Show a certain sequence in Q, with p-adict metric is cauchy

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on demonstrating that the sequence s_n = Ʃ (k=0 to n) (t_k * p^k) in the rational numbers Q, under the p-adic metric, is Cauchy. The sequence t_n is defined as 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, etc. Participants emphasize starting with the definition of a Cauchy sequence and suggest bounding the differences between terms to establish the Cauchy property. Additionally, it is concluded that the equivalence class [s_n] cannot be represented as a rational number.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of p-adic metrics
  • Knowledge of Cauchy sequences
  • Familiarity with series and summation techniques
  • Basic concepts of rational numbers (Q)
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of p-adic numbers and their metrics
  • Learn how to prove that a sequence is Cauchy using bounding techniques
  • Explore the implications of equivalence classes in rational numbers
  • Investigate examples of sequences that are Cauchy but not convergent in Q
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying number theory, and anyone interested in the properties of p-adic numbers and Cauchy sequences.

arturo_026
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
I left this following question from my excercises last, hoping that solving the others will give me an insight onto how to proceed. But I still don't have a plan on how to start it:

Consider the sequence s_n = Ʃ (k=0 to n) (t_k * p^k) in Q(rationals) with the p-adic metric (p is prime); where t_n is the sequence 1,2,1,1,2,1,1,1,2,... Show that s_n is Cauchy, but [s_n] (the equivalence class of s_n) cannot be expressed by a rational number.

As far as what I know: I'm familiar with the p-adic metric, and what a cauchy sequence is. I just can't think of how to show that s_n is cauchy.

Thank you very much for any advice and hints.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, when in doubt, just start with the definition and see if you can shove your particular case into it. Can you bound the difference between the j-th and k-th terms, for j<k, in terms of j? Maybe by considering the difference between the j-th and (j+1)-st terms, and summing them up, like you do to show the series 2^-n is Cauchy?
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K