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!

Homework Help: Every Cauchy sequence of real numbers converges

  1. Jan 17, 2010 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    ra6.JPG

    I understand everything except the last two lines. I am really confused about the last two lines of the proof. (actually I was never able to fully understand it since my first year calculus)
    I agree that if ALL three of the conditions n≥N, k≥K, and nk≥N are satisfied, then the last line is true. But why does the condition n≥N alone imply that the last line is true? Does n≥N guarantee that k≥K, and nk≥N?
    Why is it true that n≥N => |an-an_k| < ε/2 ?
    And why is it true that n≥N => |an_k-L| < ε/2 ?
    Can somebody kindly explain the last two lines of the proof in more detail?

    2. Relevant equations
    N/A

    3. The attempt at a solution
    N/A

    Any help is much appreciated!
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2010
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 17, 2010 #2

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Knowing that [itex]n\ge N[/itex] doesn't tell you anything about k. That was why the proof says "Pick any [itex]k\ge K[/itex]" k is chosen to be larger than K. That has nothing to do with n. What the proof is really saying is "K is a fixed number so certainly there exist k> K. Also N is a fixed number and nk is a sequence that increases without bound so there exist numbers in the subsequence such that nk> N. Of all the nk> N, choose one for which k is also > K.

     
  4. Jan 17, 2010 #3
    But at the end, we are supposed to prove that:
    an->L
    i.e. for all ε>0, there exists N such that n≥N => |an-L| < ε ?
    (note that here only n appears, there is nothing about k)

    Looking at the definition of an->L above, all we have to do is to construct an N that works. Just like every ε-limit proof, we have to find an N that works. And if we can find such an N, then the only restriction should be n≥N and nothing else, but in this proof we also have other restrictions k≥K and nk≥N which does not even appear in |an-L| < ε . How come? Please help...I really don't understand :(

    Do we need all three conditions (n≥N, k≥K, and nk≥N) to be simultaneously satisfied in order for |an-L| < ε to hold??
     
  5. Jan 17, 2010 #4

    vela

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Education Advisor

    All you have to show is that given an [itex]\epsilon[/itex], an N exists. It doesn't really matter how you found it; you just have to show it exists.
     
  6. Jan 17, 2010 #5
    But what is that "N" in this case?
     
  7. Jan 17, 2010 #6

    vela

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Education Advisor

    It says what N is in the fifth sentence of the proof.
     
  8. Jan 17, 2010 #7
    So the exact same N there would work at the end?
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2010
  9. Jan 17, 2010 #8

    vela

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Education Advisor

    Yes. That's the point of the rest of the proof.
     
  10. Jan 18, 2010 #9
    I've seen another proof of this theorem:

    Given ε>0.
    There exists N s.t. m,n≥N => |an-am|<ε/2
    There exists M s.t. k≥M => |ank-L|<ε/2 and also M≥N.
    Take N'=max{N,nM}
    Then if n>N',
    |an-L|≤|an-anM|+|anM-L|<ε/2+ε/2=ε
    =====================

    Is this proof right or wrong? If it's right, I have the following questions:

    1) Why is M≥N?

    2) Why should we take N'=max{N,nM}?

    Does anyone have any idea?


    (I increased the font size to make the subscripts legible)
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook