Alternative definition of sequence (real analysis)

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the equivalence of two definitions of limits in real analysis, specifically regarding sequences. The first definition states that the limit of a sequence {sn} exists as n approaches infinity if for every positive number sigma, there exists an integer N such that |sn - L| < sigma for all n ≥ N. The alternative definition asserts that the limit exists if for every positive integer m, there exists a real number N such that |sn - L| < 1/m whenever n ≥ N. The key insight is that the definitions are interchangeable by recognizing the relationship between sigma and 1/m, with the Archimedean property facilitating the transition between the two.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of limits in real analysis
  • Familiarity with sequences and convergence
  • Knowledge of the Archimedean property
  • Basic mathematical notation and inequalities
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Archimedean property in detail
  • Explore epsilon-delta definitions of limits
  • Learn about sequences and their convergence criteria
  • Investigate the implications of different definitions of limits in real analysis
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, particularly those studying real analysis, educators teaching limit concepts, and anyone interested in the foundational definitions of convergence in sequences.

StarTiger
Messages
8
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement




Limit of {sn} as n goes to infinity exists provided for all sigma >0 there exists some integer N such that |sn-L| < sigma where n greater than or equal to N.

Prove equivalent to alternate definition:

limit exists provided that for every positive inteer m there exists a real number N such that |sn-L| < 1/m whebever n greater than or equal to N.


The Attempt at a Solution



Well, I know sigma can be anything, so you can replace sigma with 1/m and get Alternative Definition except for N being an integer rather than a real number. I get the idea that N(as fn of sigma) has to be an integer and N(as fn of 1/m) has to be a real number. Actually setting up definition 1 <=> definition 2 is confusing me though.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is a pretty useful reformulation and a good exercise in knowing what numbers you are allowed to choose for and which must be arbitrary.

The only difference in the definitions is that 1/m and sigma are switched. Let's say you had the 1/m definition. Since the inequality |s_n - L| < 1/m is already in place, it seems reasonable to require that 1/m < sigma. But in this case, we are given that sigma is an arbitrary positive number, whereas we can choose m since we know the 1/m definition holds (and by Archimedean property). Can you figure out the other direction?
 
Given any sigma> 0, 1/sigma is a positive real number so there exist integer m such that m> 1/sigma whence 1/m< sigma.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K