Convergence of a sequence of integers

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that a Cauchy sequence of integers is eventually constant. Participants are exploring the implications of the definitions of Cauchy sequences and the properties of integers in relation to convergence.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand why the theorem holds true, considering the bounded nature of the sequence and the existence of supremum and infimum. They express uncertainty about proving that the limit is also an integer. Other participants suggest focusing on the definition of Cauchy sequences and selecting an appropriate epsilon to draw conclusions.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the definitions and properties relevant to Cauchy sequences and integers. Some guidance has been offered regarding the choice of epsilon, and there is a recognition of the unique characteristics of integer sequences that may influence the proof.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing exploration of the implications of the sequence being composed of integers, particularly concerning the minimum distance between elements in the sequence.

Fizz_Geek
Messages
20
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Given a Cauchy sequence of integers, prove that the sequence is eventually constant.

2. Relevant Definitions and Theorems

Definition of Cauchy sequences and convergence
Monotone convergence
Every convergent sequence is bounded
Anything relevant to integers

The Attempt at a Solution



I can see why the theorem is true. I thought that, since the sequence in nonempty and bounded, the supremum and infimum of the set containing the sequence both exist and that the limit of the sequence must be a number between the infimum and the supremum. But I got stuck trying to prove that the limit is contained within that set (that the limit is also an integer). I don't know if it's my approach that's leading me to a dead end or if there's a theorem I've overlooked or something else entirely. Maybe I'm making it overly complicated? Any help would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Look at the definition of Cauchy sequence. Choose epsilon<1. Conclude.
 
Start from the definition of a Cauchy sequence.

It usually starts "For all epsilon greater than zero, [...]"
Can you choose an epsilon that gives your conclusion?
 
Mathnerdmo said:
Start from the definition of a Cauchy sequence.

It usually starts "For all epsilon greater than zero, [...]"
Can you choose an epsilon that gives your conclusion?


I'm afraid I don't see what directon either of you are going in. As far as I know, the definition of a Cauchy sequence allows me to make the distance between members of the sequence small--it doesn't make it zero, which is what I need for the sequence to be constant for large n.
 
The point Tinyboss and Mathnerdmo are making is that the sequence consists of integers.
 
Mark44 said:
The point Tinyboss and Mathnerdmo are making is that the sequence consists of integers.

And what does that mean for my proof?
 
It says that there is some minimum distance between elements in the sequence.
 
Mark44 said:
It says that there is some minimum distance between elements in the sequence.

Oh! That's right! Thanks so much!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K