Help with a proof regarding convergent sequence (proof by contradiction)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding a proof by contradiction related to the convergence of sequences in real analysis. Participants explore the details of the theorem, its proof, and the nature of the contradiction involved.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the contradiction in the proof, questioning what is actually contradicted.
  • Another participant clarifies that the contradiction arises from the assumption that if the limit of the sequence is greater than A, then there must be infinitely many terms greater than A, which contradicts the earlier statement that all terms are less than or equal to A after a certain index.
  • A third participant requests an alternative proof approach while acknowledging the neatness of the current proof.
  • One participant suggests adding more detailed steps to the proof for clarity and practice, particularly emphasizing the importance of defining limits and conditions clearly.
  • Another participant introduces a different technique involving the use of epsilon to show that the limit must be less than or equal to A, referencing a separate result about inequalities.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the nature of the contradiction but express varying levels of understanding and approaches to the proof. Multiple viewpoints on how to clarify or reframe the proof exist, indicating an unresolved discussion on the best method of explanation.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the need for more detailed steps in the proof, highlighting that the current proof may lack clarity for those less familiar with the concepts involved.

malawi_glenn
Science Advisor
Messages
6,735
Reaction score
2,435
Ok I am trying to brush up my real analysis skills so that I can study some topology and measure theory at some point.

I found this theorem in my notes, that is proven by using proof by contradiction. However, I have a hard time understanding what the contradiction really is...

Here is the theorem and the proof.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Let ##(x_n)## be a convergent sequence. Assume that there exists a natural number ##N## such that ##x_n \leq A## (where ##A## is some real number) holds for each ##n \geq N##. Then the following holds: ##\lim_{n \to \infty} x_n \leq A##.

Proof: Assume the contrary, that ##\lim_{n \to \infty} x_n = L > A##. Let ##\epsilon = L - A##. Since ##(x_n)## is convergent, all except a finite number of elements in the sequence belongs on the interval ##(L - \epsilon , L + \epsilon)##. But all numbers on this interval is strictly greater than ##A = L - \epsilon##, which is a contradiction.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I have no idea what is contradicted and why this is a contradiction. Thanks in advance for any kind of illumination on this theorem and proof.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The contradiction is that your initial statement is ##x_n \leq A## (except maybe a finite number of cases). But if you assume ##\lim x_n > A##, then you need an infinite number of cases where ##x_n > A##.
This is a contradiction and therefore you must have ##\lim x_n \leq A##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: malawi_glenn
drmalawi said:
Ok I am trying to brush up my real analysis skills so that I can study some topology and measure theory at some point.

I found this theorem in my notes, that is proven by using proof by contradiction. However, I have a hard time understanding what the contradiction really is...

Here is the theorem and the proof.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Let ##(x_n)## be a convergent sequence. Assume that there exists a natural number ##N## such that ##x_n \leq A## (where ##A## is some real number) holds for each ##n \geq N##. Then the following holds: ##\lim_{n \to \infty} x_n \leq A##.

Proof: Assume the contrary, that ##\lim_{n \to \infty} x_n = L > A##. Let ##\epsilon = L - A##. Since ##(x_n)## is convergent, all except a finite number of elements in the sequence belongs on the interval ##(L - \epsilon , L + \epsilon)##. But all numbers on this interval is strictly greater than ##A = L - \epsilon##, which is a contradiction.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I have no idea what is contradicted and why this is a contradiction. Thanks in advance for any kind of illumination on this theorem and proof.
It's quite neat to do it that way. Can you do a different proof? Along similar lines.
 
I think that you should fill in some details in a more step-by-step manner.
Let ##N_1## denote the integer such that ##|x_n -L| \lt \epsilon## ## \forall n\gt N_1##. Let ##N' = max\{N_1, N\}##. If ##n \gt N'##, what can you say about ##x_n##?
Although this amount of detail might seem unnecessary, it is good practice for problems that are more complicated.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: malawi_glenn
There's another useful technique, as follows:

Let ##\epsilon > 0##. Show that ##L \le A + \epsilon##. Then use the result (you could prove this separately) that: $$\text{If} \ \forall \ \epsilon > 0 \ \text{we have} \ a \le b + \epsilon, \ \text{then} \ a \le b$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: malawi_glenn

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
12K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
12K
Replies
7
Views
2K