Proving Convergence of Real Number Sequences with Metric Equations

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving the convergence of a sequence of real numbers using metric equations, specifically demonstrating that lim_{n} p_{n} = p if and only if the sequence {d(p, p_{n})} satisfies lim_{n} d(p, p_{n}) = 0. Participants clarify the implications of convergence and emphasize the need for rigorous proof structure. Key points include the necessity of establishing bounds for ε and the importance of clearly defining the proof requirements for both implications.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of limits in real analysis
  • Familiarity with metric spaces and distance functions
  • Knowledge of ε-N definitions of convergence
  • Basic proof techniques in mathematical analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the ε-N definition of convergence in detail
  • Explore examples of sequences converging to limits in metric spaces
  • Learn about the properties of metric spaces and their implications on convergence
  • Practice writing formal proofs for convergence and continuity
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying real analysis, educators teaching convergence concepts, and anyone looking to strengthen their proof-writing skills in the context of metric spaces.

muzak
Messages
42
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Prove that lim[itex]_{n} p_{n}= p[/itex] iff the sequence of real numbers {d{p,p[itex]_{n}[/itex]}} satisfies lim[itex]_{n}[/itex]d(p,p[itex]_{n}[/itex])=0

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I think I can get the first implication. If [itex]lim_{n} p_{n}[/itex]= p, then we know that d(p,p[itex]_{n}[/itex]) = d(p[itex]_{n}[/itex],p) <[itex]\epsilon[/itex]. Then given [itex]\epsilon[/itex] > 0 and some N, for n>N we have |d{p,p[itex]_{n}[/itex]-0|<d{p,p[itex]_{n} = d(p_{n},p) < \epsilon[/itex].

I'm having a little trouble with the backwards implication, do I just do what I did up above but backwards sorta? Or should I pick some p[itex]_{n}[/itex] and show that it converges to 0, like 1/n or something.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are very much on the right track, but your "proofs" are still quite sloppy and it's hard to see whether you're reasoning circularly here.
For example,
I think I can get the first implication. If [itex]lim_{n} p_{n}[/itex]= p, then we know that d(p,p[itex]_{n}[/itex]) = d(p[itex]_{n}[/itex],p) <[itex]\epsilon[/itex].
Actually, you know that for any [itex]\epsilon > 0[/itex] there is an N such that this is true for all n > N.

Maybe it helps if you first write out exactly what you need to prove, in the form:

For all [itex]\epsilon > 0[/itex], I need to prove that ...(if there exists an N such that ... there also exists an N' such that ...)... , and that (the other implication).
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K