Proving a Sequence is Convergent

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
1 reply · 2K views
bobcat817
Messages
9
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let {[tex]a_{n}[/tex]}[tex]^{\infty}_{n=1}[/tex] be a sequence of real numbers that satisfies


|[tex]a_{n+1}[/tex] - [tex]a_{n}[/tex]| [tex]\leq[/tex] [tex]\frac{1}{2}[/tex]|[tex]a_{n}[/tex] - [tex]a_{n-1}[/tex]|

for all n[tex]\geq[/tex]2


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



So, I know that it suffices to show that the sequence is Cauchy to prove this. And I can show that

|[tex]a_{m}[/tex] - [tex]a_{n}[/tex]| [tex]\leq[/tex] [tex]\sum[/tex][tex]^{m-1}_{n}[/tex][tex]\frac{1}{2}[/tex][tex]^{k-1}[/tex] * |[tex]a_{2}[/tex] - [tex]a_{1}[/tex]|

And that is about where I get lost. I'm very unclear on how to define the N in relation to the [tex]\epsilon[/tex].
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I will take your comment that you've shown

[tex] |a_m - a_n | \le |a_2 - a_1| \sum_{k=n}^m \left(\frac 1 2 \right)^k[/tex]

as correct - make sure it's correct.

Suppose [tex]\varepsilon > 0[/tex] is given. Try taking [tex]N[/tex] so large that [tex]n, m[/tex] larger than [tex]N[/tex] give

[tex] \sum_{k=n}^m \left(\frac 1 2 \right)^k < \frac{\varepsilon}{2|x_2 - x_1|}[/tex]

This should work (why the 2 in my denom - to make sure the sequence terms differ by less than [tex]\varepsilon[/tex] - it's a holdover from my student days, and I'm too old to change.)