1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Homework Help: Correct this improper definition of a limit

  1. Feb 3, 2012 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    Eddy wrote on his midterm exam that the definition of the limit is the
    following: The sequence {an} converges to the real number L if there
    exists an N ∈ Natural numbers so that for every [itex]\epsilon[/itex] > 0 we have |an − L| < [itex]\epsilon[/itex] for all
    n > N. Show Eddy why he is wrong by demonstrating that if this were
    the definition of the limit then it would not be true that lim n→∞ 1/n = 0.
    (Hint: What does it mean if |a − b| < [itex]\epsilon[/itex] for every [itex]\epsilon[/itex] > 0?)

    2. Relevant equations
    |a-b| <ε means that ||a|-|b|| < ε from the reverse triangle inequality

    3. The attempt at a solution
    I know it has to do with the fact that the actual definition of a limit has "for every ε > 0, there exists an N [itex]\in[/itex] Natural numbers S.T. ...." so, Eddy reversed that part of the definition. I just haven't been able to quite see the difference of the two. A little push in the right direction would be greatly appreciated. I like figuring these out on my own, so no full on answers, please.
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 3, 2012 #2
    So there exists a certain N.

    Let [itex]\varepsilon = |1/N|[/tex]

    and try to prove that 1/n does not converge to 0 with this definition.
  4. Feb 3, 2012 #3
    I'm not quite sure I follow. I ended up answering it this way: Eddy's definition implies there is a single natural number, N, such that for all n>N |1/n|< every epsilon greater than zero. Which is not true. For every epsilon you give me, I can find an N such that 1/n is less than that epsilon for all n>N, but if you pick a newer, smaller epsilon, my N has to be larger, and since the natural numbers are unbounded, we can do this forever. But, it's a different N for each new epsilon, not one single N like eddy implied. Does that make sense?
  5. Feb 3, 2012 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Education Advisor

    That's right.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook