Question: Super Convergence and Convergence: Is There a Relationship?

  • Thread starter Thread starter neemer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Convergence Proof
neemer
Messages
22
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Suppose (## a_n ##) is a sequence and let l\in\mathbb R. Let us say that (## a_n ##) is "super convergent" to ##l## if there exists N\in\mathbb N such that for every ε>0 we have ##n \geq N## ⇒ |(## a_n - l##|<ε . Show that if (## a_n ##) super converges to l then (## a_n ##) converges to ##l## in the usual sense. What about the converse?

Homework Equations


The usual definition of convergence as given in my textbook is:

Let (## a_n ##) be a sequence and let l\in\mathbb R. Then (## a_n ##) converges to ##l## if for every ε>0 there exists N(ε)\in\mathbb N such that ##n \geq N(ε)## ⇒ |(## a_n - l##|<ε

The Attempt at a Solution



The only difference I see between the super convergent definition and usual definition is that for super convergence N does not depend on ε as it does in the usual definition. Therefore no matter how small an ε is chosen, any ##n \geq N## will imply (## a_n - l##|<ε . So even if ##N## is dependant on ε as it is in the usual definition, any N will work so the dependence does not matter. Therefore super convergence implies convergence. The second part about the converse is what I am confused about. I'm pretty sure that for converse I'm supposed to show that if (## a_n ##) converges in the usual sense, that it also must "super converge" which is obviously not true because if N is dependent on ε for regular convergence, a random N cannot be selected to have the super convergence statement hold. I'm pretty sure I'm on the right track with this question I just don't know how i would go about showing this last part.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
neemer said:

Homework Statement



Suppose (## a_n ##) is a sequence and let l\in\mathbb R. Let us say that (## a_n ##) is "super convergent" to ##l## if there exists N\in\mathbb N such that for every ε>0 we have ##n \geq N## ⇒ |(## a_n - l##|<ε . Show that if (## a_n ##) super converges to l then (## a_n ##) converges to ##l## in the usual sense. What about the converse?

Homework Equations


The usual definition of convergence as given in my textbook is:

Let (## a_n ##) be a sequence and let l\in\mathbb R. Then (## a_n ##) converges to ##l## if for every ε>0 there exists N(ε)\in\mathbb N such that ##n \geq N(ε)## ⇒ |(## a_n - l##|<ε

The Attempt at a Solution



The only difference I see between the super convergent definition and usual definition is that for super convergence N does not depend on ε as it does in the usual definition. Therefore no matter how small an ε is chosen, any ##n \geq N## will imply (## a_n - l##|<ε . So even if ##N## is dependant on ε as it is in the usual definition, any N will work so the dependence does not matter. Therefore super convergence implies convergence.The second part about the converse is what I am confused about. I'm pretty sure that for converse I'm supposed to show that if (## a_n ##) converges in the usual sense, that it also must "super converge" which is obviously not true because if N is dependent on ε for regular convergence, a random N cannot be selected to have the super convergence statement hold. I'm pretty sure I'm on the right track with this question I just don't know how i would go about showing this last part.

Yes, the converse is obviously not true. If you think about what 'super convergence' means, it means the sequence must be constant for n>N. There are sequences that converge that are not eventually constant. Use that for a counterexample. That proves the converse is not true.
 
Makes sense thanks.
 
neemer said:

Homework Statement



Suppose (## a_n ##) is a sequence and let l\in\mathbb R. Let us say that (## a_n ##) is "super convergent" to ##l## if there exists N\in\mathbb N such that for every ε>0 we have ##n \geq N## ⇒ |(## a_n - l##|<ε . Show that if (## a_n ##) super converges to l then (## a_n ##) converges to ##l## in the usual sense. What about the converse?

You should note and try to prove the following:

If ##\forall \ \epsilon > 0, \ \ |x| < \epsilon## then ##x = 0##
 
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