Proving inf(x) = lim with Cauchy Sequence

  • Thread starter Thread starter *melinda*
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
To prove that the infimum of a bounded set E exists as the limit of a sequence, one can apply the bisection method similar to finding the supremum. Start with an interval [a,b] that contains E and iteratively narrow it down by checking the midpoint c. If c is in E, reduce the interval to [a,c]; if not, reduce it to [c,b]. This process continues until the interval is sufficiently small, allowing for the identification of the infimum x. Finally, construct a sequence of elements from E that converge to x, demonstrating that x = lim(x_n).
*melinda*
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Question:

Suppose there is a set E\subset \Re is bounded from below.
Let x=inf(E)
Prove there exists a sequence x_1, x_2,... \in E, such that x=lim(x_n).

I am not sure but it seems like my x=lim(x_n) =liminf(x_n).
In class we constructed a Cauchy sequence by bisection to find sup. To do this proof I was thinking that I should do the same, but do it to find inf.

Does this seem like it will work?
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, your approach is correct. You can use the same method of bisection to find the infimum of the set, and then construct a sequence that converges to it. The idea is to start with an interval [a,b] that covers E. Then, use the bisection method to find the infimum x. This means you will take the midpoint c of the interval [a,b] and check whether c is in E or not. If c is in E, then the infimum of E must be less than c, so you can then reduce the interval to [a,c]. If c is not in E, then the infimum of E must be greater than c, so you can reduce the interval to [c,b]. You can repeat this process until the interval is of size less than some arbitrary tolerance. Once you have found the infimum x, you can easily construct a sequence x_1, x_2, ... in E that converges to x by choosing elements of E that are close enough to x.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top