Proving Sequence Convergence in R^2 with Sup Norm

  • Thread starter Thread starter bugatti79
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sequence
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the convergence of a sequence in \( \mathbb{R}^2 \) with respect to the sup norm. Participants are tasked with showing that a sequence \( x^n \) converges to a limit \( x \) if and only if its components converge individually.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of component-wise convergence in the context of the sup norm. There are attempts to clarify notation and structure in the proof, as well as suggestions to reorder statements for clarity. Some participants question the completeness of the proof and emphasize the need to show both directions of the convergence.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing guidance on how to structure the proof and address potential pitfalls in notation and reasoning. There is recognition of the need to demonstrate both the forward and reverse implications of convergence.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of careful notation and the need for clarity in the assumptions made during the proof. There is also mention of the requirement to find appropriate \( n_0 \) values for the convergence criteria.

bugatti79
Messages
786
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement



Consider ##R^2## with the sup norm ##|| ||_∞## defined by ##||x||_\infty=sup(|x_1|,|x_2|)## for ##x = (x1, x2)##.

Show that a sequence

##x^{n} \in (R^2, || ||_\infty)## where

##x^{n} =(x^ {n}_1, x^{n}_2) ## converges to

##x = (x_1, x_2) \in R^2## (with the sup norm) if and only if

## x^{n}_1 \to x_1##, and ##x^{n}_2→ x_2 \in R##.




The Attempt at a Solution



We need to show ##x^n_1 \to x_1## and ##x^n_2 \to x_2 \in R##

Assume that ##x^n_1 \to x_1 \in (R^2, || ||_\infty)##, we know


## \exists n_0 in N s.t ||x^n-x||_\infty < \epsilon \forall n>n_0## ie

##||(x^n_1,x^n_2)-(x_1,x_2)||_\infty =sup|(x^n_1-x_1, x^n_2-x_2)| < \epsilon ##
##= max|(x^n_1-x_1, x^n_2-x_2)|##

We have that

##|x^n_1-x_1| \le max (x^n_1-x_1, x^n_2-x_2) < \epsilon \forall n>n_0##

##|x^n_1-x_1| < \epsilon##

This shows ##x^n_1 \to x_1 as n \to \infty##
Similarly for ##|x^n_2-x_2|##...?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bugatti79 said:

Homework Statement



Consider ##R^2## with the sup norm ##|| ||_∞## defined by ##||x||_\infty=sup(|x_1|,|x_2|)## for ##x = (x1, x2)##.

Show that a sequence

##x^{n} \in (R^2, || ||_\infty)## where

##x^{n} =(x^ {n}_1, x^{n}_2) ## converges to

##x = (x_1, x_2) \in R^2## (with the sup norm) if and only if

## x^{n}_1 \to x_1##, and ##x^{n}_2→ x_2 \in R##.




The Attempt at a Solution



We need to show ##x^n_1 \to x_1## and ##x^n_2 \to x_2 \in R##

Assume that ##x^n_1 \to x_1 \in (R^2, || ||_\infty)##, we know
I would reverse the order of these last two sentences, putting the assumption before the statement of what we need to show.
## \exists n_0 in N s.t ||x^n-x||_\infty < \epsilon \forall n>n_0## ie

##||(x^n_1,x^n_2)-(x_1,x_2)||_\infty =sup|(x^n_1-x_1, x^n_2-x_2)| < \epsilon ##
##= max|(x^n_1-x_1, x^n_2-x_2)|##

Be more careful with your notation here. You have absolute value signs around an ordered pair. Don't write ##|(a,b)|## when you mean ##(|a|,|b|)##.
We have that

##|x^n_1-x_1| \le max (x^n_1-x_1, x^n_2-x_2) < \epsilon \forall n>n_0##

##|x^n_1-x_1| < \epsilon##

This shows ##x^n_1 \to x_1 as n \to \infty##
Similarly for ##|x^n_2-x_2|##...?

Yes, you have the idea. But you realize that that completes only half the problem, right? You now have to show that if the two components converge then the sequence converges in the ##\|\cdot \|_\infty## norm.

I would also suggest a slightly less cumbersome notation. You might call your point ##x \in R^2## and denote its components by ##(x(1),x(2))## so you can just think of ##x## as a function on the first two integers. Using this notation avoids using superscripts which could be confused with exponents. So what you have done so far is to show that if ##x_n \rightarrow x## in ##\|\cdot \|_\infty## then ##x_n(1)\rightarrow x(1)##. When you do ##x(2)## you will have finished the first half. You have used the fact that for any ##x##, ##|x(1)|\le \| x\|_\infty## and ##|x(2)|\le \| x\|_\infty##

Now you have to do the converse. You might want to think about how ##\| x\|_\infty## compares with ##|x(1)|+|x(2)|##.
 
Last edited:
LCKurtz said:
I would reverse the order of these last two sentences, putting the assumption before the statement of what we need to show.


Be more careful with your notation here. You have absolute value signs around an ordered pair. Don't write ##|(a,b)|## when you mean ##(|a|,|b|)##.


Yes, you have the idea. But you realize that that completes only half the problem, right? You now have to show that if the two components converge then the sequence converges in the ##\|\cdot \|_\infty## norm.

