Basic Analysis - Proof Bolzano Wierestrass by Least Upper Bound

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem using the Least Upper Bound (LUB) property. The sequence (a_n) is bounded, and the set S is defined as S = {x ∈ R : x < a_n for infinitely many terms a_n}. The proof establishes that a subsequence (a_n_k) converges to s = sup S by demonstrating that for any ε > 0, there are infinitely many terms a_n within the interval (s - ε, s + ε). The construction of the subsequence is achieved by selecting terms from these intervals, ensuring convergence to the supremum.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem
  • Familiarity with the Least Upper Bound (LUB) property
  • Knowledge of bounded sequences in real analysis
  • Concept of subsequences and convergence in metric spaces
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the proof of the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem in detail
  • Learn about the properties of bounded sequences in real analysis
  • Explore the concept of subsequences and their convergence criteria
  • Investigate the implications of the Least Upper Bound property in analysis
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in real analysis, mathematicians focusing on convergence theorems, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of bounded sequences and their properties.

rakalakalili
Messages
13
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let (an) be a boundedd sequence, and define the set
S= {x\in R : x &lt; a_n for infinitely many terms a_n\}
Show that there exists a subsequence (a_n_k)converging to s = sup S


Homework Equations


This is supposed to be a direct proof of BW using the LUB property, so no monotonic convergence, Cauchy criterion, nested interval property etc...


The Attempt at a Solution


I am having trouble thinking of a way to define the subsequence. What I can show is that, if \epsilon &gt; 0 there are finitely many terms a_n s.t. a_n&gt; s+\epsilon
I thought of defining the subsequence to be a_n_k = min(a_n | a_n &gt; s+\frac{1}{k}) But I was having trouble proving that this subsequence converges to s. I would greatly appreciate a tip or prod in the right direction of defining a subsequence that will work. Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Note that the set S is bounded above, since (a_n) is bounded and any upper bound of
the sequence will be an upper bound of S. Therefore, sup S exists, define s = sup S.
Now, consider an arbitrary ε > 0. Since s + ε cannot be an element of the set S, there must be only a finite number of an such that an > s + ε. But by the definition of the supremum, for any ε > 0 there exists some x ∈ S with s − ε < x. Thus, for any ε > 0 there are an infinite number of terms an with s − ε < an and only a finite number of those terms satisfy an > s + ε. Therefore, we must have an infinite number of an with s−ε<an <s+ε.
Now, to construct a subsequence (a_nk ) → s, consider εk = 1/k. So, start by choosing some an1 so that s−1 < an1 < s+1, from this point on, we choose ank+1 so that nk+1 >nk ands−1/k<ank+1 <s+1/k.We know that we can always do this, since at every step k there are an infinite number of a_n with s−1/k < a_n <s+1/k.
 
That's perfect thank you! I had known that there was an infinite number of terms less than s+ \epsilon, but I did not connect that with making an interval, and simply choosing a term from each interval to form the subsequence. Thanks again.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
17K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K