Apostol's Analysis Problem 1.22

  • Thread starter Thread starter julypraise
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Analysis
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that the supremum of the set of all sequences defined by \( r_n = a_0 \cdot a_1 \cdots a_n \) is equal to \( x \), where \( a_0 \) is the largest integer less than or equal to \( x \). A proof by contradiction was attempted but found ineffective. A key insight involves assuming an upper bound \( p < x \) and deriving a contradiction by showing that \( a_0 \cdot a_1 \cdots (a_n + 1) < x \). The problem also references a fixed integer \( k \geq 2 \) and suggests proving properties of \( a_i \) and \( r_n \) to complete the proof.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of supremum and limits in real analysis
  • Familiarity with sequences and products of integers
  • Knowledge of proof techniques, particularly proof by contradiction
  • Basic concepts of series and convergence, particularly in relation to fixed integers
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of supremum in real analysis
  • Learn about sequences and their convergence behavior
  • Explore proof techniques, especially proof by contradiction and limit arguments
  • Investigate the implications of fixed integers in series and sequences, particularly in relation to convergence
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying real analysis, anyone interested in advanced proof techniques, and educators looking for insights into teaching concepts of limits and supremum.

julypraise
Messages
104
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Given x>0, suppose a_0 = [x], the largest integer less than or equal to x. Assuming a_0, a_1, . . . , a_n-1 are defined, define a_n as the largest integer such that a_0.a_1...a_n less than or equal to x. Now define r_n = a_0.a_1...a_n, r_0 = a_0. Prove that the sup of the set of all the r_n's is x.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


I did proof by contradiction but does not work. I've got stuck. Just give me a useful hint, don need full solution. I've analyzed all the meanings carefully, but seems I need a trick to solve this, or maybe not. I even tried to use the notion of limit: I thought about |r_n - x|. It goes 0. But this fact it is even harder to prove.

Okay, while I'm writing this thread, I've got an idea. Please have a look:
Suppose there exists an upper bound p of the set such that p is less than x. Then, since |p-x|>0, for some n, 1/(10^n) < |p-x|. Thus p + 1/10^n < x. Note that a_0.a_1...a_n <= p. Thus a_0.a_1...(a_n + 1) < x; but this is a contradiction.

I've used a huge assumption that "for some n, 1/(10^n) < |p-x|." But I didn't learn this yet in this book. Is there any other way not using it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think you haven't copied the problem correctly.
The book I'm looking at also gives a fixed integer k\geq2, and a_n is defined to be the largest integer s.t. \displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^n{\frac{a_i}{k^i}} \leq x. You should be able to prove that \sup\{r_n:n\geq 0\}=x by first proving that 0\leq a_i \leq k-1, \forall i\geq 1 and that r_n\leq r_{n+1},\ \forall n. After these I think you can use the idea you got to finish the proof, but don't give k any particular value.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K