Alternative Proof of Cauchy Sequence ##\left(S_n\right) = \frac{1}{n}##

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Bachelier
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cauchy Proof Sequence
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on finding an alternative proof that the sequence ##(S_n) = \frac{1}{n}## is Cauchy. Participants explore different approaches to establish this property, including both direct proofs and leveraging the convergence of the sequence.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a proof using the Archimedean property to show that for any ##\epsilon > 0##, there exists an ##N## such that ##\frac{1}{N} < \epsilon##, and subsequently argues that for all ##n, m \geq N##, the inequality holds.
  • Another participant agrees with the proof but expresses uncertainty about the phrase "may be omitted" related to the condition ##\frac{1}{N} < \frac{\epsilon}{2}##.
  • A different proof is suggested, noting that since ##(S_n)## converges to ##0##, it follows that any convergent sequence is Cauchy, providing a standard argument for this property.
  • One participant questions the meaning of the omitted condition and suggests using a larger ##N## to refine the proof, indicating that a larger ##N## could lead to a more precise conclusion regarding the bounds of ##\epsilon##.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the validity of the proposed proofs but express differing levels of understanding regarding specific statements and conditions. There is no consensus on the implications of the omitted condition or the best approach to the proof.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight potential ambiguities in the phrasing of conditions, particularly regarding the use of ##\epsilon## and the implications of the Archimedean property. The discussion reflects varying interpretations of the proofs presented.

Bachelier
Messages
375
Reaction score
0
I am looking for a different proof that ##(S_n) = \frac{1}{n}## is cauchy.

The regular proof goes like this (concisely):

##\left|\frac{1}{n} - \frac{1}{m} \right| \leqslant \left|\frac{m}{nm}\right| \ (etc...) \ <\epsilon ##

but I was thinking about an alternative proof. Is my proof correct:

let ##\epsilon > 0## by Archimedian property ##\exists N \ s.t. \frac{1}{N}<\epsilon##

This is equivalent to ##\frac{1}{N}<\frac{\epsilon}{2}## "may be ommited"

Now ##\forall n, m \geqslant N## we have by ##\Delta## ineq.

##\left|\frac{1}{n} - \frac{1}{m} \right| \leqslant \left|\frac{1}{n} \right| + \left|\frac{1}{m} \right|\leqslant \frac{1}{N}+\frac{1}{N} < ε##

What do you guys think? Thanks...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think it's perfectly ok.
 
Bachelier said:
This is equivalent to ##\frac{1}{N}<\frac{\epsilon}{2}## "may be ommited"
I'm not sure what this means, but the rest is fine.

Another way to prove it is to note that ##(s_n)## converges to ##0## (easy proof), and use the fact that any convergent sequence is Cauchy.

Proof: if ##(x_n)## is a sequence which converges to some number ##L##, then given ##\epsilon > 0##, there is some ##N## for which ##|x_n - L| < \epsilon / 2## for all ##n \geq N##. Therefore, if ##m \geq N## and ##n \geq N##, then ##|x_n - x_m| = |x_n - L + L - x_m| \leq |x_n - L| + |x_m - L| \leq \epsilon##.
 
jbunniii said:
I'm not sure what this means, but the rest is fine.

{This is equivalent to ##\frac{1}{N}<\frac{\epsilon}{2}## "may be ommited"}

Well since ε in this case can be so small, then we can use a larger N > 1/ε (actually twice larger) to end up with ε/2+ε/2 in the end instead of 2ε.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K