Does \( a_{n} \) Diverge to \(\infty\)?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving that if \( b_{n} \rightarrow \infty \) and \( \frac{a_{n}}{b_{n}} \rightarrow C \) (where \( C > 0 \)), then \( a_{n} \) must also diverge to infinity as \( n \rightarrow \infty \). Participants explored the implications of boundedness and oscillation in sequences, concluding that \( a_{n} \) cannot be both bounded and oscillating without contradicting the conditions given. The use of the epsilon definition was suggested as a more straightforward approach to derive the result, with a specific epsilon value of \( \frac{l}{2} \) being identified as effective.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of limits and convergence in sequences
  • Familiarity with the epsilon-delta definition of limits
  • Knowledge of bounded and unbounded sequences
  • Basic concepts of mathematical proofs and logic
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the epsilon-delta definition of limits in detail
  • Explore examples of bounded vs. unbounded sequences
  • Learn about oscillating sequences and their properties
  • Review proofs involving limits and convergence in real analysis
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in mathematics, particularly those studying real analysis or sequences and series, as well as anyone looking to deepen their understanding of convergence and divergence in mathematical sequences.

Positronized
Messages
16
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Given that [tex]b_{n}\rightarrow\infty[/tex] and [tex]\frac{a_{n}}{b_{n}}\rightarrow C[/tex] (where C>0) as [tex]n\rightarrow\infty[/tex], prove that [tex]a_{n}[/tex] must also diverge to [tex]\infty[/tex], that is, [tex]a_{n}\rightarrow\infty[/tex] as [tex]n\rightarrow\infty[/tex]

Homework Equations



As above.

The Attempt at a Solution



I could easily deduce that [tex]\left\{a_{n}\right\}[/tex] cannot be bounded, otherwise the sequence of quotients will be null. Also, I deduced that [tex]\left\{a_{n}\right\}[/tex] cannot diverge to [tex]-\infty[/tex] as the limit of convergence cannot be positive in this case. However, I could not deduce that [tex]\left\{a_{n}\right\}[/tex] must be unbounded BOTH above and below, and so I cannot rule out the possibility of oscillation, yet.

Originally I said if [tex]\left\{a_{n}\right\}[/tex] oscillates AND also unbounded, then it is always possible to find a negative term no matter what the value of n is. Since [tex]\left\{b_{n}\right\}[/tex] is always positive for large n, then it is always possible to find the term of [tex]\left\{\frac{a_{n}}{b_{n}}\right\}[/tex] that is negative, therefore cannot converge to a positive limit. However it has become obvious that "unbounded" doesn't mean unbounded in both ways, i.e. sequences like {1,2,1,4,1,8,1,16,...} are unbounded and oscillating but will not give a negative term, so my argument isn't valid.

But apparently the easier approach is to use the epsilon definition, chosen the "right" epsilon and get the result directly without having to resort to proof by cases. I can't figure out what the "right" value is.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Don't worry, I've got it (after thinking about it for a long time) by setting epsilon=l/2
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K