Proof of Cauchy Sequence Convergence with Subsequence

Click For Summary
A Cauchy sequence {s_n} is known to converge, and if it has a subsequence converging to L, the entire sequence must also converge to L. The discussion highlights that while a convergent subsequence implies convergence of the original sequence, the reverse is not automatically true without additional proof. An example is provided where a subsequence converges to a limit different from the overall sequence's limit, illustrating the need for caution in assumptions. The approach to proving convergence involves demonstrating a contradiction if the sequence converges to a limit different from L. The conclusion emphasizes that the properties of Cauchy sequences guarantee convergence to the same limit as their converging subsequences.
tarheelborn
Messages
121
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



If {s_n} is a Cauchy sequence of real numbers which has a subsequence converging to L, prove that {s_n} itself converges to L.

Homework Equations




The Attempt at a Solution



I know that all Cauchy sequences are convergent, and I know that any subsequences of a convergent sequence are convergent to the same limit as the sequence, but I am not sure if I can turn the second part of the statement around to say that if a subsequence is convergent to L, then the sequence converges to the same limit. Any ideas? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
tarheelborn said:

Homework Statement



If {s_n} is a Cauchy sequence of real numbers which has a subsequence converging to L, prove that {s_n} itself converges to L.

Homework Equations




The Attempt at a Solution



I know that all Cauchy sequences are convergent, and I know that any subsequences of a convergent sequence are convergent to the same limit as the sequence, but I am not sure if I can turn the second part of the statement around to say that if a subsequence is convergent to L, then the sequence converges to the same limit. Any ideas? Thanks.
Actually, you can't just say "if a subsequence converges to L, then the sequence must converge to L". For example, the sequence \{a_n\} with a_n= 1- 1/n for n even and a_n= 1/n for n odd has a subsequence (\{a_n\} for a even) that converges to 1 but the sequence itself does not converges.

What you can say is that if the sequence converges, then because, as you say, all subsequences must converge to that limit, yes, the sequence converges to whatever limit any subsequence converges to. The difference is that you must know the sequence does converge. Which you know here because it is a Cauchy sequence.
 
Well, suppose that the Cauchy sequence converges to a number M different than L. Show that this leads to a contradiction by showing that there exists an epsilon such that some sequence value is always further away from M than epsilon.
 
Thank you!
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K