Prove statement on a sequence of real numbers

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a statement regarding a sequence of real numbers, specifically that a sequence does not have any convergent subsequence if and only if the limit of the absolute values of its terms approaches infinity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the limit approaching infinity and the existence of convergent subsequences. They discuss proving the contrapositive and the definitions of limits in the context of sequences.

Discussion Status

Some participants have successfully outlined one direction of the proof, while others are engaged in clarifying the definitions and implications of limits. There is an ongoing examination of the assumptions and the logical structure of the arguments presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of correctly interpreting the negation of limit definitions and the implications of boundedness in sequences. There is a recognition of potential misunderstandings regarding the nature of limits and subsequences.

mahler1
Messages
217
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement .

Prove that ##\{x_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N} \subset \mathbb R## doesn't have any convergent subsequence iff ##lim_{n \to \infty} |x_n|=+\infty##.

The attempt at a solution.

I think I could correctly prove the implication ##lim_{n \to \infty} |x_n|=+\infty \implies## it doesn't exist any convergent subsequence:

Suppose there exists ##\{x_{n_k}\}_{k \in \mathbb N}## convergent and call the limit ##A##. Then, for ##ε=1##, there exists ##n_0: \forall n≥n_0, |x_{n_k}-A|< 1##.

This means, ##\forall n≥n_0, |x_{n_k}|-|A|\leq |x_{n_k}-A|< 1 \implies |x_{n_k}|<1+|A| ##.

On the other hand, ##lim_{n \to \infty} |x_n|=+\infty##, so, for ##M=1+|A|##, there exists ##n_1 : \forall n≥n_1, |x_n|>M##.

Take ##N=max\{n_0,n_1\}##, then for all ##n_k≥N, \space M<|x_{n_k}|<M##, which is clearly absurd. This proves that with the given hypothesis, it can't exist any convergent subsequence of the original sequence.

I need help to prove the other implication: If there is no convergent subsequence then ##lim_{n \to \infty} |x_n|=+\infty##.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mahler1 said:
Homework Statement .

Prove that ##\{x_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N} \subset \mathbb R## doesn't have any convergent subsequence iff ##lim_{n \to \infty} |x_n|=+\infty##.

The attempt at a solution.

I think I could correctly prove the implication ##lim_{n \to \infty} |x_n|=+\infty \implies## it doesn't exist any convergent subsequence:

Suppose there exists ##\{x_{n_k}\}_{k \in \mathbb N}## convergent and call the limit ##A##. Then, for ##ε=1##, there exists ##n_0: \forall n≥n_0, |x_{n_k}-A|< 1##.

This means, ##\forall n≥n_0, |x_{n_k}|-|A|\leq |x_{n_k}-A|< 1 \implies |x_{n_k}|<1+|A| ##.

On the other hand, ##lim_{n \to \infty} |x_n|=+\infty##, so, for ##M=1+|A|##, there exists ##n_1 : \forall n≥n_1, |x_n|>M##.

Take ##N=max\{n_0,n_1\}##, then for all ##n_k≥N, \space M<|x_{n_k}|<M##, which is clearly absurd. This proves that with the given hypothesis, it can't exist any convergent subsequence of the original sequence.

I need help to prove the other implication: If there is no convergent subsequence then ##lim_{n \to \infty} |x_n|=+\infty##.

Try and think about proving the contrapositive. I.e. if it's not true that ##lim_{n \to \infty} |x_n|=+\infty## then ##x_n## has a convergent subsequence. You'll have to think carefully about how to negate the definition of the limit.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Dick said:
Try and think about proving the contrapositive. I.e. if it's not true that ##lim_{n \to \infty} |x_n|=+\infty## then ##x_n## has a convergent subsequence. You'll have to think carefully about how to negate the definition of the limit.

Suppose it's not true that ##lim_{n \to \infty} |x_n|=+\infty##. Then, there exists ##M>0## ,such that for every natural number ##j##, there is ##n_j>j## : ##|a_{n_j}|\leq M##. This means the subsequence ##\{a_{n_j}\}_{j \in \mathbb N}## is bounded. By the Bolzano Weierstrass theorem, there exits ##\{x_{n_{j_k}}\}_{k \in \mathbb N}## convergente subsequence. But ##\{x_{n_{j_k}}\}_{k \in \mathbb N}##is also a subsequence of the sequence ##\{x_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N}##. From here it follows the contraposivite is true, so if ##\{x_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N}## doesn't have any convergent subsequence, then ##lim_{n \to \infty} |x_n|=+\infty##.

Thanks, Dick!
 
Last edited:
mahler1 said:
Suppose ##lim_{n \to \infty} |x_n|≠+\infty##. Pick ##M>0## arbitrary, then, for every natural number ##j##, there exists ##n_j>j## such that ##|a_{n_j}|\leq M##. This means the subsequence ##\{a_{n_j}\}_{j \in \mathbb N}## is bounded. By the Bolzano Weierstrass theorem, there exits ##\{x_{n_{j_k}}\}_{k \in \mathbb N}## convergente subsequence. But ##\{x_{n_{j_k}}\}_{k \in \mathbb N}##is also a subsequence of the sequence ##\{x_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N}##. From here it follows the contraposivite is true, so if ##\{x_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N}## doesn't have any convergent subsequence, then ##lim_{n \to \infty} |x_n|=+\infty##.

Thanks, Dick!

That's roughly the idea, but I'd stay away from writing things like ##lim_{n \to \infty} |x_n|≠+\infty##, it sort of implies that ##|x_n|## has a limit, but it's just not infinity. ##|x_n|## may have no limit. More seriously, you can't pick ##M>0## arbitrary, some M's may not work. Think about the negation of the limit definition again.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Dick said:
That's roughly the idea, but I'd stay away from writing things like ##lim_{n \to \infty} |x_n|≠+\infty##, it sort of implies that ##|x_n|## has a limit, but it's just not infinity. ##|x_n|## may have no limit. More seriously, you can't pick ##M>0## arbitrary, some M's may not work. Think about the negation of the limit definition again.

You're right, ##M## is not arbitrary. I've corrected it. However, I don't understand why saying it's not true ##lim_{n \to \infty} |x_n|=+\infty## is not equivalent to say ##lim_{n \to \infty} |x_n|≠+\infty##. If it is not infinity, then, it is different to infinity, I agree that the limit may not exist (the sequence could oscillate) but why saying ##lim_{n \to \infty} |x_n|≠+\infty## would imply ##|x_n|## has a limit?
 
mahler1 said:
You're right, ##M## is not arbitrary. I've corrected it. However, I don't understand why saying it's not true ##lim_{n \to \infty} |x_n|=+\infty## is not equivalent to say ##lim_{n \to \infty} |x_n|≠+\infty##. If it is not infinity, then, it is different to infinity, I agree that the limit may not exist (the sequence could oscillate) but why saying ##lim_{n \to \infty} |x_n|≠+\infty## would imply ##|x_n|## has a limit?

Because if the limit doesn't exist, then you are saying that something that doesn't exist is not equal to infinity. Doesn't that sound funny to you? It does to me.
 
Dick said:
Because if the limit doesn't exist, then you are saying that something that doesn't exist is not equal to infinity. Doesn't that sound funny to you? It does to me.

Yes, now I see it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
34
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K