Is Every Cauchy Sequence in the Real Numbers Convergent?

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 · 2K views
lukaszh
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Hello,

why the set of all real numbers is complete metric space with euclidean metric? I know, that metric space is complete iff all sequences in it converges. But 1,2,3,4,... diverges.

Thanx
 
on Phys.org
lukaszh said:
Hello,

why the set of all real numbers is complete metric space with euclidean metric? I know, that metric space is complete iff all sequences in it converges. But 1,2,3,4,... diverges.

Thanx

Complete is if all Cauchy sequences converge, not any sequence
 
lukaszh said:
Hello,

why the set of all real numbers is complete metric space with euclidean metric? I know, that metric space is complete iff all sequences in it converges. But 1,2,3,4,... diverges.

Thanx
It's what we "know" that gets us into trouble!:biggrin:

As wofsy said, a metric space is complete iff all Cauchy sequences converge, not "all sequences".

And a sequence, {an} is "Cauchy" if and only if the sequence {an- am} converges to 0 as m and n go to infinity independently. It is easy to show that any Cauchy sequence converges. The rational numbers are not "complete" because there exist Cauchy sequences that do not converge. For example, the sequence, {3, 3.1, 3.14, 3.1415, 3.14159, 3.141592, ...}, where the nth term is the decimal expansion of [itex]\pi[/itex] to n places, is Cauchy because the nth and mth term are identical to the min(n, m) place and so their difference goes to 0 as m and n go to infinity. But the sequence does not converge because, as a sequence in the real numbers, it converges to [itex]\pi[/itex] and [itex]\pi[/itex] is not a rational number.
 
Last edited by a moderator: