Limit definition gives a contradiction

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the limit definition of sequences and the implications of manipulating inequalities derived from limits. Participants explore the logic behind the apparent contradiction that arises when subtracting inequalities related to converging sequences.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant claims that the manipulation of inequalities leads to a contradiction, suggesting that a number cannot be both greater and less than the same number simultaneously.
  • Another participant points out that the epsilons used in the inequalities do not need to be the same unless the sequences converge to the same limit.
  • It is argued that even if the epsilons were equal, a contradiction would still arise from the original logic presented.
  • A participant explains that while inequalities are transitive, they do not provide information about the relationship between the values of the sequences involved, emphasizing that the inequalities can be preserved under certain operations.
  • One participant challenges the validity of subtracting inequalities, providing a counterexample to illustrate that such manipulation can lead to nonsensical results. They suggest an alternative approach using negation and addition of inequalities to avoid contradiction.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of subtracting inequalities and the implications of the limit definitions. There is no consensus on the original logic or the resulting contradiction, indicating ongoing disagreement.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the manipulation of inequalities, particularly regarding the assumptions about the equality of epsilons and the nature of operations performed on inequalities. The discussion remains focused on the logical structure rather than reaching a definitive conclusion.

torquerotates
Messages
207
Reaction score
0
Limit definition gives a contradiction!

say we are given sequences a(n), b(n) such that, a(n)->a, b(n)->b

that means for epsilon>0,

a-epsilon<a(n)<a+epsilon when n>N1

b-epsilon<b(n)<b+epsilon when n>N2

set N=max(N1,N2)

when n>N,
we can subtract the two inequalities

(b-a) +0<b(n)-a(n)<(b-a)+0

the epsilons cancel

b-a<b(n)-a(n)<b-a this is a contradiction. How can a number be bigger and smaller than the same number at the same time? There must be something wrong with my logic.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


For one your epsilons are not going to be the same for both sequences unless they are equal.
 


But in the case that they are equal, we would get a contradiction.
 


While inequalities exhibit transitivity it is not as complete as that of equalities. a>b, b>c implies a>c however, a>c, b>c does not necessarily imply a=b, in fact, it provides no information on the relation between the values of a and b. Similarly, [tex]|a(n)-a|<\epsilon[/tex] and [tex]|b(n)-b|<\epsilon[/tex] gives no information about the relationship between the values of the quantities inside the absolute signs. The inequalities are preserved under operations that are monotonic on their arguments, e.g., adding the same number to both sides, exponentiating both sides. So, it is still possible to bound [tex]|a(n)-a|-|b(n)-b|[/tex], but the bound is not zero, and is not equivalent to the contradiction you obtained.
 


The problem with your logic is that it is not in valid to subtract inequalities from each other. As a simple counterexample, consider that if this were valid, we could subtract 0<1 from 0<1 to obtain 0<0, no limit concept required.

Now, it is valid to add inequalities. Suppose that we tried to perform a similar operation by first negating one of the inequalities and then adding them. Negation reverses the inequality, so we get -a+ε > -a(n) > -a-ε, which we can also write as -a-ε < -a(n) < -a+ε. Adding this to the other equality yields b-a-2ε < b(n)-a(n) < b-a + 2ε, which is not contradictory, and is in fact useful in demonstrating that b(n)-a(n) → b-a.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K