If a sequence is eventually bounded then it is bounded

  • Thread starter Thread starter pixelate
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bounded Sequence
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
2 replies · 5K views
pixelate
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Hi, I've been solving Calculus Deconstructed by Nitecki and I've been confused by a particular lemma in the book. Namely:

If a sequence is eventually bounded, then it is bounded:
that is, to show that a sequence is bounded, we need only find a number
γ ∈ R such that the inequality

[tex]|x_i| < \gamma \ \text{holds for all i ≥ K, for some K}[/tex]

Homework Equations


3. The Attempt at a Solution
[/B]
However if we consider the sequence ##\tan {\frac{\pi}{n}} ##, with n starting at 1. For terms when n is very high, we can find some value for ##\gamma## for which the condition holds and thus the sequence is bounded (according to the lemma). Yet at n=1, ##\tan {\frac{\pi}{n}} = \infty##, so the sequence cannot be bounded.

My questions are:

1. Is my reasoning at all correct in the first place ?

2. It is easy to see that my sequence does have a lower bound but no upper bound, so does the lemma only refer to one bound (But doesn't bounded mean bounded in both directions?)

Thanks for reading!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
pixelate said:

Homework Statement



Hi, I've been solving Calculus Deconstructed by Nitecki and I've been confused by a particular lemma in the book. Namely:

If a sequence is eventually bounded, then it is bounded:
that is, to show that a sequence is bounded, we need only find a number
γ ∈ R such that the inequality

[tex]|x_i| < \gamma \ \text{holds for all i ≥ K, for some K}[/tex]

Homework Equations


3. The Attempt at a Solution
[/B]
However if we consider the sequence ##\tan {\frac{\pi}{n}} ##, with n starting at 1. For terms when n is very high, we can find some value for ##\gamma## for which the condition holds and thus the sequence is bounded (according to the lemma). Yet at n=1, ##\tan {\frac{\pi}{n}} = \infty##, so the sequence cannot be bounded.

My questions are:

1. Is my reasoning at all correct in the first place ?

2. It is easy to see that my sequence does have a lower bound but no upper bound, so does the lemma only refer to one bound (But doesn't bounded mean bounded in both directions?)

Thanks for reading!

You don't have a valid sequence, so that is not a counterexample to anything.

Anyway, at ##n = 1## we have ##\tan(\pi) = 0##, so that is OK. The trouble occurs at ##n = 2##.

But, I say it again: you don't have a valid sequence of real numbers with this example.
 
Ray Vickson said:
But, I say it again: you don't have a valid sequence of real numbers with this example.

.Oh I see, that's very illuminating thank you. Of course at n=2, the the element of the sequence is undefined and it is not infinite at all. I feel silly for making such a basic mistake now.