Does the Sequence Sn = {0 if n is even, -1 if n is odd} Converge?

  • Thread starter Thread starter missavvy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sequence
missavvy
Messages
73
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Suppose Sn is a sequence defined by:

Sn = 0, if n is even
-1, if n is odd.

Show Sn does not converge

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


By contradiction:

Suppose there exists an x>0 s/t for all natural numbers N, there exists n>=N which implies |s-sn| >= x

I am trying to find an x but for some reason it doesn't ...
For example if I take x = 1, and let s = the limit of sn

N+1 and N+2 are > than N so

|sN+1 - s| < 1
|sN+2 - s| < 1

|sN+1 - sN+2| = 1
1 = |sN+1 - s + s - sN+2|
<= |sN+1 - s| + |s - sN+2|
< 1+1
< 2
which is true and not a contradiction! what am I doing wrong? :S
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Show that the sequence has two subsequential limit.
 
Last edited:
ok... stupid question, but, why does this mean it diverges?
Because can a sequence not have more than 1 subsequence which converges? >_<
like i know it diverges but i just don't understand the proof...
 
A sequence can have more than one subsequence that converges but if the original sequence converges the subsequential limits have to be the same.

If a sequence have two subsequencial limits that are different it cannot converge. Consider the sequence
-1,1,-1,1...
You can find two subsequences with different limits and it is obvious that the sequence does not converge

It would help to think about the definition of a sequence converging. In other for a sequence to converge all points or the sequence aftet some n_0 must be very very close to each other.

In your case there are only two accumulation points which are the only candidates for the limit. Assuming that either 1 or 0 is the limit and picking epsilon to be 1/2 leads to contradiction since far out in the sequence you have a 1 or 0 somewhere.
 
Ohhh that makes a lot of sense (thanks for explaining it in english!), thank you so much! :D
 
In particular, "diverge" does not mean "goes to infinity". It simply means "does not converge". You can give an indirect proof that this series does not converge using the definition of "limit". Suppose the sequence conveges to some limit, "L". Then given any \epsilon&gt; 0, there must exist N such that if n> N, then |a_n- L|&lt; \epsilon.

Since a_n is always 0 or 1, take \epsilon to be any positive number less than 1/2. Then if L< 1/2 itself, |1- L|> 1/2. If L> 1/2, then |0- L|> 1/2. If L= 1/2, both |1- L|= |1- 1/2| and |0- L|= |0- 1/2| are equal to 1/2 and so never less than \epsilon.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top