Finding a convergent subsequence does the sequence need to be bounded

ppy
Messages
64
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



2.11. Determine (explicitly) a convergent subsequence of the sequence in R2 given for n =
1; 2; : : : by
xn =(e^{n}sin(n\pi/7),((4n+3/3n+4)cos(n\pi/3))



I know that the Bolzano-weierstrass theorem says that every bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence. I thought I should first check that the xn is bounded by checking each individual co-ordinate. however isn't x_{n,1} not bounded? Therefore surely x_{n} cannot have a convergent subsequence? as doesn't it just go to infinity? Help needed urgently!

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ppy said:

Homework Statement



2.11. Determine (explicitly) a convergent subsequence of the sequence in R2 given for n =
1; 2; : : : by
xn =(e^{n}sin(n\pi/7),((4n+3/3n+4)cos(n\pi/3))



I know that the Bolzano-weierstrass theorem says that every bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence. I thought I should first check that the xn is bounded by checking each individual co-ordinate. however isn't x_{n,1} not bounded? Therefore surely x_{n} cannot have a convergent subsequence? as doesn't it just go to infinity? Help needed urgently!

Thanks

Being unbounded doesn't necessarily mean a sequence has no convergent sequences. Think about the x and y coordinates separately. Can you find a convergent sequence of the x coordinate.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
ppy said:
I know that the Bolzano-weierstrass theorem says that every bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence. I thought I should first check that the xn is bounded by checking each individual co-ordinate. however isn't x_{n,1} not bounded? Therefore surely x_{n} cannot have a convergent subsequence?

The B-W theorem doesn't say that if a sequence has a convergent subsequence it is bounded. Look at the first component. We know a priori that ##e^n## is headed for ##\infty##. So the only hope for a convergent subsequence on that component is to pick values of n where the sin pulls things down. What do you know about sin(n##\pi##)?
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top