Bounded sequence that diverges, convergent subsequence

Click For Summary
A bounded but divergent sequence (sn) in R must have at least two convergent subsequences with different limits. The Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem guarantees the existence of convergent subsequences, but proving that these subsequences converge to distinct limits requires showing that the limits of the supremum and infimum of the sequence are not equal. One approach involves identifying subsequences that converge to the supremum and infimum, respectively. Additionally, it's possible to construct infinite constant subsequences from values that appear infinitely often in (sn). Ultimately, the proof hinges on demonstrating that these subsequences converge to different limits, confirming the initial claim.
miren324
Messages
13
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let (sn) be a sequence in R that is bounded but diverges. Show that (sn) has (at least) two convergent subsequences, the limits of which are different.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I know that a convergent subsequence exists by Bolzano-Weierstrass. I'm having trouble showing that multiple convergent subsequences exist, and how to show that they would have different limits. I know that (sn) will probably look something like (-1)^n (so it will be a sequence that neither increases or decreases, but rather most likely "bounces around"), and if I had an actual sequence to prove this on I could probably do it, but to prove it in general is giving me some difficulty.

The only thought I had was that maybe defining two subsequences of (sn) that have only one element, i.e. (an) = {s1} and (bn) = {s2}. I'm not sure this would work, however, since I am not sure that an infinite constant sequence, such as (an), would be a subsequence of (sn), seeing as how, (s1) would occur much fewer times in (sn) than it would in (an) (for example: (sn) = sin(n), (an) = sin(1), then (an) = {sin1, sin1, sin1, sin1, ...} and (sn) = {sin1, sin2, sin3, sin4, ...}).

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The approach to this proof depends on what theorems you are allowed to use. For instance, if you let S be the set of subsequential limits of s_{n} then there is a theorem which states

\sup S = \lim\sup s_{n}\mbox{ and }\inf S = \lim\inf s_{n}

and all you need to do is prove \lim\sup s_{n}\neq\lim\inf s_{n}

which will be easy since you know that s_{n} isn't convergent.
 
Last edited:
None of my proof are correct. Only one sequence converges the other I made up did not. But we need both to converge.
 
The correct solution is to show that there are two sequences that converge to the infima and suprema and infima is not equal to the suprema.

Another correct approach is to show that there is a subsequence of Sn that does not converge to the same limit as your bolzano weierstrass sequence and then show that that subsequence has a convergence subsequence that converges also to a different limit than your original BW sequence.
 
The only thought I had was that maybe defining two subsequences of (sn) that have only one element, i.e. (an) = {s1} and (bn) = {s2}. I'm not sure this would work, however, since I am not sure that an infinite constant sequence, such as (an), would be a subsequence of (sn), seeing as how, (s1) would occur much fewer times in (sn) than it would in (an) (for example: (sn) = sin(n), (an) = sin(1), then (an) = {sin1, sin1, sin1, sin1, ...} and (sn) = {sin1, sin2, sin3, sin4, ...}).

You can do an infinite constant subsequence, just not the way illustrate in your sin example. You can't take (an)=(s1) as a subsequence simply because of the definition of a subsequence; however, you can defined
a_{n}=sin(2\pi n) and then your sequence is the constant 0. This you are allowed to do this because sin(n) takes on the value of 0 infinitely many times.
 
Last edited:
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K