Simpler proof that sequence x_n = n does not converge?

In summary, the conversation is about a proof that an infinite sequence does not converge, based on a definition of convergence. The person is trying to find an easier way to prove this, and they are met with resistance from the speaker who insists that the proof is very long and complicated. However, the person is able to state the proof in a more straightforward manner using the mathematical language.
  • #1
brian44
23
0
Hi, I am trying to prove that
[itex]
\{n\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}
[/itex]
does not converge (based on definition of convergence).

I can prove this by contradiction saying assume it converges, fix [itex] \epsilon [/itex] , then [itex] x_n < \epsilon + a [/itex] (for [itex] n \ge N [/itex] 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. [itex] \exists m , m x_n > \epsilon + a [/itex] which is an element of the sequence [itex]x_n[/itex] which means for some M, [itex] n \ge M \rightarrow x_n > \epsilon + a [/itex] 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
  • #2
How about saying that a convergent sequence is bounded? It is a simple exercise using the triangle inequality.
 
  • #3
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!
 
  • #4
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."
 

1. What is the sequence x_n = n?

The sequence x_n = n is a mathematical sequence where each term is equal to its natural number index. For example, the first term is 1, the second term is 2, the third term is 3, and so on.

2. Why does the sequence x_n = n not converge?

The sequence x_n = n does not converge because the terms continue to increase without bound. As n approaches infinity, the terms in the sequence also approach infinity, making it impossible to identify a single limit or value that the terms are approaching.

3. Is there a simpler proof that x_n = n does not converge?

Yes, there is a simpler proof that x_n = n does not converge. By definition, a sequence converges if and only if it has a limit. Since x_n = n does not have a limit, it does not converge.

4. Can you provide an example to illustrate why x_n = n does not converge?

One example that illustrates why x_n = n does not converge is by looking at the sequence of partial sums. The partial sums of x_n = n would be 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, and so on. As you can see, the partial sums continue to increase without bound, showing that the terms in the sequence also increase without bound.

5. How can we prove that x_n = n does not converge using the definition of convergence?

We can prove that x_n = n does not converge using the definition of convergence by showing that there does not exist a single limit or value that the terms in the sequence approach. In other words, no matter how large of a number we choose as a potential limit, we can always find a term in the sequence that is larger, proving that the sequence does not converge.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
385
Replies
11
Views
985
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
890
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top