How can Bolzano-Weiertrass theorem be used to prove Nested Interval Property?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cragar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Interval Proof
cragar
Messages
2,546
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


Start with the Bolzano-Weiertrass theorem and use it to construct a proof of the Nested Interval Property.

Homework Equations


Bolzano-Weiertrass: Every bounded sequence contains a convergent sub-sequence
Nested Interval Property: Closed intervals nested inside of each other forever is non-empty.

The Attempt at a Solution


If we start with a bounded sequence on a closed interval and then we make it smaller we have a smaller portion of the sequence and so this smaller part must converge to something and we just keep making the interval smaller and we squeeze it down to a point, the sequence must converge to this point because it is the only point in the sequence.
Can I just start with some interval and slowly make it approach the middle by having it increase from the right and decrease to the left till I just have enclosed one point and make it converge to this point.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
to use B-W to prove the Nested Interval Property, you don't want to "start with a sequence". you want to start with an arbitrary family of nested closed intervals.

can you think of a way to create a bounded sequence from such a family?

if so, then you can say: by B-W, we know that...
 
When we start with a family of nested closed intervals, By the B-w, we know that there should be a convergent point among these family of intervals.
 
you can only apply B-W if you have a bounded sequence. what is your bounded sequence?
 
Do I just say I have some generic sequence A and that it is bounded between some interval.
 
Since you're proving the nested intervals thing, you need to start with an arbitrary decreasing sequence of closed intervals. If you're going for a proof that involves sequences of real numbers, you will have to use the sequence of intervals to define a sequence of real numbers.
 
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