Proof of $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}a_n=\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}b_n$ with $\epsilon-N$

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the limits of two convergent sequences are equal, given that the limit of their absolute difference approaches zero. Participants are exploring an $\epsilon-N$ proof approach to establish this result, focusing on the conditions and implications of their arguments.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose starting with the assumption that one sequence is greater than the other, but later acknowledge that this assumption may not hold universally.
  • Several participants emphasize the need to establish that for every $\epsilon > 0$, there exists an $N$ such that the sequences satisfy the limit conditions.
  • One participant suggests using the triangle inequality to relate the limits of the sequences and derive that they must be equal.
  • There is discussion about the implications of choosing $\epsilon^* = 3\epsilon$ and whether it affects the validity of the proof, with some arguing that it does not matter since $\epsilon$ is arbitrary.
  • A participant mentions the importance of epsilon-delta proofs for understanding limits and continuity, suggesting that practice and deeper conceptual understanding may improve proficiency in these proofs.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the initial assumptions regarding the sequences and the implications of their proofs. While there is some agreement on the use of the triangle inequality and the arbitrary nature of $\epsilon$, the discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to the proof.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the assumption of one sequence being greater than the other is a significant limitation, as it may not apply in all cases. The discussion also highlights the reliance on definitions and the need for careful handling of inequalities in the proof.

Dethrone
Messages
716
Reaction score
0
Let ${a_n}$ and ${b_n}$ be two convergent sequences such that $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}|a_n-b_n|=0$. Give an $\epsilon-N$ proof to show that $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}a_n=\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}b_n$.

Right now, I've just said without loss of generality, assume that $a_n>b_n$ for all $n>N$, then since $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}|a_n-b_n|=0$, we have $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}a_n-\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}b_n=0$ and the results follow.
But I haven't used "$\epsilon$" at all...I'm thinking I need to prove that $\forall \epsilon >0$, $\exists N$ s.t whenever $n>N, |a_n-\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}b_n|=\epsilon$.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Rido12 said:
Let ${a_n}$ and ${b_n}$ be two convergent sequences such that $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}|a_n-b_n|=0$. Give an $\epsilon-N$ proof to show that $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}a_n=\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}b_n$.

Right now, I've just said without loss of generality, assume that $a_n>b_n$ for all $n>N$, then since $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}|a_n-b_n|=0$, we have $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}a_n-\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}b_n=0$ and the results follow.
But I haven't used "$\epsilon$" at all...I'm thinking I need to prove that $\forall \epsilon >0$, $\exists N$ s.t whenever $n>N, |a_n-\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}b_n|=\epsilon$.

Hi Rido12, :)

You are given that, $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}|a_n-b_n|=0$. Hence for all $\epsilon > 0$ there exist $N_1>\mathbb{N}$ such that,

\[|a_n-b_n|<\epsilon\mbox{ whenever }n>N_1\]

Suppose, $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}a_n=L_1$ and $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}b_n=L_2$. Hence for all $\epsilon > 0$ there exist $N_2>\mathbb{N}$ such that,

\[|a_n-L_1|<\epsilon\mbox{ whenever }n>N_2\]

and for all $\epsilon > 0$ there exist $N_3>\mathbb{N}$ such that,

\[|b_n-L_2|<\epsilon\mbox{ whenever }n>N_3\]

Adding the above two inequalities and using the triangle inequality we get,

\[|(a_n-b_n)-(L_1-L_2)|<2\epsilon\mbox{ whenever }n>\mbox{Max }(N_2,N_3)\]

Adding the first inequality to the above result and again using the triangle inequality we get,

\[|L_1-L_2|<3\epsilon\mbox{ whenever }n>\mbox{Max }(N_1, N_2, N_3)\]

Hence,

\[L_1=L_2\]
 
Sudharaka said:
Hi Rido12, :)

You are given that, $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}|a_n-b_n|=0$. Hence for all $\epsilon > 0$ there exist $N_1>\mathbb{N}$ such that,

\[|a_n-b_n|<\epsilon\mbox{ whenever }n>N_1\]

Suppose, $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}a_n=L_1$ and $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}b_n=L_2$. Hence for all $\epsilon > 0$ there exist $N_2>\mathbb{N}$ such that,

\[|a_n-L_1|<\epsilon\mbox{ whenever }n>N_2\]

and for all $\epsilon > 0$ there exist $N_3>\mathbb{N}$ such that,

\[|b_n-L_2|<\epsilon\mbox{ whenever }n>N_3\]

