Proving Cauchy Sequences Using the Definition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mcoulombe
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cauchy Sequence
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that a specific sequence, defined as (81 + 14n) / (50 + 31n), is a Cauchy sequence using its formal definition. The original poster notes that they are aware of the sequence's convergence but are required to apply the Cauchy definition instead.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the expression |s_n - s_m| and its implications for proving the Cauchy property. There is uncertainty about the definitions of epsilon and N, as well as the need to demonstrate the inequality for large n and m.

Discussion Status

Several participants are engaged in clarifying the requirements of the Cauchy definition and exploring the necessary steps to find N. There is a recognition that the inequality must hold for n and m greater than a certain threshold, though consensus on the approach is still developing.

Contextual Notes

Participants express confusion regarding the definitions provided in the assignment, particularly concerning the roles of epsilon and N in the context of the Cauchy sequence definition.

Mcoulombe
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Im trying to prove that a sequence is cauchy using its definition. the sequence is 81+14n/50+31n. i know it converges to 14/31 using l'hospital's rule but the assignment is to use the definition of cauchy


i have tried some things but I am not 100% sure how to start all i have done it look at what

s_n - s_m in absolute value is
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So what is |s_n-s_m|?
 
i got 1811m-1811n/2500+1550m+1550n+961mn
 
there is something else in also confused about the def i was given is:

a Sequence of real numbers, {sn} is said to be cauchy if for each epsilon >0 there exists a real number N such that for all n,m in the set of natural numbers, we have:
n,m> N implies that Sn-sm< epsilon.

what is N supposed to be and do i need to figure it out and i am no sure what epsilon is
 
You'll need to take an arbitrary (but fixed) real number \epsilon. For that specific epsilon, you need to find a suitable N such that

|s_n-s_m|&lt;\epsilon

whenever n,m>N.

In this case, you'll need to show that

|1811m-1811n|&lt;\epsilon|2500+1550m+1550n+961mn|

for large enough n and m.

For what follows, we can always assume (WLOG) that m>n. That way, we can leave out the absolute values. We need to show then that

1811m-1811n&lt;\epsilon(2500+1550m+1550n+961mn)

for suitably large n,m.
 
1811m-1811n<e(2500+1550m+1550n+961mn)

so the LHS of this as m and n approach infinity is 0 obviously making the RHS larger. right?
 
Yes, except that the LHS does not approach 0. You've got a \infty-\infty there. And that doesn't equal 0 necessairely...
 
ok i think i have done my proof but is all I am doing is showing
1811m-1811n<e(2500+1550m+1550n+961mn) or do i also need to find N from the definition
 
Well, you need to show that

1811m-1811n<e(2500+1550m+1550n+961mn)

but that won't hold for all n and m. It holds for all n and m that are greater then a certain N. You'll need to find that N...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K