How to equate logical statements

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

The discussion focuses on proving the equivalence of three statements regarding convergence in mathematical analysis. The statements are: i) ∀ε > 0 ∃N ∀n ≥ N : |a_{n}-a|< ε, ii) ∀δ > 0 ∃M ∀n ≥ M : |a_{n}-a|≤ δ, and iii) ∀λ > 0 ∃K ∀n ≥ K : |a_{n}-a|≤ 42λ². The approach suggested involves demonstrating that each statement implies the next, specifically showing that (i) implies (ii), (ii) implies (iii), and (iii) implies (i). The discussion emphasizes the importance of rigor in writing proofs, particularly in identifying necessary steps.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of mathematical logic and quantifiers
  • Familiarity with the concepts of convergence in sequences
  • Knowledge of epsilon-delta definitions in analysis
  • Experience with constructing mathematical proofs
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the epsilon-delta definition of limits in depth
  • Learn techniques for proving implications in mathematical statements
  • Explore the concept of sequences and their convergence properties
  • Practice writing rigorous proofs in mathematical analysis
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematical analysis, particularly those focusing on proof techniques and convergence, as well as educators looking to enhance their understanding of logical equivalences in mathematics.

Zrpeip
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



We have three statements that describe convergence, but using different variables.
We are asked to show that all statements are equivalent.

Homework Equations



Show that

i. [itex]\forall[/itex]ε > 0 ∃N [itex]\forall[/itex]n ≥ N : |a[itex]_{n}[/itex]-a|< ε
ii. [itex]\forall[/itex]δ > 0 ∃M [itex]\forall[/itex]n ≥ M : |a[itex]_{n}[/itex]-a|≤ δ
iii. [itex]\forall[/itex]λ > 0 ∃K [itex]\forall[/itex]n ≥ K : |a[itex]_{n}[/itex]-a|≤ 42λ[itex]^{2}[/itex]

are equivalent statements.

The Attempt at a Solution



I know that I have to somehow reformulate epsilon to include/represent delta and lambda, but don't really have an idea how to proceed.
It is also confusing to me that 42λ[itex]^{2}[/itex] and δ could be equal to the difference of the sequence and limit, whereas ε is only larger than.
For i to be equivalent to ii and iii, we would need to exclude this case, or include it for epsilon in i, right? (assuming the sequence and limit are 'the same' in each)

I'm not interested in getting the answer, but rather an approach as this course will likely be proof-heavy and I really want to get a handle on the techniques.
I just don't know what I'm 'allowed' to do (for example, I can't simply say N = M = K, or can I? And then, does that really show anything?)

Thanks for reading.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
One approach would be to show that (i) implies (ii), (ii) implies (iii), and (iii) implies (i). To show (i) implies (ii). You assume (i) is true and use it to prove (ii) is true.

Writing proofs for "obvious" things can be tricky because it's hard to figure out exactly what you need to show. You need to be pedantic and point out every little step.
 

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K