Does a Stated Condition Imply a Limit on s_k?

  • Thread starter Thread starter utleysthrow
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Condition Limit
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of a stated condition regarding the convergence of sequences, specifically examining whether the lack of a limit for s_{2k} implies a lack of limit for s_k. The subject area involves concepts from mathematical analysis related to sequences and limits.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the relationship between the limits of s_k and s_{2k}, questioning whether the non-convergence of s_{2k} necessarily leads to the non-convergence of s_k. Some participants provide counterexamples to illustrate their points.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants engaging in a back-and-forth regarding the implications of the conditions stated. Some guidance has been offered regarding the logical structure of the statements, and counterexamples have been presented to challenge assumptions.

Contextual Notes

There is a focus on the definitions and properties of sequence limits, with participants questioning the sufficiency of the information provided in the original post. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding the implications of convergence in sequences.

utleysthrow
Messages
24
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



this is more of a question I had within a question... but here it is:

Suppose [tex]s_{k} = s_{2k-1} + s_{2k}[/tex]

is true and I know for a fact that s_2k has no limit.

Would that imply that s_k has no limit as well? Or is that not enough?

Thanks in advance.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not enough. Take s_k=(-1)^k.
 
utleysthrow said:
Would that imply that s_k has no limit as well? Or is that not enough?

Actually, you've provided "too much"! See, the statement "If [tex]s_{2k}[/tex] has no limit, then neither does [tex]s_k[/tex]" is the contrapositive of "If [tex]s_k[/tex] has a limit, then so does [tex]s_{2k}[/tex]," the truth of which follows quite readily for all sequences from the definition of a sequence limit.


Dick said:
Not enough. Take s_k=(-1)^k.
But this doesn't satisfy the condition that [tex]s_{2k}[/tex] not converge.
 
foxjwill said:
But this doesn't satisfy the condition that [tex]s_{2k}[/tex] not converge.

Good point. You are right. If s_2k doesn't converge, s_k can't converge.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K