Advanced Calculus Sequence Convergence

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the sequence {a_n} converges to A if and only if lim n→∞ (a_n - A) = 0, within the context of advanced calculus and sequence convergence.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the structure of an if and only if proof, with attempts to express the statements in epsilon-delta form. There are questions about how to approach the converse of the statement and concerns about the correctness of their reasoning.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered guidance on using definitions to clarify the proof structure. There is an ongoing exploration of the differences between the two directions of the proof, with no explicit consensus reached on the best approach.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about their proof-writing skills and the application of definitions in the context of convergence. There is a noted struggle with the formalism required in epsilon-delta proofs.

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:

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

versus what you wrote earlier:

([itex]\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} a_n = A)[/itex]: "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! "[itex]a_n[/itex] converges to A" means "Given [itex]\epsilon> 0[/itex], there exist an integer N such that if n> N, [itex]|a_n- A|< \epsilon[/itex]".

Applying exactly the same definition, "[itex](a_n- A)[/itex] converges to 0" means "Given [itex]\epsilon> 0[/itex], there exist N such that if n> N, [itex]|(a_n-A)- 0|< \epsilon[/itex]".

But [itex](a_n- A)- 0[/itex] is just [itex]a_n- A[/itex]!

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
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K