Is a Cauchy Sequence in a Metric Space Characterized by d(xn, xn+1) → 0?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the characterization of Cauchy sequences in metric spaces, specifically whether the property d(x_n, x_{n+1}) → 0 as n → ∞ is sufficient to conclude that the sequence is Cauchy. The scope includes theoretical exploration and mathematical reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that proving d(x_n, x_{n+1}) → 0 is straightforward by letting m = n + 1.
  • Another participant agrees, stating that since d(x_n, x_m) goes to 0 as m and n approach infinity, it follows that d(x_n, x_{n+1}) must also go to 0.
  • However, this same participant notes that the converse does not hold, indicating that d(x_n, x_{n+1}) going to 0 does not imply that d(x_n, x_m) goes to 0.
  • A third participant provides an example of a sequence where d(x_n, x_{n+1}) → 0 but d(x_n, x_m) does not, using the sequence x_n = ln(n).
  • Another participant reflects on this by presenting a related example involving the harmonic series, noting that while |a_n - a_{n-1}| = 1/n goes to 0, the series itself is not Cauchy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the properties of Cauchy sequences, with some agreeing on the straightforwardness of the proof while others highlight the limitations of the converse statement. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the sufficiency of d(x_n, x_{n+1}) → 0 for characterizing Cauchy sequences.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific sequences and their properties, indicating a need for careful consideration of definitions and conditions under which the properties hold. The examples provided illustrate the complexity of the relationships between the sequences discussed.

BSCowboy
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
For a metric space (X,d), prove that a Cauchy sequence {xn} has the property d(xn-xn+1)--->0 as n--->\infty

In working this proof, is it really as simple as letting m=n+1?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, it really is that easy! The definition of "Cauchy sequence" is that [itex]d(x_n, x_m)[/itex] goes to 0 as m and n go to infinity. Since that is true, in particular, [itex]d(x_n, x_{n+1})[/itex] must go to 0 as n goes to infinity.

Notice, however, that the converse is not true. If [itex]d(x_n, x_{n+1})[/itex] goes to 0, it does NOT follow that [itex]d(x_n,x_m)[/itex] goes to 0.
 
Thanks for the input.

An example of a sequence in which [tex]d(x_n,x_{n+1})\rightarrow 0[/tex] , but [tex]d(x_n,x_m)\not\rightarrow 0[/tex] would be let [tex]x_n=ln(n)[/tex]
 
Last edited:
I'll have to think about that! I was thinking of
[tex]a_n= \sum{i= 1}^n \frac{1}{i}= \frac{1}{n}+ \frac{2}{n}+ \frac{3}{n}+ \cdot\cdot\cdot+ \frac{1}{n}[/tex]

Then [itex]|a_n- a_{n-1}= \frac{1}{n}[/itex] goes to 0 as n goes to infinity but the series is not Cauchy since it is well known that the harmonic series does not converge.

(After about 30 seconds of thought I see that ln(n)- ln(n+1)= ln(n/(n+1)) so, in fact, your seires is a variation of mine.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
7K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K