Equivalent definitions of convergence

  • Thread starter stripes
  • Start date
  • #1
265
0

Homework Statement



[itex]\mathbf{D1:}\forall\varepsilon>0,\exists K\epsilon\mathbb{N},\forall n\epsilon\mathbb{N},n\geq K\Longrightarrow|x_{n}-x|<\varepsilon[/itex]

[itex]\mathbf{D2:}\forall\rho>0,\exists M\epsilon\mathbb{N},\forall n\epsilon\mathbb{N},n>M\Longrightarrow|x_{n}-x|\leq\rho[/itex]

Show these two definitions of convergence (of a sequence xn) are equivalent by showing both D1 implies D2, and D2 implies D1.

Homework Equations



--

The Attempt at a Solution



To show D1 ==> D2, i just took M = K - 1, where K was from D1. But it didn't seem to get me anywhere since i can show

[itex]n>M\Longrightarrow|x_{n}-x|< \rho[/itex],

but this does not encompass the possibility of ≤ ρ. So basically i have no idea how to do this.

Similarly, i need something to get me started on D2 ==> D1. How do I go about this?

I'm sure i'm overthinking it as I've done much more complicated proofs before, and I've done all other questions on this assignment without help. I just honestly don't know how to do this one. Thanks in advance!

Homework Statement





Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


Homework Statement





Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


Homework Statement





Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
vela
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
14,883
1,461

Homework Statement



[itex]\mathbf{D1:}\forall\varepsilon>0,\exists K\epsilon\mathbb{N},\forall n\epsilon\mathbb{N},n\geq K\Longrightarrow|x_{n}-x|<\varepsilon[/itex]

[itex]\mathbf{D2:}\forall\rho>0,\exists M\epsilon\mathbb{N},\forall n\epsilon\mathbb{N},n>M\Longrightarrow|x_{n}-x|\leq\rho[/itex]

Show these two definitions of convergence (of a sequence xn) are equivalent by showing both D1 implies D2, and D2 implies D1.

Homework Equations



--

The Attempt at a Solution



To show D1 ==> D2, i just took M = K - 1, where K was from D1. But it didn't seem to get me anywhere since i can show

[itex]n>M\Longrightarrow|x_{n}-x|< \rho[/itex],

but this does not encompass the possibility of ≤ ρ. So basically i have no idea how to do this.

Similarly, i need something to get me started on D2 ==> D1. How do I go about this?

I'm sure i'm overthinking it as I've done much more complicated proofs before, and I've done all other questions on this assignment without help. I just honestly don't know how to do this one. Thanks in advance!
If ##\lvert x_n - x \rvert \le \rho##, then surely ##\lvert x_n - x \rvert < \rho## is satisfied, right?
 
  • #3
265
0
That information is helpful to show D2 ==> D1 right?
 
Last edited:
  • #4
329
34
These are definitions of convergence as [tex]n \rightarrow \infty[/tex] of the sequence [tex]x_n[/tex] to a particular value x. The concept is that the bigger n gets, the closer [tex]x_n[/tex] gets to x.

Now to state it formally we have to choose an [tex]\epsilon,[/tex] which supposedly is a small number like 1/n or [tex]1/n^2[/tex] and show that if n is big enough

(1)... [tex]|x - x_n| < \epsilon[/tex].

When we say n is big enough we mean that the inequality (1) is true for n and every higher integer -- n+1, n+2,... etc. In other words, once we pick the [tex]\epsilon[/tex] there is some point from M on where the inequality holds.

Of course, we said any [tex] \epsilon [/tex] so if you make it smaller you'll need a bigger M (or K or whatever). The important thing is that once you pick the [tex]\epsilon[/tex] you can always find some M that works.

Note we said there is some point M, not that M is necessarily the smallest cutoff that will work. If you're not sure M is adequately large, you can always pick a bigger one. So the difference between saying there is an M such that [tex] n \ge M[/tex] makes (1) work, and there is a K such that n> K makes (1) work is almost non-existent. Just pick an N which is bigger than both M and K and let n be larger than that, and it won't matter whether you write < or less than or =.

Once you understand why convergence is defined in terms of n > N, it really doesn't matter whether you have strict inequality or not.

I hope you can use these thoughts to construct a proof your teacher will like.

If I may editorialize, I think this is a poor choice of problem for a student. The strict or not strict inequality is essentially meaningless, and takes your eye off the ball, which is what convergence really means. However, do what you have to to get a good grade.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
265
0
Thanks brmath. I do understand this on an intuitive level. I'm not particularly great at this stuff but I've taken a few junior and even a senior analysis/proof oriented course before, and I have proved much more complex stuff. That's why I'm surprised I couldn't get started here. But I definitely understand and your explanation helped.

Because I asked this question the night before it was due, I didn't really have time to do much so i just threw down an "explanation". Hopefully I'll get something out of it, but the remainder of the assignment was completed, so I hope it will not affect my grade too much.

Thanks!
 
  • #6
329
34
I remember being a student and doing things the night before they were due. Computer programming cured me of that (missed deadlines where money was involved). My theory became that if I start early and get something done early, this could not possibly hurt. If I start early and something goes wrong (which is practically always) then there is time to recover. I hope your explanation will be satisfactory to your teacher.
 
  • #7
265
0
Normally i too start my assignments late (i.e., i start my assignments the night before). this one, however, i started early :) hopefully my habits change and continue this way this semester.
 

Related Threads on Equivalent definitions of convergence

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
431
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
14K
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Top