I would also suggest a slightly less cumbersome notation. You might call your point ##x \in R^2## and denote its components by ##(x(1),x(2))## so you can just think of ##x## as a function on the first two integers. Using this notation avoids using superscripts which could be confused with exponents. So what you have done so far is to show that if ##x_n \rightarrow x## in ##\|\cdot \|_\infty## then ##x_n(1)\rightarrow x(1)##. When you do ##x(2)## you will have finished the first half. You have used the fact that for any ##x##, ##|x(1)|\le \| x\|_\infty## and ##|x(2)|\le \| x\|_\infty##

Now you have to do the converse. You might want to think about how ##\| x\|_\infty## compares with ##|x(1)|+|x(2)|##.

Ok, I am starting from scratch because I was a little confused. Using your notation:

Assume ##x_n \to x##. We need to show ##x_n(1) \to x(1)## and ##x_n(2) \to x(2)##
ie, we need to find ##n_0 \in N## s.t ##|x_n(1)-x(1)| < \epsilon \forall n > n_0##

Since we know ##x_n \to x \in R^2, || ||_\infty## we know ##\exists n_0 \in N## s.t

##||x_n-x||_\infty < \epsilon \forall n \ge n_0## ie

##||(x_n(1)-x(1), x_n(2)-x(2))||_\infty < \epsilon##

We have that ##|x_n(1)-x(1)| \le max (|x_n(1)-x(1)|, |x_n(2)-x(2)|) < \epsilon##
This shows ##x_n(1) \to x(1)## as ##n \to \infty##

Similarly

We have that ##|x_n(2)-x(2)| \le max (|x_n(1)-x(1)|, |x_n(2)-x(2)|) < \epsilon##
This shows ##x_n(2) \to x(2)## as ##n \to \infty##

Now, conversely assume ##x_n(1) \to x(1)## and ##x_n(2) \to x(2)##
Need to show that ##x_n \to x in R^2, || ||_\infty##. Need to find
##n_0 \in N## s.t. ##||x_n-x||_\infty \forall n \ge n_0##

but we know that ##x_n(1) \to x(1), \exists n \in N## s.t.

##|x_n(1)-x(1)| < \epsilon/2 \forall n \ge n_1## and
##|x_n(2)-x(2)| < \epsilon/2 \forall n \ge n_2##

Take ##n_0=max(n_1,n_2)##.

Then ##\forall n > n_0## we have ##||x_n-x||_\infty=max(|x_n(1)-x(1)|,|x_n(2)-x(2)|) < \epsilon/2 + \epsilon/2 < \epsilon##

Therefore
##x_n \to x##...?
 
OK, you have the idea. You just need to be a little more careful in the writeup.

bugatti79 said:
Ok, I am starting from scratch because I was a little confused. Using your notation:

Assume ##x_n \to x##. We need to show ##x_n(1) \to x(1)## and ##x_n(2) \to x(2)##
ie, given ##\epsilon > 0## we need to find ##n_0 \in N## s.t ##|x_n(1)-x(1)| < \epsilon## and ##|x_n(2)-x(2)| < \epsilon\ \forall n > n_0##

You haven't told us what ##\epsilon## is so I inserted it. And I see you did both below but you should still state both above in what you need to prove.

Since we know ##x_n \to x \in R^2, || ||_\infty## we know ##\exists n_0 \in N## s.t

##||x_n-x||_\infty < \epsilon \forall n \ge n_0## ie

##||(x_n(1)-x(1), x_n(2)-x(2))||_\infty < \epsilon##

We have that ##|x_n(1)-x(1)| \le max (|x_n(1)-x(1)|, |x_n(2)-x(2)|) < \epsilon##
This shows ##x_n(1) \to x(1)## as ##n \to \infty##

Similarly

We have that ##|x_n(2)-x(2)| \le max (|x_n(1)-x(1)|, |x_n(2)-x(2)|) < \epsilon##
This shows ##x_n(2) \to x(2)## as ##n \to \infty##

Now, conversely assume ##x_n(1) \to x(1)## and ##x_n(2) \to x(2)##
Need to show that ##x_n \to x in R^2, || ||_\infty##. Given ##\epsilon > 0## we need to find
##n_0 \in N## s.t. ##||x_n-x||_\infty \forall n \ge n_0##
Insert ## < \epsilon## there
but we know that ##x_n(1) \to x(1), \exists n \in N## s.t.

##|x_n(1)-x(1)| < \epsilon/2 \forall n \ge n_1## and
##|x_n(2)-x(2)| < \epsilon/2 \forall n \ge n_2##

Take ##n_0=max(n_1,n_2)##.

Then ##\forall n > n_0## we have ##||x_n-x||_\infty=max(|x_n(1)-x(1)|,|x_n(2)-x(2)|) < \epsilon/2 + \epsilon/2 < \epsilon##

Therefore
##x_n \to x##...?

Yes. I think you have it with those minor corrections.
 
LCKurtz said:
OK, you have the idea. You just need to be a little more careful in the writeup.



You haven't told us what ##\epsilon## is so I inserted it. And I see you did both below but you should still state both above in what you need to prove.


Insert ## < \epsilon## there


Yes. I think you have it with those minor corrections.

Thank you LCKurtz, its appreciated.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K