Proving a sequence is convergent.

porroadventum
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
1. The problem is if an is convergent then prove or disprove by giving a counter example that an2 is also convergent.
2. Since an is convergent then for all ε>0 there exists n0\in N such that lan-Ll<ε for all n>=n0

So I then tried squaring (an-L) which gives an2 -2anL +L22
How do I manipulate this to show that an2 has a limit L too?

Or should I be looking for a counter example? I can't think of any!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
porroadventum said:
1. The problem is if an is convergent then prove or disprove by giving a counter example that an2 is also convergent.



2. Since an is convergent then for all ε>0 there exists n0\in N such that lan-Ll<ε for all n>=n0

So I then tried squaring (an-L) which gives an2 -2anL +L22
How do I manipulate this to show that an2 has a limit L too?

Or should I be looking for a counter example? I can't think of any!

If the sequence {an2} converges, then for any ε > 0, there is a number n1 such that |an2 - L2 | < ε when n >= n1. Given that the sequence {an} converges, can you use this to show that {an2} also converges?
 
You can also start from:
|a^2_n-L^2|=|a_n+L|\cdot|a_n-L|
 
Mark44 said:
If the sequence {an2} converges, then for any ε > 0, there is a number n1 such that |an2 - L2 | < ε when n >= n1. Given that the sequence {an} converges, can you use this to show that {an2} also converges?
I'm quite sure Mark means, |an2 - L2 | < ε ...
 
SammyS said:
I'm quite sure Mark means, |an2 - L2 | < ε ...
No, I meant L2, to distinguish it from L. It might turn out that L2 = L2, but I didn't want to make that assumption.
 
<br /> \forall \epsilon&gt;0\ \exists N_1: n &gt;N_1\ |a_n -L|&lt; \epsilon

but also

<br /> \forall \epsilon&gt;0\ \exists N_2: n &gt;N_2\ |a_n -L|&lt; \epsilon_1 = \frac{\epsilon}{M+L}

Remember that every convergent sequence is bounded from above, say in this case by M.

Now we get:

|a_n^2 -L^2| = |a_n-L||a_n+L| &lt;\epsilon_1 (M+L)&lt;\epsilon if n&gt;max(N_1,N_2)
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top