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!

Elementary convergence

  1. May 31, 2003 #1
    Hi everyone,
    I'm doing a course which contains foundation work on convergence.
    I was suprised to see the book I am using uses phrases such as....
    " This sequence clearly doesn`t converge "
    for sequences such as 2,0,2,0,2,0,2,0.....
    I was expecting it to say something like " By theorem 4.5, this sequence doesn`t converge "
    I wouldn`t feel comfortable writing " This sequence clearly doesn`t converge " if, in an exam, I got a question which said " Prove that 2,0,2,0,2,0 doesn`t converge ".
    Can anyone point me to basic theorems on convergence which are used to tackle simple questions like this?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 31, 2003 #2

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I don't (like your book) see any reason to appeal to a "theorem".
    When your text says "clearly" what it means is that it follows directly from the definition.

    A sequence of numbers {an} converges to a limit, L, if, by going far enough on the sequence all the numbers past that point are arbitrarily close to L. Formally: for any [epsilon]>0, there exist an integer N such that if n> N, |an-L|< [epsilon].
    ("n> N" is "far enough on the sequence", "|an-L|" measures the distance from an to L and "< [epsilon]" is the "arbitrarily close" part.)

    Take [epsilon]= 1/2. Two consecutive terms are 2 and 0 and they can't both be with distance 1/2 of anything.
     
  4. May 31, 2003 #3
    Well, if I wanted to decide if 2,0,2,0,2 converged then I wouldn`t need to study a bunch of theorems to convince myself it didn`t, because it is clear to my intuition that it doesn`t. But I can`t just write that in an exam. Since I started this maths degree, there's been loads of questions I've been confronted with where the answers are so blatently obvious that I feel like writing " Because it just bloody is! OK? ", but you can`t write that. You've gotta apply the fundamental theorems.

    Have you attempted a direct proof in what you've written?
    Looks OK, part from the last line.
    If there's no theorem to fall back on, then I spose I'd have to construct one myself, maybe with induction method.

    I like the way you write "theorem", like you think it's a word I've made up.
     
  5. May 31, 2003 #4

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Do an indirect proof.

    Suppose both 2 and 0 are within distance 1/2 of L.
    IOW |2 - L| < 1/2 and |L - 0| < 1/2
    Now apply the triangle inequality:
    2 = |2 - 0| = |2 - L + L - 0| < |2 - L| + |L - 0| < 1/2 + 1/2 = 1
    So 2 < 1
    So the supposition was false, and both 2 and 0 cannot be within distance 1/2 from the same number.

    (the triangle inequality is one of your best friends when working with &epsilon;-&delta; proofs)
     
  6. May 31, 2003 #5
    Thanks hurkyl
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Elementary convergence
  1. Elementary Math (Replies: 2)

  2. Elementary function (Replies: 5)

Loading...