Is the following criterion sufficient for Convergence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Quantumpencil
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Convergence
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the convergence of a sequence {p_n} in R, specifically examining whether the conditions that the absolute difference between successive terms approaches zero and the sequence is bounded are sufficient for convergence.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to explore the necessity of monotonicity for convergence, considering counterexamples and the implications of boundedness and decreasing distances between terms. Participants suggest examples like p_n=sin(sqrt(n)) to illustrate potential divergence despite the conditions given.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively questioning the assumptions required for convergence, with some suggesting that monotonicity is indeed necessary. There is acknowledgment of the complexity involved in proving the original poster's intuition and the exploration of counterexamples is ongoing.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of the harmonic series as a classic example where the conditions do not lead to convergence, highlighting the need for careful consideration of the sequence's behavior.

Quantumpencil
Messages
96
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Say {p_n} is a sequence in R, abs(p_n-p_n+1) -> 0, and {p_n} is bounded. Is it true that {p_n} must converge?



Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



Intuition: Yes; in my attempts to find a counterexample I found sequences which diverged even though successive terms were closer (Partial sums of the Harmonic series), and were not bounded. From diagramming it seems to me that if you have the range of p_n bounded above and below, and the distance between successive terms must decrease, then the boundary will continue to close in from both sides until the sequence converges.

The only thing is I'm having trouble proving this without the assumption that the sequence is monotonic (I can't get a contradiction out of the existence of sup p_n or inf p_n)

So I'd like to make sure, before I continue with the proving, that this is actually true.

EDIT: I actually think this is false. Don't have a counter-example yet, but I think you might could have like, a sequence defined which oscillates around two points... I'm just not sure if I can do that without the oscillation being a convergent one.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You are wise to look hard for counterexamples before you start trying to prove. What about things like p_n=sin(sqrt(n))?
 
Ah, so you do in fact need the Monotonicity assumption. That function is bounded. And as you increase the argument, the difference between successive terms decreases, but it still eventually oscillates back, bounded by 1 and -1 (sqrt 10000) and sqrt (10001) are closer together than sqrt (10) and sqrt (11), so even though the arguments start varying more slower, there is never any convergence.

You can show the divergence just by taking a divergent sub-sequence, and show the the closeness of successive terms with a bit of algebra.

Good stuff.

That explains my difficulty with trying to prove this... lol.
 
Exactly. Oscillate between two points. Just do it slower and slower.
 
The simplest and most famous example is the harmonic series:
\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n}

The difference between successive terms is
\frac{1}{n}- \frac{1}{n+1}= \frac{1}{n(n+1}
which goes to 0 (quadratically) as n goes to infinity.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K