Proving Sequence Convergence in R^2 with Sup Norm

  • Thread starter bugatti79
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Sequence
In summary: Ok, I am starting from scratch because I was a little confused. Using your notation:Assume that ##x_n \to x## in ##\| \cdot \|_\infty##. We need to show that ##x_n(1) \to x(1)## and ##x_n(2) \to x(2)##.We know that for any ##x \in R^2##, ##|x(1)| \le \| x\|_\infty## and ##|x(2)| \le \| x\|_\infty##. Therefore, for any ##\epsilon>0##, there is an ##n_1 \in N## such that ##|x_n
  • #1
bugatti79
794
1

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
  • #2
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:
  • #3
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##...?
 
  • #4
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.
 
  • #5
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.
 

1. What is the Sup Norm in R^2?

The Sup Norm, also known as the supremum norm or the maximum norm, is a way to measure the distance between two points in a two-dimensional space. It is defined as the maximum absolute value of the differences between the corresponding coordinates of two points.

2. How is sequence convergence defined in R^2 with Sup Norm?

A sequence in R^2 is said to converge if, for any given positive value ε, there exists a natural number N such that the distance between any two points in the sequence with indices greater than or equal to N is less than ε. In other words, as the sequence progresses, the points get closer and closer to each other within a certain tolerance level.

3. What is the importance of proving sequence convergence in R^2 with Sup Norm?

Proving sequence convergence in R^2 with Sup Norm is important in many areas of mathematics and physics, as it allows us to analyze and understand the behavior of sequences and functions. It also forms the basis for many important theorems and proofs in these fields.

4. What are some techniques used to prove sequence convergence in R^2 with Sup Norm?

There are several techniques that can be used to prove sequence convergence in R^2 with Sup Norm, including the epsilon-delta method, the squeeze theorem, and the monotone convergence theorem. These techniques involve manipulating the definition of convergence and using properties of sequences and functions.

5. Can a sequence converge in R^2 with Sup Norm but not in other norms?

Yes, it is possible for a sequence to converge in R^2 with Sup Norm but not in other norms. This is because different norms measure distance in different ways, so a sequence may satisfy the convergence criteria for one norm but not for another. However, in some cases, a sequence may converge in all norms if it converges in R^2 with Sup Norm.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
571
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
503
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
255
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
305
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
Back
Top