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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on a proof by contradiction regarding the convergence of sequences in real analysis. The theorem states that if a convergent sequence \( (x_n) \) satisfies \( x_n \leq A \) for all \( n \geq N \), then \( \lim_{n \to \infty} x_n \leq A \). The proof assumes the contrary, that \( \lim_{n \to \infty} x_n = L > A \), leading to a contradiction as it implies an infinite number of terms \( x_n \) must exceed \( A \). This contradiction confirms that \( \lim_{n \to \infty} x_n \leq A \) must hold true.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of convergent sequences in real analysis
  • Familiarity with the concept of limits
  • Knowledge of proof by contradiction methodology
  • Basic grasp of epsilon-delta definitions in calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of convergent sequences in real analysis
  • Learn about epsilon-delta proofs and their applications
  • Explore advanced topics in topology related to convergence
  • Investigate measure theory fundamentals and their relationship to convergence
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, particularly those focusing on real analysis, topology, and measure theory, will benefit from this discussion.

malawi_glenn
Science Advisor
Messages
6,735
Reaction score
2,434
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 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 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 malawi_glenn

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
12K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K