Proof about a limit property clarification

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bonfire09
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit Proof Property
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of a limit property in the context of sequences, specifically addressing the convergence of the product of two sequences. Participants explore the details of the proof, including the use of inequalities and the selection of epsilon values.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the transition from a strict inequality to a non-strict inequality in the proof, questioning the author's choice of notation.
  • Another participant notes that while a strict inequality implies a non-strict one, it may have been clearer for the author to maintain consistency in the use of inequalities.
  • A participant raises concerns about the arbitrary selection of different epsilon values in the proof and questions whether alternative choices could be valid.
  • There is a query regarding the verification of the inequality involving M and epsilon, suggesting that it may require additional justification beyond mere observation.
  • One participant proposes an alternative approach to the proof, emphasizing the boundedness of convergent sequences and presenting their own version of the argument.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the clarity of the proof's notation or the selection of epsilon values. Multiple viewpoints are expressed regarding the validity of different approaches to the proof.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential limitations in the proof's presentation, including the lack of clarity in the use of inequalities and the arbitrary nature of epsilon selections. These points remain unresolved.

bonfire09
Messages
247
Reaction score
0
The book proves this limit and I am a bit confused how all the pieces fit together.
So the book proves "If [itex](s_n)[/itex] converges to [itex]s[/itex] and [itex](t_n)[/itex] converges to [itex]t[/itex], then [itex](s_nt_n)[/itex] converges to [itex]st[/itex]. That is, [itex]lim(s_nt_n) = (lim s_n)(lim t_n)[/itex].

The proof goes like this
Let [itex]\epsilon> 0[/itex] . By Theorem 9.1 there is a constant [itex]M > 0[/itex] such that
[itex]|s_n| ≤ M[/itex]for all [itex]n[/itex]. Since [itex]lim t_n = t[/itex] there exists [itex]N_1[/itex] such that [itex]n > N1[/itex] implies [itex]|t_n − t| <\epsilon/(2M)[/itex] Also, since [itex]lim s_n = s[/itex] there exists [itex]N_2[/itex] such that [itex]n > N_2[/itex]implies [itex]|s_n − s| < \epsilon/(2(|t| + 1))[/itex] Then [itex]|s_nt_n − st| ≤ |s_n| · |t_n − t| + |t| · |s_n − s|<br /> ≤ M · (\epsilon/2M)+ |t| · (\epsilon/(2(|t| + 1))<\epsilon/2+\epsilon/2=\epsilon[/itex].

The part I do not understand about the proof is this jump in the inequality in the last step that is how is [itex]|s_n| · |t_n − t| + |t| · |s_n − s|≤ M · (\epsilon/(2M))+ |t| · (\epsilon/(2(|t| + 1))[/itex] instead of just less than?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry I had accidentally posted this post before I had completed it. So I made several changes to it but now its completed.
 
If your confusion is just in that you expect a [itex]<[/itex] and the book uses a [itex]\leq[/itex], then it's a simple observation that if [itex]a < b[/itex], it is certainly true that [itex]a\leq b[/itex], but maybe it would have been more consistent on the part of the author to use a strict inequality there
 
Oh yes I did forget to ask I also noticed that the author selects two different epsilon values that each limit that is the [itex]\epsilon/2M[/itex] and [itex]\epsilon/(2|t|+1).[/itex] that seem to be completely arbitrary. If I redid the proof and could I chose different values than the author? And also how does the author verify that [itex]M⋅\epsilon/2M+|t|⋅(ϵ/(2(|t|+1))<ϵ /(2)+ϵ /(2)[/itex]?. It seems that should require another proof on its own or is it just possible just by observation?
 
Last edited:
Well anyways I think I figured out a simpler way of doing this proof. By definition of convergence let [itex]\epsilon>0[/itex]. Since all convergent sequences are bounded there exists a real number call it [itex]M[/itex] such that [itex]M>0 \text{ and }\ |s_n| < M \text{ for all n }[/itex]. Since
[itex]lim t_n=t \text{ there exists }\ N_1 \text{ such that }\ n>N_1 \text{ implies } |t_n-t|< \frac{\epsilon}{2M}[/itex]. Similarly for [itex]lim s_n=s \text{ there exists} \ N_2 \text{ such that }\ n>N_2 \text{ implies } |s_n-s|< \frac{\epsilon}{2M}[/itex]. Thus we get [itex]|s_nt_n- st|≤|s_n|*|t_n-t|+|t|*|s_n-s|< M*\frac{\epsilon}{2M} + M*\frac{\epsilon}{2M}=\epsilon[/itex]. Hence [itex]lim s_nt_n=(lim s_n)(lim t_n)[/itex].
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K