Limits of Sequences: 8.4 |s_n||t_n| < \frac{\epsilon}{M}

In summary, the conversation discusses the use of absolute values in the proof of a mathematical concept, specifically in relation to convergence. The original poster suggests using the inequality |s_n| < \frac{\epsilon}{M} instead of M+1, which would result in an equal sign rather than a less than sign. The other posters point out that this would not work, as it would not satisfy the definition of convergence. They also note a mistake in the original paper, where absolute values were used incorrectly. Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of careful proofreading in mathematical writing.
  • #1
Artusartos
247
0
In this link:

http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~johnsonb/Welcome_files/104/104hw3sum06.pdf

For number 8.4...

Why don't we just say...

[tex]|s_n||t_n| < \frac{\epsilon}{M} M = \epsilon[/tex]?

Thanks in advance
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If you mean, choose N0 such that if n> N0 then [itex]|s_n|< \frac{\epsilon}{M}[/itex] rather than M+1, that would, give us [itex]|s_nt_n|= \epsilon[/itex], not "<" which is required for the definition of convergence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
HallsofIvy said:
If you mean, choose N0 such that if n> N0 then [itex]|s_n|< \frac{\epsilon}{M} rather than M+1, that would, as you say, give us [itex]|s_nt_n|= \epsilon[/itex], not "<" which is required for the definition of convergence.

No I didn't say that...

I said [tex]|s_nt_n| < \frac{\epsilon}{M} M = \epsilon [/tex]. So the first sign is an inequality.
 
  • #4
Yes, you are right about what you said and I have edited my post to remove "as you said". But you are incorrect that it would be "<". You would have, instead, "=", as I said.
 
  • #5
Artusartos said:
Why don't we just say...

Probably because "we" didn't think that closely when "we" wrote that paper. If you ensure that ##|s_n|<\frac\epsilon M## what you actually get is
$$
|s_nt_n| = |s_n|\cdot|t_n| < \frac\epsilon M\cdot|t_n| \leq \frac\epsilon M\cdot M = \epsilon,
$$
which is what you have yourself.

If you look at that paper again, you'll see that the author writes
$$
\begin{eqnarray*}
|s_nt_n − 0| & = & |s_n| \cdot |t_n| \\
& < & \left|\frac\epsilon{M + 1}\right| \cdot |M| \\
& < & \epsilon.
\end{eqnarray*}
$$
Why did he suddenly need absolute values in the middle line? I think he probably didn't proofread what he'd written.
 
  • #6
Michael Redei said:
Probably because "we" didn't think that closely when "we" wrote that paper. If you ensure that ##|s_n|<\frac\epsilon M## what you actually get is
$$
|s_nt_n| = |s_n|\cdot|t_n| < \frac\epsilon M\cdot|t_n| \leq \frac\epsilon M\cdot M = \epsilon,
$$
which is what you have yourself.

If you look at that paper again, you'll see that the author writes
$$
\begin{eqnarray*}
|s_nt_n − 0| & = & |s_n| \cdot |t_n| \\
& < & \left|\frac\epsilon{M + 1}\right| \cdot |M| \\
& < & \epsilon.
\end{eqnarray*}
$$
Why did he suddenly need absolute values in the middle line? I think he probably didn't proofread what he'd written.

Thanks :)
 

1. What is the significance of the expression "8.4 |s_n||t_n| < \frac{\epsilon}{M}" in the context of limits of sequences?

The expression "8.4 |s_n||t_n| < \frac{\epsilon}{M}" represents a condition that must be met in order for a sequence to have a limit. It states that the product of two sequences, |s_n| and |t_n|, must be less than a given value, \frac{\epsilon}{M}, where \epsilon represents some small positive number and M represents a constant. This condition helps to ensure that the two sequences are "squeezing" towards a common limit, as their product must approach 0 as n approaches infinity.

2. What is the purpose of using absolute values in the expression "8.4 |s_n||t_n| < \frac{\epsilon}{M}"?

The use of absolute values ensures that the product of the two sequences will always be positive, which is necessary for the condition to hold true. This helps to avoid any potential issues with negative numbers or alternating signs within the sequences.

3. How does the value of M affect the limit of the sequence?

The value of M determines the size of the "window" in which the two sequences must be "squeezed" in order to have a limit. A smaller value of M will result in a tighter constraint, meaning the two sequences must be closer together, while a larger value of M allows for a wider range of values for the two sequences.

4. Can the expression "8.4 |s_n||t_n| < \frac{\epsilon}{M}" be used to prove the existence of a limit for any sequence?

No, this expression can only be used to prove the existence of a limit for sequences that satisfy the "squeezing" condition. There may be other methods or conditions that must be met in order to prove the existence of a limit for a given sequence.

5. How is the "squeezing" condition related to the concept of a limit?

The "squeezing" condition helps to show that two sequences are approaching a common limit, as their product must approach 0 as n approaches infinity. This is a key concept in the definition of a limit, as it means that the two sequences are getting closer and closer to each other as n increases, ultimately approaching the same value. This provides evidence for the existence of a limit for the given sequence.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
715
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
1K
Back
Top