Adding the above two inequalities and using the triangle inequality we get,

\[|(a_n-b_n)-(L_1-L_2)|<2\epsilon\mbox{ whenever }n>\mbox{Max }(N_2,N_3)\]

Adding the first inequality to the above result and again using the triangle inequality we get,

\[|L_1-L_2|<3\epsilon\mbox{ whenever }n>\mbox{Max }(N_1, N_2, N_3)\]

Hence,

\[L_1=L_2\]

Oh wow, that makes a lot of sense, thanks! Just one clarification, so at the end, we can pick $\epsilon^*=3\epsilon$ and so it follows the standard form that whenever $n>\mbox{Max }(N_1, N_2, N_3)$, $|L_1-L_2|<\epsilon^*$? Should we be concerned that $\epsilon^*>\epsilon$, or does it not matter because it is arbitrary?
 
Rido12 said:
Let ${a_n}$ and ${b_n}$ be two convergent sequences such that $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}|a_n-b_n|=0$. Give an $\epsilon-N$ proof to show that $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}a_n=\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}b_n$.

Right now, I've just said without loss of generality, assume that $a_n>b_n$ for all $n>N$, then since $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}|a_n-b_n|=0$, we have $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}a_n-\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}b_n=0$ and the results follow.
But I haven't used "$\epsilon$" at all...I'm thinking I need to prove that $\forall \epsilon >0$, $\exists N$ s.t whenever $n>N, |a_n-\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}b_n|=\epsilon$.
Actually, that is a very serious loss of generality. There is no reason to think that one of the sequences will always be greater than the other. For example, you might have $a_n = \dfrac{(-1)^n}n$ and $b_n = \dfrac{(-1)^{n-1}}n$. In that example, both sequences converge to $0$, and both sequences alternate in sign. But whenever one of them is positive the other one is negative. So you cannot say that either of them is always greater than the other.

To prove the result, you need to use some argument like the proof that Sudharaka suggests.
 
Rido12 said:
Oh wow, that makes a lot of sense, thanks! Just one clarification, so at the end, we can pick $\epsilon^*=3\epsilon$ and so it follows the standard form that whenever $n>\mbox{Max }(N_1, N_2, N_3)$, $|L_1-L_2|<\epsilon^*$? Should we be concerned that $\epsilon^*>\epsilon$, or does it not matter because it is arbitrary?

It doesn't matter since $\epsilon$ is arbitrary. Hence $\epsilon*$ is also arbitrary. If you had selected $\frac{\epsilon}{3}$ as the arbitrary value in the beginning instead of $\epsilon$ then you would have ended up with $\epsilon$ at the end. Some people do this but I prefer to just go with $\epsilon$ since even if you end up with a multiplication of $\epsilon$ it doesn't really matter as it's again arbitrary. :)
 
Sudharaka said:
It doesn't matter since $\epsilon$ is arbitrary. Hence $\epsilon*$ is also arbitrary. If you had selected $\frac{\epsilon}{3}$ as the arbitrary value in the beginning instead of $\epsilon$ then you would have ended up with $\epsilon$ at the end. Some people do this but I prefer to just go with $\epsilon$ since even if you end up with a multiplication of $\epsilon$ it doesn't really matter as it's again arbitrary. :)

Ah, yes, I'm used to seeing $\epsilon/3$. I always thought it was neat to end a proof with $\epsilon /3 + \epsilon/3+\epsilon/3=\epsilon$. I'm not too great at delta-epsilon proofs...is that a skill that gets honed with more advanced courses like real analysis (not really sure what that is actually :P)? (Wondering)
 
Epsilon-delta proofs are nice as a "first principles" tool to really understand what is going on, the various conditions needed, etc.. once you prove the basic limit theorems relating to function continuity, those are much easier to use. For instance your question instantly follows from the continuity of the absolute value function.
 
Rido12 said:
Ah, yes, I'm used to seeing $\epsilon/3$. I always thought it was neat to end a proof with $\epsilon /3 + \epsilon/3+\epsilon/3=\epsilon$. I'm not too great at delta-epsilon proofs...is that a skill that gets honed with more advanced courses like real analysis (not really sure what that is actually :P)? (Wondering)

Ha ha... I don't know. Perhaps you can improve by doing more problems of this kind or it might also come with getting a more thorough understanding about the concepts itself in which case the below link might help. Works differently for different people I guess. :p :)

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/differential-calculus/limits_topic/epsilon_delta
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K