MHB An Equivalence Relation with Cauchy Sequences

Aryth1
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
We let [math]C[/math] be the set of Cauchy sequences in [math]\mathbb{Q}[/math] and define a relation [math]\sim[/math] on C by [math](x_i) \sim (y_i)[/math] if and only if [math]\lim_{n\to \infty}|x_n - y_n| = 0[/math]. Show that [math]\sim[/math] is an equivalence relation on C.

We were given a hint to use subsequences, but I don't think they are really necessary... Are they?

I don't need help with the proof, per say, I would just like an opinion of whether or not you think subsequences are necessary.

Reflexivity and Symmetry were easy to show without the use of subsequences, and transitivity seems to follow from the triangle inequality and the fact that [math]|x-y|\geq 0[/math] for all [math]x,y\in \mathbb{Q}[/math].

Any help is appreciated!

EDIT: Wasn't less than, but greater than.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Aryth said:
We let [math]C[/math] be the set of Cauchy sequences in [math]\mathbb{Q}[/math] and define a relation [math]\sim[/math] on C by [math](x_i) \sim (y_i)[/math] if and only if [math]\lim_{n\to \infty}|x_n - y_n| = 0[/math]. Show that [math]\sim[/math] is an equivalence relation on C.

We were given a hint to use subsequences, but I don't think they are really necessary... Are they?

I don't need help with the proof, per say, I would just like an opinion of whether or not you think subsequences are necessary.

Reflexivity and Symmetry were easy to show without the use of subsequences, and transitivity seems to follow from the triangle inequality and the fact that [math]|x-y|\geq 0[/math] for all [math]x,y\in \mathbb{Q}[/math].

Any help is appreciated!

EDIT: Wasn't less than, but greater than.
Hi Aryth, and welcome to MHB!

I agree with you, the triangle inequality is all you need here.
 
Opalg said:
Hi Aryth, and welcome to MHB!

I agree with you, the triangle inequality is all you need here.

Thank you!

Just out of curiosity, is there a way to prove that this is an equivalence relation using subsequences? I'm not sure why the hint was presented to us in the first place.

EDIT: I figured out that the hint provided for this problem was meant for another problem. It was an incorrect placement. Thanks for your help, Opalg!
 
Last edited:
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Back
Top