Ok, I'm reviewing my real analysis and found a point of confusion.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

So for a sequence S(n) to converge to S, for every e>0 there exists N such that n>N implies |S(n)-S|<e.

Ok that makes sense. However when I backsolve and find N as a function of epsilon, and then formally proving forwards,

I'm supposed to use the statement, Given e>0, let N(e). Then for any n>N(e), we have |S(n)-S|<e

Basically, I found N as a function of a specific epsilon, and that is somehow accounting for all of the epsilions? Because the original statement is for every epsilon>0. I can only show that it works for one of them.

How to reconcile this?

Is it because once N is a function of e, then for fixed e, n>N(e) wouldn't work anymore? I must say that foranyn>N(e) since now n must vary based off of e?

So basically its an application of this: for every A there exists a B <=> for every B there exists an A.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# I Epsilon Confusion

Have something to add?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**