Advanced Calculus Sequence Convergence

Click For Summary
To prove that the sequence {a_n} converges to A if and only if lim n→∞ (a_n - A) = 0, one must utilize the epsilon-delta definition of convergence. The forward direction shows that if {a_n} converges to A, then for any epsilon > 0, there exists an integer N such that |a_n - A| < epsilon for all n > N, leading to lim n→∞ (a_n - A) = 0. For the converse, starting with lim n→∞ (a_n - A) = 0, the same epsilon-delta definition applies, confirming that {a_n} converges to A. The key is recognizing that both statements are equivalent through their definitions, as |(a_n - A) - 0| simplifies to |a_n - A|. Understanding and applying these definitions correctly is crucial for writing the proof.
MathSquareRoo
Messages
26
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Prove that the sequence {a_n} converges to A if and only if lim n--->∞ (a_n-A)=0.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



It's an if and only if proof, but I'm not sure how to prove it. Please help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try writing each statement in epsilon-delta form, and compare.
 
I'm not good at writing proofs. So far I have:
Let {an} converge to A. Given epsilon>0, there exists N>0 s.t. lan-Al<epsilon for all n>N.
So l((a_n)-A)l<epsilon for all n>n.
Thus, we can write lim n--->infinity (a_n-A)=0.

Then, I'm not sure how to prove the statement's converse. Can someone help?
 
MathSquareRoo said:
I'm not good at writing proofs. So far I have:
Let {an} converge to A. Given epsilon>0, there exists N>0 s.t. lan-Al<epsilon for all n>N.
So l((a_n)-A)l<epsilon for all n>n.
Thus, we can write lim n--->infinity (a_n-A)=0.

Then, I'm not sure how to prove the statement's converse. Can someone help?

Well, how did you prove it in the forward direction? Can you simply reverse the reasoning?
 
I'm not sure how to write the reverse. Would I start with: lim n--->infinity(a_n -A)=0. So given epsilon>0, there exists N>0 s.t. la_n-Al<epsilon for all n>N.

I don't know if this is correct, and I don't know where to go after that.
 
MathSquareRoo said:
I'm not sure how to write the reverse. Would I start with: lim n--->infinity(a_n -A)=0. So given epsilon>0, there exists N>0 s.t. la_n-Al<epsilon for all n>N.

I don't know if this is correct, and I don't know where to go after that.

Yes, that's correct. But what's the difference between this:

(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} (a_n - A) = 0): "So given epsilon>0, there exists N>0 s.t. la_n-Al<epsilon for all n>N."

versus what you wrote earlier:

(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} a_n = A): "Given epsilon>0, there exists N>0 s.t. lan-Al<epsilon for all n>N."
 
I'm not sure. I don't know if I have it written correctly. I feel like I'm working in circles.
 
Look at the definitions! "a_n converges to A" means "Given \epsilon&gt; 0, there exist an integer N such that if n> N, |a_n- A|&lt; \epsilon".

Applying exactly the same definition, "(a_n- A) converges to 0" means "Given \epsilon&gt; 0, there exist N such that if n> N, |(a_n-A)- 0|&lt; \epsilon".

But (a_n- A)- 0 is just a_n- A!

Remember that definitions in mathematics are "working definitions"- you use the precise words of definitions in problems and proofs.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K