and anyone interested in formal proof techniques in mathematics.

DorelXD
Messages
126
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Prove that:

The sequence [itex]x_n \to x[/itex] if and only if there is a [itex]M > 0[/itex] such that [itex]\forall \epsilon > 0[/itex] , [itex]\exists n_\epsilon \in \mathbb{N}[/itex] and [itex]n\geq n_\epsilon[/itex] we have [itex]| x_n - x | < \epsilon M[/itex]

Homework Equations



The first implication "=>" is proved by choosing M = 1. Then, the problem statement is exactly the epsilon-convergence theorem.

I don't know how to prove "<=".

The Attempt at a Solution



I tried to chose [itex]\epsilon = \epsilon_1 = \frac{\epsilon}{M}[/itex] , and I get that:

[itex]\exists n_{\epsilon_1} \in \mathbb{N}[/itex] and [itex]n\geq n_{\epsilon_1}[/itex] we have [itex]| x_n - x | < \epsilon_1 M = \epsilon[/itex]

So I found an [itex]n_{\epsilon_1}[/itex] such that ... [itex]| x_n - x | < \epsilon[/itex]. But I should've found a rang that depends on epsilon, not on epsilon1. And this confuses me a little because I don't know for sure if I can state the following: I've found [itex]n_{\epsilon_1}[/itex] so, by substituing , I've found [itex]n_{\frac{\epsilon}{M}}[/itex], which depends on epsilon, but also depends on M, which is a constant, and the theorem is proved. I'm not convinced. Can anyone help me?

P.S: I'm not a native speaker and I definitely have problems with this formal language used, so I hope you guys understood exactly what I said. To me, it seems clear. If it's not, please, let me know, so I can rephrase it. :D
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Stating this a little less formally, what you are really trying to show is that given an M the statement

|##x_n## -x| < ##\epsilon##M (1)

for any ##\epsilon## means |##x_n## -x| goes to zero as n gets large.

So you want to show that if (1) is true then for any ##\epsilon## there is some ##N_{\epsilon}##such that for all n > ##N_{\epsilon}##
|##x_n## -x| < ##\epsilon##.

You set up an ##\epsilon_1 = \epsilon##/M which is correct. Now pick ##N_{\epsilon}## so that for all n > N |##x_n## -x| < ##\epsilon_1##M. Your hypothesis says this should be possible. Of course ##\epsilon_1##M = ##\epsilon##, so you have your result.

What you said is either correct or very close to correct. You knew what you were trying to do. The problem is in stating is so that you fulfill your hypothesis and still get your result. I don't think it is easy even if you speak English well.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K