Proving a limit and the Order Limit Theorem

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rbzima
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit Theorem
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a limit related to the Order Limit Theorem, specifically addressing the convergence of the sequence (b_n) to b given that (a_n) converges to 0 and the inequality |b_n - b| ≤ a_n holds. Participants explore the implications of convergence and the conditions necessary for the theorem to apply.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in proving that if (a_n) converges to 0 and |b_n - b| ≤ a_n, then (b_n) converges to b.
  • Another participant suggests considering large n such that |a_n| is less than epsilon, implying convergence.
  • A participant emphasizes that |a_n| being less than epsilon indicates that the sequence approaches 0, but questions the implications for (b_n).
  • Several participants reiterate that since (a_n) converges to 0, it suggests that |b_n - b| must also converge to 0, leading to b_n = b.
  • Concerns are raised about whether the reasoning is sufficient and whether additional restrictions on (a_n) or the inequality are necessary for the proof to hold.
  • One participant notes the need for either (a_n) to be a sequence of positive terms or for the inequality to be adjusted to |b_n - b| < |a_n| for the argument to be valid.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the sufficiency of the reasoning provided for the proof. While some assert that the conditions lead to the conclusion that (b_n) converges to b, others highlight the need for additional restrictions, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the nature of the sequences (a_n) and (b_n), particularly concerning the positivity of (a_n) and the form of the inequality involving |b_n - b|.

rbzima
Messages
83
Reaction score
0
If [tex](a_n) \rightarrow 0[/tex] and [tex]\left|b_n - b\right| \leq a_n[/tex], then [tex](b_n) \rightarrow b[/tex].

I'm a little bit stuck on proving this! Part (iii) of the Order Limit Theorem states:

Assume:[tex]lim a_n = a[/tex] and [tex]lim b_n = b[/tex]
If there exists [tex]c \in[/tex] R for which [tex]c \leq b_n[/tex] for all [tex]n \in[/tex] N, then [tex]c \leq b[/tex]. Similarly if [tex]a_n \leq c[/tex] for all [tex]n \in[/tex] N, then [tex]a \leq c[/tex].

I can then take this to a point where [tex]b_n = b[/tex], but somehow that doesn't seem right because [tex]\left|b_n - b\right|<\epsilon[/tex], where [tex]\epsilon > 0[/tex]. Where am I going wrong here!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What happens if you choose n so large that |an| is less than epsilon? Why can you choose such an n?
 
That's exactly what I want. I want |an| to be less than epsilon because it implies convergence for any n, which means |an| is practically nothing because it approaches 0.

I'm not really sure what you are getting at here.
 
You know {an} converges to 0, what does that tell you?
 
d_leet said:
You know {an} converges to 0, what does that tell you?

[tex]b_n - b = 0[/tex]

So, basically, [tex]b_n = b[/tex]

But I'm wondering if that's really all that's necessary?
 
rbzima said:
[tex]b_n - b = 0[/tex]

So, basically, [tex]b_n = b[/tex]

But I'm wondering if that's really all that's necessary?

I don't understand how you get that from what I wrote.

Now IGNORE {bn} for a minute you know that {an} converges to zero, what does that mean?
 
d_leet said:
I don't understand how you get that from what I wrote.

Now IGNORE {bn} for a minute you know that {an} converges to zero, what does that mean?

We had [tex]a_n[/tex] in the inequality, that's what I thought you were referring to.

Basically, the sequence approaches zero! Convergent series are bounded above and below, and a sequence converges when, for every positive integer [tex]\epsilon[/tex], there exists and [tex]N \in[/tex] N such that whenever [tex]n \leq[/tex] N, it follows that |an - a| < [tex]\epsilon[/tex].

I know the definition of convergence, in this case: |an| < [tex]\epsilon[/tex]

Shall I list the properties of convergent sequences while I'm at it too! LOL!
 
rbzima said:
If [tex](a_n) \rightarrow 0[/tex] and [tex]\left|b_n - b\right| \leq a_n[/tex], then [tex](b_n) \rightarrow b[/tex].

I'm a little bit stuck on proving this!
If you are trying to prove just this part, than here you go:
since [tex](a_n) \rightarrow 0[/tex] it means that for every e>o there exists some N(e)>0 such that whenever n>N we have Ia_nI<e, which actually is

-e<a_n<e
Now going back to [tex]\left|b_n - b\right| \leq a_n<e[/tex] which actually means that b_n converges to b.

what else are u looking for?
P.S. This is what d_leet also suggested, i guess!
 
sutupidmath said:
If you are trying to prove just this part, than here you go:
since [tex](a_n) \rightarrow 0[/tex] it means that for every e>o there exists some N(e)>0 such that whenever n>N we have Ia_nI<e, which actually is

-e<a_n<e
Now going back to [tex]\left|b_n - b\right| \leq a_n<e[/tex] which actually means that b_n converges to b.

what else are u looking for?
P.S. This is what d_leet also suggested, i guess!

Two things. One please don't post entire solutions to questions such as this. And two, there actually needs to be an additional restriction to {an} or to the inequality of |b{sub]n[/sub]-b|<an in order for it to make sense; that restriction being either {an} is a sequence of positive terms or the inequality should be |bn-b|<|an|
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K