Cauchy sequences, induction, telescoping property

Meggle
Messages
16
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Scanned and attached

Homework Equations



I am guessing a combination of induction and the telescoping property.

The Attempt at a Solution



I'm studying this extramurally, and I've just hit a wall with this last chunk of the sequences section, so if someone can suggest a good textbook that would be really good too. My googlefu is not helping me this week.

Ok. So prove the first chunk of a). The only way I can think of to prove that chunk is by mathematical induction again, and I think from the fact that it doesn't explicitly say to use that that there ought to be another way. But I can't see it. So I think I've proved it using mathematical induction. Although that did involve saying |-\alpha(b-a)| = \alpha|(b-a)| which I'm a bit dubious about.

Second section of a) let n=1, then:
|s1+1 - s1| = |b - a| = \alpha 0|b - a|
so the result holds for n=1.
Assume the result holds for some positive integer k, i.e. assume:
|sk+1 - sk| = \alphak-1|b - a|
so I think the first part shows the case where k=2 and \alphak-1=\alpha1=\alpha but I don't know how to make use of this.
??

So moving on to b) sn+1 +\alphasn where n=1 becomes s2 +\alphas1 = b + \alphaa ok for n=1. But I don't know how to prove the general, as the method my readings have relies on incorporating the definition of <sn> into the equation to be proved, and I don't have a definition for sk+1, or any examples in my readings of a proof involving sk+2 instead of sk+1.

Hence why I feel like I've just not got the jist of this section of the course material, but I've been back and forth through my readings and it's not becoming any clearer. :cry: Can anyone suggest the fundamental thinking I'm obviously not getting? Even some worked examples somewhere would be brilliant.

And I don't know why all my alphas are floating up so high, sorry.
 

Attachments

  • exercise 8.PNG
    exercise 8.PNG
    25 KB · Views: 536
Physics news on Phys.org
You don't need to do induction on the first part of (a). It's just substitution of the formula they provide. If you get stuck at a spot, try going in the reverse direction and finding a spot where it meets the forward direction.

Although that did involve saying |-<br /> \alpha<br />(b-a)| = <br /> \alpha<br />|(b-a)| which I'm a bit dubious about.
That's perfectly fine here since they tell you <br /> \alpha<br /> > 0.

For the 2nd part of (a), you were correct in assuming it works for k. Now you have to prove it works for k+1. To do this, you'll first have to substitute |s_(k+2) - s_(k+1)| with their respective values using the formula from the first part of (a). Next, after a bit of simplification and rearranging, you should be able to use your induction hypothesis to prove it works for k+1.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top