Convergence of sequences proof

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the convergence of a sequence and its subsequent term. The original poster presents a sequence \( \) and seeks to demonstrate that if this sequence converges, then the sequence \( \) also converges to the same limit.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the use of inequalities to establish convergence, with some suggesting starting points for the proof and others questioning the introduction of certain variables. There is exploration of the relationship between the terms of the sequence and their limits.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, offering various methods and questioning assumptions. Some have provided insights into the relationship between the terms of the sequences, while others express uncertainty about specific steps in the proof. There is no explicit consensus on the best approach, but several productive lines of reasoning are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Some participants mention a lack of familiarity with Cauchy sequences, indicating that the discussion is grounded in basic definitions of convergence. The original poster is working within the constraints of a homework assignment, which may limit the depth of exploration.

synkk
Messages
216
Reaction score
0
Given a sequence ## <x_n> ##, let ## <x_{n+1}> ## denote the sequence whose nth term for each ## n \in \mathbb{N} ## is ## x_{n+1} ##. Show that if ## <x_n> ## converges then ## < x_{n+1} ## converges and they have the same limit.

my attempt thus far

given ## \epsilon > 0 ## ##\exists N \in \mathbb{R} ## s.t. n > N implies ## |x_n - l | < \epsilon ## where l is the limit of ## x_n##.

now we need to prove that for given ## \epsilon > 0 ## ##\exists N_1 \in \mathbb{R} ## s.t. ##n > N_1 ## implies ## |x_{n+1} - m | < \epsilon ## where m is the limit of ## x_{n+1} ## and m = l

heres what I have thus far

consider ## |x_n - l |## :

## |x_n - l | = |x_n - l + x_{n+1} - x_{n+1} | = |(x_n - x_{n+1}) + (x_{n+1} - l ) | \leq |x_n - x_{n+1} | + |x_{n+1} - l| \leq |x - x_{n+1} | + |x_{n+1} - l | \leq |x_{n+1} - x | + |x_{n+1} -l | ##

any ideas how to proceed? or if I'm even doing it correctly
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not a bad try. But you want to show |x_{n+1}-l|\le \epsilon so you should start your inequality with that instead of |x_n-l|. Also when you break up the absolute value into two pieces, use what you know about the size of |x_n-l| and |x_n-x_{n+1}|. I'm not sure why you introduced "x", what is it?
 
If \{x_n\} converges to L, then, given any \epsilon&gt;0, there exist N such that if n> N then |x_n- L|&lt; \epsilon. Here, your second sequence, let's call it \{a_m\} has the property that a_m= x_{n+1}. Do you see that, for the same \epsilon, we can our new "N" to be the old N plus 1?

(This is a different method than ArcanaNoir's. Both will work.)
 
ArcanaNoir said:
Not a bad try. But you want to show |x_{n+1}-l|\le \epsilon so you should start your inequality with that instead of |x_n-l|. Also when you break up the absolute value into two pieces, use what you know about the size of |x_n-l| and |x_n-x_{n+1}|. I'm not sure why you introduced "x", what is it?

The x is the first term of the sequence

if I do x_n - x_(n+1) = x_1, x_2, x_3 ... x_n - (x_2, x_3, x_4... x_(n+1))

how do I evaluate |x_n-x_{n+1}|? I have no idea of it's size
 
HallsofIvy said:
If \{x_n\} converges to L, then, given any \epsilon&gt;0, there exist N such that if n> N then |x_n- L|&lt; \epsilon. Here, your second sequence, let's call it \{a_m\} has the property that a_m= x_{n+1}. Do you see that, for the same \epsilon, we can our new "N" to be the old N plus 1?

(This is a different method than ArcanaNoir's. Both will work.)

No, I don't see that - I mean it kind of makes sense, but I'm not all that convinced.

Thank you for your help
 
Have you learned about Cauchy sequences?

At any rate, you know |x_n-l|&lt;\epsilon for all n>N. Well if n>N, isn't n+1 > N?
 
ArcanaNoir said:
Have you learned about Cauchy sequences?

At any rate, you know |x_n-l|&lt;\epsilon for all n>N. Well if n>N, isn't n+1 > N?
I have not learned about Cauchy sequences, all we have done is the definition of convergence and this is a question on my problem sheet.


I agree with the highlighted part, but I do not see how it helps.

thanks,
 
Maybe I just don't get what you don't get, but if

ArcanaNoir said:
At any rate, you know |x_n-l|&lt;\epsilon for all n>N. Well if n>N, isn't n+1 > N?

doesn't that mean |x_{n+1}-l|&lt;\epsilon? It's really simpler than what you think.
 
Last edited:
Dick said:
Maybe I just don't get what you don't get, but if
doesn't that mean |x_{n+1}-l|&lt;\epsilon? It's really simpler than what you think.

Yeah that makes sense actually,

but for a different proof:

I got from here ## |x_{n+1} - l| \leq |x_{n+1} - x_n| + |x_n - l | < |x_{n+1} - x_n| + \epsilon ## how do I evaluate ## |x_{n+1} - x_n|##?
 
  • #10
synkk said:
Yeah that makes sense actually,

but for a different proof:

I got from here ## |x_{n+1} - l| \leq |x_{n+1} - x_n| + |x_n - l | < |x_{n+1} - x_n| + \epsilon ## how do I evaluate ## |x_{n+1} - x_n|##?

That's really not a very good way to go. Because about the only thing you can say about ## |x_{n+1} - x_n|## is that since ##|x_n-l|<\epsilon## AND ## |x_{n+1} - l| < \epsilon## then ## |x_{n+1} - x_n| < 2\epsilon##, but you need the bound on ## |x_{n+1} - l|## to say that.
 
  • #11
Dick said:
That's really not a very good way to go. Because about the only thing you can say about ## |x_{n+1} - x_n|## is that since ##|x_n-l|<\epsilon## AND ## |x_{n+1} - l| < \epsilon## then ## |x_{n+1} - x_n| < 2\epsilon##, but you need the bound on ## |x_{n+1} - l|## to say that.

hm I see, but I just cannot seem to construct a proof using that if x_n is bounded then there n>N for some N then n+1 > N also
 
  • #12
synkk said:
hm I see, but I just cannot seem to construct a proof using that if x_n is bounded then there n>N for some N then n+1 > N also

I don't understand why you don't see it. If n>N then n+1>N. It's automatic. The same N that works for the sequence ##a_n## works for the sequence ##b_n## where ##b_n=a_{n+1}##.
 
  • #13
Dick said:
I don't understand why you don't see it. If n>N then n+1>N. It's automatic. The same N that works for the sequence ##a_n## works for the sequence ##b_n## where ##b_n=a_{n+1}##.

So that's all I'd have to state for the proof?
 
  • #14
synkk said:
So that's all I'd have to state for the proof?

Yes, a proof could be that simple. Write it in a way that you understand it.
 
  • #15
Thank you very much Dick, and everyone else who helped :)!
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K