Every sequence of real bounded functions has convergent sub?

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
2 replies · 2K views
RBG
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
I figured it out... how do I remove this question?
 
Last edited:
on Phys.org
I don't know the answer, but I have an answer in the case ##x## belongs to finite set of rationals ##S = \{ x_1,...,x_p\} \subset \mathbb{Q}##. It may or may not be useful for what you want to prove.

  1. ## \{f_n(x_1) \}## is a real bounded sequence so there is a converging subsequence ## \{f_{\sigma_1(n)}(x_1) \}## that converges to ##f(x_1)##
  2. ## \{f_{\sigma_1(n)}(x_2) \}## is a real bounded sequence so there is a converging subsequence ## \{f_{(\sigma_2 \circ \sigma_1)(n)}(x_2) \}## that converges to ##f(x_2)##. Furthermore ## \{f_{(\sigma_2 \circ \sigma_1)(n)}(x_1) \}## converges to ##f(x_1)## as a subsequence of ## \{f_{\sigma_1(n)}(x_1) \}##.
  3. Repeating this process, you have ##\{ f_{(\sigma_p\circ ... \circ \sigma_1)(n)}(x_i)\} ## convergerges to ##f(x_i)## for all ##i = 1... p##.
 
RBG said:
I figured it out... how do I remove this question?
Why remove the question?

Wouldn't it be more helpful to other members of the forum to leave the question, and post the answer (or at least an outline of the answer)?
 
Last edited: