Proof of "Every Cauchy Sequence is Bounded

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the proposition that "every Cauchy sequence in a metric space is bounded." Participants are examining the validity of a specific step in the proof as presented on a wiki page, particularly focusing on the implications of using strict inequalities versus non-strict inequalities in the definition of Cauchy sequences.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how the proof can take m = N_1 while also requiring m > N_1, suggesting a potential flaw in the argument.
  • Another participant agrees that there is an error in the wiki, proposing that the notation should be adjusted from m, n > N to m, n ≥ N to align with the definition of a Cauchy sequence.
  • A third participant notes that despite the perceived error, several functional analysis texts present the proof similarly to the wiki, raising the question of who is correct.
  • A later reply clarifies that while Cauchy sequences can be defined using either strict or non-strict inequalities, using the strict inequality in the proof necessitates additional considerations, such as introducing another index N_2 > N_1.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the correctness of the proof as presented in the wiki, with some asserting it contains an error while others point out that similar proofs appear in established literature. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these differing definitions.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the proof's assumptions and the dependency on the definitions of Cauchy sequences, particularly concerning the use of strict versus non-strict inequalities.

fderingoz
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
I read the proof of the proposition "every cauchy sequence in a metric spaces is bounded" from

http://www.proofwiki.org/wiki/Every_Cauchy_Sequence_is_Bounded

I don't understand that how we can take m=N_{1} while m>N_{1} ?

In fact i mean that in a metric space (A,d) can we say that

[\forallm,n>N_{1}\Rightarrow d(x_{n},x_{m})<1]\Rightarrow[\foralln\geqN_{1}\Rightarrow d(x_{n},x_{_{N_{1}}})<1]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
fderingoz said:
I read the proof of the proposition "every cauchy sequence in a metric spaces is bounded" from

http://www.proofwiki.org/wiki/Every_Cauchy_Sequence_is_Bounded

I don't understand that how we can take m=N_{1} while m>N_{1} ?

In fact i mean that in a metric space (A,d) can we say that

[\forallm,n>N_{1}\Rightarrow d(x_{n},x_{m})<1]\Rightarrow[\foralln\geqN_{1}\Rightarrow d(x_{n},x_{_{N_{1}}})<1]
You are right. This is an error in the wiki. m,n&gt;N should be changed to m,n\ge N wherever it occurs (this also holds with N_1 instead of N). This fits the wiki's definition of Cauchy sequence, which the wiki's proof doesn't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you for the answer i also think like you. This is an error in the wiki. But i saw several functional analysis book which write the proof of proposition same as in wiki. So,

Who is wrong?
 
Well, we can define "Cauchy sequence" with either &gt; or \ge, but in the former case, we cannot use N_1 the way it is used in the proof in the wiki. Then we also need an N_2&gt;N_1 to work with, or something like that.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K