Give a counter-example that shows Bolzano-Weirstrass is unvalid in IR2

  • Thread starter Thread starter tsuwal
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem asserts that every bounded sequence in the real numbers (ℝ) has a convergent subsequence. However, the discussion clarifies that this theorem is indeed valid in ℝ², contrary to the initial claim that it is not. The counter-example proposed, Xn = (Cos(n), Sin(n)), was incorrectly suggested as a demonstration of the theorem's invalidity in ℝ². Ultimately, the theorem holds true in ℝ², as confirmed by external sources such as Wikipedia.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem
  • Familiarity with bounded sequences in real analysis
  • Knowledge of Cauchy sequences and their properties
  • Basic concepts of sequences in ℝ²
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Cauchy sequences in ℝ²
  • Review the proof of the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem in higher dimensions
  • Explore examples of bounded sequences in ℝ² and their convergent subsequences
  • Investigate the implications of the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem in functional analysis
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of real analysis, and anyone studying convergence properties of sequences in multi-dimensional spaces will benefit from this discussion.

tsuwal
Messages
105
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Give a counter-example that shows Bolzano-Weirstrass is unvalid in IR2.

Intro:
Bolzano-Weirtrass theorem says that if a sequence (IN->IR) is bounded then there exists a convergent sub-sequence. (this is shown using the Cauchy sequence concept, showing that a Cauchy sequence is bounded and using the lemma of monotonic sub-sequences)

However, this is not valid valid in IR2, if a sequence (IN->IR2) is bounded then we can't assure that the exists a convergent sub-sequence.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


It's not easy since you have the tendency of using a pattern. But I guess
Xn=(Cos(n),Sin(n)) might work...
 
Physics news on Phys.org


tsuwal said:

Homework Statement


Give a counter-example that shows Bolzano-Weirstrass is unvalid in IR2.

Intro:
Bolzano-Weirtrass theorem says that if a sequence (IN->IR) is bounded then there exists a convergent sub-sequence. (this is shown using the Cauchy sequence concept, showing that a Cauchy sequence is bounded and using the lemma of monotonic sub-sequences)

However, this is not valid valid in IR2, if a sequence (IN->IR2) is bounded then we can't assure that the exists a convergent sub-sequence.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


It's not easy since you have the tendency of using a pattern. But I guess
Xn=(Cos(n),Sin(n)) might work...

Can you explain your notation? What are IN, IR and IR2? Bolzano Weierstrass is valid for sequences in ##R^2##.
 


IR=real number set
IN=natural number set

I'm sorry, I thought Bolzano-Weirtrass was not valid I am IR^2, my book was not clear in that part. I've consulted Wikipedia and confirmed that it is valid in IR^2. Sorry for the mistake.

Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K