Simpler proof that sequence x_n = n does not converge?

  • Thread starter Thread starter brian44
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Sequence
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving that the sequence {n} does not converge, with an initial proof by contradiction presented. The proof utilizes the Archimedean Principle to show that if the sequence were to converge, it would eventually be bounded, which contradicts its unbounded nature. Participants suggest that a simpler proof could involve demonstrating that convergent sequences are bounded, although some argue that the original proof is not overly complicated. The conversation highlights the balance between rigor and simplicity in mathematical proofs. Ultimately, the participants acknowledge that what seems obvious can still require detailed justification in formal mathematics.
brian44
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Hi, I am trying to prove that
<br /> \{n\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}<br />
does not converge (based on definition of convergence).

I can prove this by contradiction saying assume it converges, fix \epsilon , then x_n &lt; \epsilon + a (for n \ge N where N is fixed) (by fundamental theorem of ineq.) but by Archimedean Principle, I can find a natural number that surpasses this bound, i.e. \exists m , m x_n &gt; \epsilon + a which is an element of the sequence x_n which means for some M, n \ge M \rightarrow x_n &gt; \epsilon + a which is a contradiction.

However this seems like a long complicated proof for a very simple and obvious fact, I was wondering if there is not some easier, more elegant way to prove this that I am missing?

Thanks for your help.
-Brian
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How about saying that a convergent sequence is bounded? It is a simple exercise using the triangle inequality.
 
brian44 said:
However this seems like a long complicated proof for a very simple and obvious fact
When you have limited tools at your disposal, that tends to make proofs long and complicated. (and obvious facts tend to be either very easy to prove or very tricky to prove)

However, I'm not really convinced that your proof is all that long and complicated. It's only what? Three lines long? And the proof boils down to nothing more than:
If it converges, it would eventually have to stop growing. However, it keeps growing forever. Therefore, it doesn't converge​
does it not?

I assert the proof you gave is a direct translation of the above heuristic argument into a rigorous mathematical argument.

Actually, if you notice, the heuristic argument I gave is full of little missing details that would be very cumbersome to state in natural language. (e.g. a sequence can grow forever but still converge. So I really mean something about how fast it grows) But in this case, those details are very easy to state in the mathematical language!
 
Thanks for the feedback.

And I guess it isn't that long, it was just in my head as I was writing it out going through the process I was thinking "I can't believe I have to write all this for something that is so obvious."
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K