MHB Limit of Sequence: Proving $b_0\in L(a_n)$ and Convergence Condition

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit Sequence
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that if a sequence \( (b_n) \) converges to \( b_0 \) and consists of limit points of another sequence \( (a_n) \), then \( b_0 \) is also a limit point of \( (a_n) \). Participants explore the conditions under which a sequence converges to a limit in \( \mathbb{R} \ and how subsequences behave in relation to this convergence. They propose that a sequence converges to a limit if every subsequence converges to that same limit, and they examine the implications of subsequences having different limits. The conversation includes clarifications on definitions and conditions for limit points and convergence, emphasizing the need for rigorous proof. Overall, the thread delves into the nuances of convergence and limit points in real sequences.
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Let $(a_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ be a real sequence and let $(b_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ a sequence in the set of limit points of $(a_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$, $L(a_n)$.

There is also a $b_0\in \mathbb{R}$ with $b_n\rightarrow b_0$ for $n\rightarrow \infty$.

I want to show that then $b_0\in L(a_n)$.

How could we show this? (Wondering) I want to show also that a sequence $(a_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ converges to $a\in \mathbb{R}$ iff each subsequence $(a_{n_k})_{k=1}^{\infty}$ of $(a_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ has a subsequence $(a_{n_{k_j}})_{j=1}^{\infty}$ that converges to $a$.

We have that a sequence converges to a limit in $\mathbb{R}$ iff each subsequence converges to that limit, or not?
But how could we show the above condition? (Wondering)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
For the second question is it maybe as follows? (Wondering)

Proposition:
A sequence converges to a limit in $\mathbb{R}$ iff each subsequence converges to that limit$\Leftarrow$ :
We suppose that each subsequence $(a_{n_k})_{k=1}^{\infty}$ of $(a_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ has a subsequence $(a_{n_{k_j}})_{j=1}^{\infty}$ that converges to $a$.
From the proposition we get that each subsequence has to converge to $a$.
Again from the proposition we get that the sequence has to converge to $a$.

$\Rightarrow$ :
We suppose that not each subsequence $(a_{n_k})_{k=1}^{\infty}$ of $(a_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ has a subsequence $(a_{n_{k_j}})_{j=1}^{\infty}$ that converges to $a$. Then there are some subseuqneces that vonverge to an other point, say $b\neq a$. So, it cannit be that the sequnec converges to $a$. Is this correct? (Wondering)
 
For the second question I changed it.. $\Leftarrow$ :
We suppose that $(a_n)$ does not converfe to $a$, so there is at least two limit points, so there are two different subsequences that converge to different points, say $a$ and $b$.
From the proposition we have that the subsequence that converges to $b$ has no subsequence that converges to $a$.

$\Rightarrow$ :
We suppose that $(a_n)$ converges to $a$. From the proposition we have that every subsequence converges to $a$. If we apply the proposition to each subsequence we get that each subsequence of esch subsequence converges to $a$. Is this correct? (Wondering)
 
mathmari said:
Let $(a_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ be a real sequence and let $(b_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ a sequence in the set of limit points of $(a_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$, $L(a_n)$.

There is also a $b_0\in \mathbb{R}$ with $b_n\rightarrow b_0$ for $n\rightarrow \infty$.

I want to show that then $b_0\in L(a_n)$.

How could we show this? (Wondering)
We have that $b_n\in H(a_n)$ is a limit point of $(a_n)$ if every neighbourhood of $b_n$ contains at least one point of $(a_n)$ different from $b_n$ itself, right? (Wondering)

Let $y_n$ be that point.
So we have then that $|y_n-b_n|>0$ ? (Wondering)

If $b_n=b_0$ for some $n$ then we have that $b_0\in L(a_n)$.
If $b_n\neq b_0, \forall n$ then from the above defintion $0<|y_n-b_n|<|b_n-b_0|$.

Is this correct? Does this help? (Wondering)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K