Sequence is convergent if it has a convergent subsequence

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the convergence of increasing sequences and their subsequences, specifically addressing the condition that an increasing sequence is convergent if it has a convergent subsequence.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of a subsequence converging and question the reasoning behind the conclusion that the original sequence must also converge. There is also discussion about the necessity of the increasing property of the sequence for the argument to hold.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the logic of the proof and raised questions about the directionality of the implications involved in the convergence of sequences and their subsequences. There is recognition of the need for clarity in the reasoning, particularly regarding the increasing nature of the sequence.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the original question is framed as an 'if and only if' statement, prompting further exploration of both directions of the proof. There is mention of a specific example of a sequence that illustrates the difference in behavior between subsequences and the original sequence.

gottfried
Messages
118
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Show that an increasing sequence is convergent if it has a convergent subsequence.


The Attempt at a Solution


Suppose xjn is a subsequence of xn and xjn→x.

Therefore [itex]\exists[/itex]N such that jn>N implies |xjn-x|<[itex]\epsilon[/itex]
It follows that n>jn>N implies |xn-x|<[itex]\epsilon[/itex]

Therefore xn→x

The solution that I've been given is much more complicated I'm just wondering whether my simpler solution is also correct.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
gottfried said:

Homework Statement


Show that an increasing sequence is convergent if it has a convergent subsequence.

The Attempt at a Solution


Suppose xjn is a subsequence of xn and xjn→x.

Therefore [itex]\exists[/itex]N such that jn>N implies |xjn-x|<[itex]\epsilon[/itex]
It follows that n>jn>N implies |xn-x|<[itex]\epsilon[/itex]
It's true, but WHY does it follow? This is the key part of the proof, so you need to be explicit. You need to use the fact that [itex]x_n[/itex] is an increasing sequence. This would not be true for an arbitrary sequence.
 
The original question was an 'if and only if question' which means the reverse also had to be proved ie:

Show that if xn → x that any subsequence of (xn) also converges to x
My solution which is simliar to the answer given is

If xn → x then given any  [itex]\epsilon[/itex]> 0 there is an N such that n > N implies |xn - x| < [itex]\epsilon[/itex] . Now
consider a subsequence (xjn). Then since jn [itex]\geq[/itex] n > N we have that for any n > N,
|xjn - x| < [itex]\epsilon[/itex]  and so we conclude that the subsequence has the same limit

I believe this correct and this raises the question why does logic work in the one direction but no the other.
 
gottfried said:
The original question was an 'if and only if question' which means the reverse also had to be proved ie:

Show that if xn → x that any subsequence of (xn) also converges to x
My solution which is simliar to the answer given is

If xn → x then given any [itex]\epsilon[/itex]> 0 there is an N such that n > N implies |xn - x| < [itex]\epsilon[/itex] . Now
consider a subsequence (xjn). Then since jn [itex]\geq[/itex] n > N we have that for any n > N,
|xjn - x| < [itex]\epsilon[/itex] and so we conclude that the subsequence has the same limit

I believe this correct and this raises the question why does logic work in the one direction but no the other.

It does work in both directions. If EVERY subsequence of [itex]x_n[/itex] converges to [itex]x[/itex], then [itex]x_n[/itex] converges to [itex]x[/itex]. This is trivial, because [itex]x_n[/itex] is a subsequence of itself.

But the hypothesis in the first part is weaker: [itex]x_n[/itex] has *a* convergent subsequence. Without the additional assumption that [itex]x_n[/itex] is increasing, this would not be enough to conclude that [itex]x_n[/itex] converges.

A general sequence can have some subsequences which converge, and others which do not. For example, let [itex]x_n = 0[/itex] if [itex]n[/itex] is even, and [itex]x_n = n[/itex] if [itex]n[/itex] is odd. The subsequence consisting of even indices converges, and the subsequence consisting of odd indices diverges. And of course the sequence itself does not converge.
 
Thanks it makes sense.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K