Analysis of an= n1/2: Cauchy Criterion Examined

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kudaros
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Analysis Cauchy
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the sequence defined by an = n^(1/2) and its properties concerning the Cauchy criterion. It is established that while |an+1 - an| approaches 0 as n approaches infinity, the sequence an does not satisfy the Cauchy criterion. Participants clarify that to demonstrate this, one must consider two indices, m and n, where m is significantly larger than n, rather than simply using m = n + 1. The limit evaluation involves multiplying by (sqrt(n+1) + sqrt(n)) to simplify the expression.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of sequences and limits in calculus.
  • Familiarity with the Cauchy criterion for sequences.
  • Knowledge of algebraic manipulation of square roots.
  • Concept of contractive sequences in analysis.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Cauchy sequences in depth.
  • Learn techniques for evaluating limits involving square roots.
  • Explore contractive sequences and their implications in analysis.
  • Practice problems related to sequences and convergence criteria.
USEFUL FOR

Students of calculus, mathematicians interested in sequence analysis, and educators teaching concepts of convergence and limits.

Kudaros
Messages
18
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Define the Sequence an= n1/2 where n is a natural number.

Show that |an+1-an| -> 0 but an is not a cauchy sequence

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



(Ignore this paragraph)Well, unfortunately I am stuck on the very first part. How exactly do I evaluate the limit as n -> infinity of |(n+1)^(1/2) - n^(1/2)| ? any hint at a trick would be most welcome (unless of course I am not seeing something that is obvious).

As for the rest, I need to show an is not a Cauchy sequence. The definition of a Cauchy sequence uses two sequences with different subscripts, m and n. In this case, can I take n+1 to be m and keep n as itself?

I think I need to show that the distance between the two sequences, an+1 and an is not decreasing as n becomes large.

edit: found limit.

Also, re-reading the question I see a flaw in my above statement. I just need to show that for any given m and n, as I vary them independently, they do not meet the cauchy criterion. The problem itself states that looking only at the n+1 term appears to meet the criterion, but in fact does not.

Confirm or deny?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
To evaluate the limit multiply by (sqrt(n+1)+sqrt(n))/(sqrt(n+1)+sqrt(n)) and simplify. And to show it's not Cauchy, no, don't take m=n+1. You're going to show that goes to zero. Take m MUCH bigger than n. Say 4 times n?
 
Thanks, now I understand that definition/concept. Incidentally, I also understand the contractive sequence concept now.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K