MHB Convergence of Geometric Series .... Sohrab, Proposition 2.3.8 .... ....

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the proof of Proposition 2.3.8 from Sohrab's "Basic Real Analysis," specifically addressing the convergence of geometric series when the absolute value of the ratio, |r|, is less than 1. The main concern is whether the limit of r^(n+1) can be concluded from the limit of |r|^n, given that the proof references Exercise 2.2.7, which only considers the case where 0 < b < 1. Participants suggest that setting b = |r| allows for the conclusion that |r|^n approaches 0, which implies that r^(n+1) also approaches 0. The discussion includes alternative approaches using Cauchy sequences and emphasizes the importance of the limit definitions in proving convergence.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Houshang H. Sohrab's book: "Basic Real Analysis" (Second Edition).

I am focused on Chapter 2: Sequences and Series of Real Numbers ... ...

I need help with an aspect of the proof of Proposition 2.3.8 ...

Proposition 2.3.8 and its proof read as follows:
View attachment 9048
In the above proof by Sohrab we read the following:

" ... ... Now, if $$\mid r \mid \lt 1$$ then (by Exercise 2.2.7) $$\lim (r^{ n + 1}) = 0$$ and $$( \ast )$$ follows at once ... ... "
Now it appears that Sohrab is referring to Part 2 of Exercise 2.2.7 (see below) that states:

" ... ... if $$0 \lt b \lt 1$$, then $$\lim ( b^n ) = 0$$ ... ... "Now my problem is we are not given $$0 \lt r \lt 1$$ ... but instead we are given $$\mid r \mid \lt 1$$ ... .. so my question is ... what do we do here ...?
Perhaps we put $$b = \mid r \mid$$ ... but this allows us to conclude $$\lim ( \mid r \mid^n ) = 0$$ ...... can we conclude from here that $$\lim (r^{ n + 1}) = 0$$ ...... by arguing that $$\lim ( \mid r \mid^n ) = 0 = \lim ( \mid r^n \mid ) = \lim ( \mid r^{ n +1} \mid )$$... and further by arguing that if $$\lim \mid r^{ n +1} \mid = 0$$ ...... then ...... $$\lim r^{ n +1} = 0$$ ...
Can someone please comment on my reasoning to resolve the problem I had with Sohrab's assertion that appeal to Exercise 2.2.7 would lead to $$( \ast )$$ following at once ...
Help will be appreciated ...

Peter
========================================================================================
The above post refers to Exercise 2.2.7 ... so I am providing text of the same ... as follows:View attachment 9049
Hope that helps ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • Sohrab - Proposition 2.3.8 ... .png
    Sohrab - Proposition 2.3.8 ... .png
    14.6 KB · Views: 132
  • Sohrab - Exercise 2.2.7 ... .png
    Sohrab - Exercise 2.2.7 ... .png
    10.9 KB · Views: 145
Physics news on Phys.org
A nice way to do this would be with cauchy sequences, but I don't know if you've gotten to them yet. The argument would be

$m \gt n \geq N$$\big \vert s_n - s_m\big \vert $
$ = \big \vert\big(\frac{a}{1-r}\big)\big(1 -r^{n+1} -(1 -r^{m+1})\big)\big \vert $
$ = \big \vert\big(\frac{a}{1-r}\big)\big(- r^{n+1} + r^{m+1}\big)\big \vert $
$ = \big \vert\frac{a}{1-r}\big \vert \big \vert r\big \vert^{n+1}\cdot \big \vert r^{m-n} - 1 \big \vert $
$ \lt 2 \cdot \big \vert\frac{a}{1-r}\big \vert \big \vert r\big \vert^{n+1} $

where the inequality follows from triangle inequality

select $\frac{\epsilon}{2}$
i.e. based on earlier work with the non-negative case, you know
$\big(\big \vert\frac{a}{1-r}\big \vert \big \vert r\big \vert^{n+1}\big)$ tends to zero... so re-use this result
- - - -
as far as your suggested approach, I think it works.

You can also observe that
$\big \vert r\big \vert^n =\big \vert r^n \big \vert = \big \vert r^n - L \big \vert$
with $L =0$

since you know from that prior exercise 2.2.7 that for any $\epsilon \gt 0$
$\big \vert r\big \vert^n \lt \epsilon$
by selecting large enough $N$, then you also know by selecting that same $N$ that
$\big \vert r^n - L \big \vert \lt \epsilon$
which is your definition of a limit
 
steep said:
A nice way to do this would be with cauchy sequences, but I don't know if you've gotten to them yet. The argument would be

$m \gt n \geq N$$\big \vert s_n - s_m\big \vert $
$ = \big \vert\big(\frac{a}{1-r}\big)\big(1 -r^{n+1} -(1 -r^{m+1})\big)\big \vert $
$ = \big \vert\big(\frac{a}{1-r}\big)\big(- r^{n+1} + r^{m+1}\big)\big \vert $
$ = \big \vert\frac{a}{1-r}\big \vert \big \vert r\big \vert^{n+1}\cdot \big \vert r^{m-n} - 1 \big \vert $
$ \lt 2 \cdot \big \vert\frac{a}{1-r}\big \vert \big \vert r\big \vert^{n+1} $

where the inequality follows from triangle inequality

select $\frac{\epsilon}{2}$
i.e. based on earlier work with the non-negative case, you know
$\big(\big \vert\frac{a}{1-r}\big \vert \big \vert r\big \vert^{n+1}\big)$ tends to zero... so re-use this result
- - - -
as far as your suggested approach, I think it works.

You can also observe that
$\big \vert r\big \vert^n =\big \vert r^n \big \vert = \big \vert r^n - L \big \vert$
with $L =0$

since you know from that prior exercise 2.2.7 that for any $\epsilon \gt 0$
$\big \vert r\big \vert^n \lt \epsilon$
by selecting large enough $N$, then you also know by selecting that same $N$ that
$\big \vert r^n - L \big \vert \lt \epsilon$
which is your definition of a limit
Thanks steep ...

Most grateful for your help ...

Peter
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K