Prove a Cauchy Sequence using Geometric Sums

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that a sequence {x_n} is Cauchy under the condition |x_(n+1) - x_n| <= r|x_n - x_(n-1)|, where 0 < r < 1. The user attempts to express the sequence in terms of geometric sums but is advised that {x_n} is arbitrary and cannot be defined this way. It is suggested to use induction to demonstrate that |x_(n+1) - x_n| can be bounded by r^(n-1)|x_2 - x_1|. The conclusion drawn is that since the sequence satisfies the Cauchy condition, it must converge. This establishes the connection between Cauchy sequences and convergence in real numbers.
mathkiddi
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Let {x_n} be a sequence. and let r be a real number 0<r<1. Suppose |x_(n+1) - x_n|<=r|x_n -x_(n-1)| for all n>1. Prove that {x_n} is Cauchy and hence convergent.


Homework Equations



if |r|<1 then the sequence \sum r^k from k=0 to n converges to 1/(1-r)

The Attempt at a Solution



If I let {x_n}=r^2+r^3+...+r^n &
{x_(n+1)}=r^3+r^4+...+r^(n+1) &
{x_(n-1)}=r+r^2+..._r^(n-1)
I can then take |x_(n+1) - x_n|=|r^(n+1)-r^2|
and |x_n -x_(n-1)|=|r^n-r|

If I plug these into my given inequality I have |r^(n+1)-r^2|<=r||r^n-r|

I can then say that since we know 0<r<1 and from our relevat equations we know \sumr^k converges then we know {x_n} is Cauchy and hence converges since every convergent sequence of real numbers is Cauchy.

I am not sure.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Use this
|x_(n+1) - x_n|<=r|x_n -x_(n-1)|
to show that

|x_(n+1) - x_n| <= r^(n-1)|x_2 - x_1|
which can be done by induction


By the way,
You cannot say this:
x_n=r^2+r^3+...+r^n &
x_(n+1)=r^3+r^4+...+r^(n+1) &
x_(n-1)=r+r^2+..._r^(n-1)

x_n is an ARBITRARY sequence with the property that |x_(n+1) - x_n|<=r|x_n -x_(n-1)|.
 
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
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K