MHB An Equivalence Relation with Cauchy Sequences

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on defining an equivalence relation on the set of Cauchy sequences in \mathbb{Q} using the limit condition |x_n - y_n|. Participants explore whether subsequences are necessary for proving reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity, concluding that the triangle inequality suffices. One user initially questions the need for subsequences but later realizes the hint provided was misplaced. The consensus is that subsequences are not required for this proof. Overall, the focus remains on the properties of the equivalence relation without the need for subsequences.
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:
There is a nice little variation of the problem. The host says, after you have chosen the door, that you can change your guess, but to sweeten the deal, he says you can choose the two other doors, if you wish. This proposition is a no brainer, however before you are quick enough to accept it, the host opens one of the two doors and it is empty. In this version you really want to change your pick, but at the same time ask yourself is the host impartial and does that change anything. The host...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K