Proof: Limit Comparison for a < b in Convergent Sequences

  • Thread starter Thread starter khdani
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limits Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the inequality \( a_n < b_n \) given that \( \lim(a_n) = a \) and \( \lim(b_n) = b \) with \( a < b \). Participants clarify that while the inequality holds for sufficiently large \( n \), it cannot be universally proven for all \( n \). The definition of limits using \( \epsilon \) is emphasized as a critical tool for establishing the relationship between the sequences. Counterexamples are provided to illustrate that the inequality does not hold for smaller values of \( n \).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of limits in calculus
  • Familiarity with the epsilon-delta definition of limits
  • Knowledge of convergent sequences
  • Ability to construct counterexamples in mathematical proofs
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the epsilon-delta definition of limits in detail
  • Explore properties of convergent sequences and their implications
  • Learn how to construct and analyze counterexamples in mathematical proofs
  • Investigate the behavior of sequences as \( n \) approaches infinity
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and anyone interested in advanced calculus or real analysis, particularly those focusing on limits and sequence behavior.

khdani
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Hello,
Please help me prove the following:
given lim(an)=a and lim(bn)=b if a<b prove that an < bn.

can i say that if a/b < 1 than an<bn ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What if b = 0?
 
if b=0 than a is negative and probably an < bn
so it still holds, but how do i prove that?
 
Consider the sequence an - bn. What can you say about this sequence?
 
can I say that
lim(an-bn) = (a-b) < 0
hence an < bn ?
 
You can, but it doesn't convince me that an < bn. Also, I think that what you're trying to prove is false.
 
khdani said:
Hello,
Please help me prove the following:
given lim(an)=a and lim(bn)=b if a<b prove that an < bn.
You can't prove it- it isn't true. What you can prove is that for n large enough, an< bn. Use the definition of limit with \epsilon less that half the difference between a and b.

But you cannot say anything about an and bn for smaller values of n.

can i say that if a/b < 1 than an<bn ?
No, that's not true either. Again, it is only true for "sufficiently large" n.

Got example, an= 1/n converges to 1 while bn= 1/2n for n= 1 to 1000000, bn= 2- 1/n for n> 1000000 converges to 2 (so a= 0< 2= b and a/b= 1/2< 1) but an< bn only for n> 1000000. And you should be able to see how to make examples where that is true only for n> whatever number you want.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K