Convergence and Cauchy Sequences in Rational Numbers

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
2 replies · 3K views
vertigo74
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Prove that if {a[tex]_{n}[/tex]} is a sequence of rational numbers such that {a[tex]_{n+1}[/tex]} > {a[tex]_{n}[/tex]} for all n [tex]\in[/tex] [tex]\textbf{N}[/tex] and there exists an M[tex]\in[/tex] [tex]\textbf{Q}[/tex] such that {a[tex]_{n}[/tex]} [tex]\leq[/tex] M for all n [tex]\in[/tex] [tex]\textbf{N}[/tex], then {a[tex]_{n}[/tex]} is a Cauchy sequence of rational numbers.

Homework Equations


Do not use the least upper bound property.

A sequence is Cauchy in the rational numbers if [tex]\exists[/tex] an N [tex]\in[/tex][tex]\textbf{N}[/tex], such that |{a[tex]_{n}[/tex]} - {a[tex]_{m}[/tex]} | < [tex]\epsilon[/tex] for all n, m [tex]\geq[/tex] N.

If a sequence converges, it is Cauchy.

The Attempt at a Solution



I understand why this is true, but I am having trouble formulating the math to do a proof behind it. I can see that if the sequence never gets bigger than M, and that it is strictly increasing, the sequence must start converging and be Cauchy, but I'm kind of confused at how to start doing the epsilon stuff.

Thanks!

Edit: I'm not sure why those are showing up as superscripts. They are supposed to be subscripts.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
someone please heeeeeeelp
 
try a proof by contradiction.
suppose [tex]a_n[/tex] is no cauchy sequence.For a fixed [tex]\epsilon > 0[/tex]show there is a subsequence [tex]b_n[/tex] of [tex]a_n[/tex] such that
[tex]b_{n+1} > b_n + \epsilon[/tex]