Can Contractive Maps and the Sandwich Theorem Prove Sequence Convergence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter K29
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limits
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the convergence of a sequence \(a_n\) to a limit \(L\) using the Sandwich Theorem and properties of contractive maps. The key condition is that for a constant \(c\) where \(0 < c < 1\), the inequality \(|a_{n+1} - L| < c |a_n - L|\) holds for all \(n\). The participant successfully established that \(|a_n - L| \leq c^n |a_0 - L|\), which leads to the conclusion that \(\lim_{n \to \infty} a_n = L\) by applying the Sandwich Theorem, as \(\lim_{n \to \infty} c^n = 0\).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of limits in real analysis
  • Familiarity with the Sandwich Theorem
  • Knowledge of contractive mappings
  • Ability to manipulate inequalities involving sequences
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of contractive maps in detail
  • Learn more about the Sandwich Theorem and its applications in sequence convergence
  • Explore proofs of limit theorems in real analysis
  • Investigate the implications of the definition of limits on sequence behavior
USEFUL FOR

Students of real analysis, mathematicians interested in sequence convergence, and educators teaching limit theorems and contractive mappings.

K29
Messages
103
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


This question has been literally troubling me for 2 days.
Question 2(b)
Suppose for some [tex]c \in R, 0<c<1,[/tex] we have [tex]|a_{n+1}-L|<c|a_{n}-L|[/tex] for [tex]\forall n \in N[/tex] (1)

Use the sandwich theorem and the fact that[tex]\stackrel{lim}{_{n\rightarrow\infty}} c^{n}=0[/tex] to prove that
[tex]\stackrel{lim}{_{n \rightarrow \infty}}a_{n}=L[/tex]

Note: I also know and have proven in questions 2(a) that:
[tex]|a_{n}-L| \leq c^{n} |a_{0} - L| \forall n \in N[/tex](2)

Note:[tex]a_{n}[/tex] is an element of the sequence [tex](a_{n})[/tex]

Homework Equations


Definition of a limit:
[tex]\forall n \in N, \forall \epsilon > 0, \exists K_{ \epsilon} \in R, n \ge K_{\epsilon}[/tex] such that [tex]|a_{n}-L|< \epsilon[/tex]

Sandwich theorem:
[tex]a_{n} \leq b_{n} \leq c_{n}, \stackrel{lim}{_{n \rightarrow \infty}}a_{n} = \stackrel{lim}{_{n \rightarrow \infty}}c_{n}=L \Rightarrow \stackrel{lim}{_{n \rightarrow \infty}}b_{n}=L[/tex]



The Attempt at a Solution


for the sandwich theorem I could have [tex]b_{n} =c^{n} a_{n}[/tex]. This is less than [tex]a_{n}[/tex] since c is between zero and one. However the limit of this is 0(which is also under the assumption that the limit of [tex]a_{n}[/tex] exists, which we are trying to prove. So starting off with sandwich theorem basics doesn't really help me because I also can't think of any [tex]c_{n} \geq a_{n}[/tex].

The next thing I tried is considering the statements in the problem.
[tex]|a_{n}-L| \leq c^{n} |a_{0} - L|[/tex] could have been useful. But it doesn't imply anything about the sequence and its limits. I.E. I can't assume that this implies that [tex]a_{n} \leq c^{n}a_{0}[/tex]

I can't really apply the definition of a limit to anything. By making the assumption that any of the equations above are less than some[tex]\epsilon[/tex] almost automatically gives the result that the limit for [tex]a_{n}[/tex] is L. i.e assuming the right hand side of equation (2) is less than some epsilon for [tex]\forall n>K[/tex]means[tex]|a_{n}-L|<\epsilon[/tex] holds true as well.

Well it would almost hold true. But without knowing the details of [tex]a_{n}[/tex] I caan't prove it to be true. I.E I can't construct a [tex]K_{\epsilon}[/tex] unless I know more about [tex]a_{n}[/tex]

PLEASE help on this one. I've been struggling for ages. Thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Just a thought - Do your materials have a theorem that says
If [tex]lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} | a_n - L | = 0[/tex] then [tex]lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} a_n= L[/tex] ?

If so, you could consider defining 3 sequences by
[tex]\{b_n\} = 0[/tex]
[tex]\{|A_n - L|\}[/tex]
[tex]\{c^n | A_0 - L |\}[/tex]
 
My materials don't have it, but I easily proved it and the proof is so short this must be right. Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K