1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Quick sequence questions

  1. Nov 15, 2008 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    I know that the statements: if lim sup|s_n|=5, then s_n is bounded, and if lim sup s_n = 0 then lim sup |s_n| are false but I can't think of counter examples? Can someone suggest one or two please. many thanks

    2. consider the sequence s_n convergent. Define a new sequence t_n such that

    t_n = s_n + (-1)^(n)*(s_n)

    a. show that t_n diverges

    well lim sup s_n = s

    then t_n = s_n*(1 + (-1)^n)

    and finally

    1/s * lim sup t_n = lim (1+(-1)^n)

    the last sequence diverges because no matter how big n gets

    the set will be {0, 2/s, 0, 2/s, 0, 2/s} at some point.

    b) show by any method that t_n has a convergent subsequence

    if we look at the previous tail we see that the 2k terms of n give a convergent subsequence that is

    {0,0,0,0..}

    right?

    thansk!
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2008
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 16, 2008 #2

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Then you know wrong. If lim sup |s_n|= 5, then no subsequence can converge to anything larger than 5 or less than -5. That means that only a finite number of its terms can be larger than 5 or less than 5 and so the sequence is bounded by the largest of those and the smallest. If lim sup |s_n| is any finite number then the sequence s_n is bounded. I don't know what you mean by the second. "If lim sup s_n= 0 then lim sup |s_n|" is WHAT? Yes, it is false that the lim sup |s_n|= 0. s_n= 1/n if n is even, -1 if n is odd is a counter example.

    Are you assuming that s is not 0? you are not told that.

    No, it won't. It will "at some point" become a sequence in which odd terms are 0 and even terms converge to 2/s but not equal to what you have. And in any case, dirvergence of that sequence is not what you wanted to prove! Simpler is just to note that t_n itself is 0 for n odd, s_n for n even. In fact, the "theorem" as stated is not true. If s_n converges to 0, then t_n also converges to 0. You need the additional requirement that s_n NOT converge to 0 in order to argue that the sub-sequence {t_{2n}) converges to 2s while {t_{2n+1}) converges to 0. If 2s and 0 are different, {t_n} does not converge.

    [/quote]
    NO!!! t_n= s_n+ (-1)^n s_n is 0 for n odd: 2k+1, not 2k!
     
  4. Nov 16, 2008 #3
    it sounds like you know this material very well. The instructions for problem 2 include the important fact that s_n be a convergent sequence with a limit not equal to 0. Also, thank you for pointing out the fact that t_n = 0 on odd terms.

    I don't understand your example for s_n = 1/n on even and -1 on odd?

    Xould you be more specific

    the terms are {-1, 1/2, -1, 1/4, -1, ...}

    lim sup s_n = 0?
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2008
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Quick sequence questions
  1. Sequence question (Replies: 4)

  2. Sequence question (Replies: 5)

  3. Quick Question (Replies: 13)

  4. Sequence question. (Replies: 1)

Loading...