Test for Cauchy sequence (with limsup and log)

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that if the limit superior of the sequence defined by $\limsup\limits_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log |x_{n+1}-x_n| < 0$, then the sequence $\{x_n\}$ is a Cauchy sequence. Participants explore various approaches, including a proof by contraposition, where they establish that if $\{x_n\}$ is not Cauchy, then the limit superior must be non-negative. The conclusion is that by choosing an appropriate $\varepsilon$ such that $a + \varepsilon < 0$, the Cauchy condition can be satisfied.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Cauchy sequences in real analysis
  • Familiarity with limit superior (lim sup) concepts
  • Knowledge of logarithmic properties and inequalities
  • Basic skills in mathematical proofs and contraposition
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Cauchy sequences in depth
  • Learn about limit superior and its applications in real analysis
  • Explore proofs by contraposition and their effectiveness in mathematical arguments
  • Investigate the implications of logarithmic inequalities in sequence convergence
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of real analysis, and anyone interested in understanding convergence properties of sequences and the application of limit superior in proofs.

Kokuhaku
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
If $\{x_n\}_{n \ge 1}$ is real sequence and $\limsup\limits_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log |x_{n+1}-x_n|<0$, prove that $\{x_n\}$ is Cauchy sequence.

My work: Let $a=\limsup\limits_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log |x_{n+1}-x_n| <0$. Then, for every $\varepsilon >0$ there exist $N \in \mathbb{N}$ such that for all $n \ge N$ is $\frac{1}{n} \log |x_{n+1}-x_n| < a+ \varepsilon < \varepsilon$. From that, we see that for $n \ge N$ we have $|x_{n+1}-x_n| < e^{n \varepsilon}$.

Then I tried to use $$|x_m - x_n| \le \sum_{k=n}^{m-1} |x_{k+1} - x_k| \le \sum_{k=n}^{m-1} e^{k \varepsilon} = \frac{e^{\varepsilon m} - e^{\varepsilon n}}{e-1}$$ for $m,n \ge N$.

Now, problem is that $e^{\varepsilon m} - e^{\varepsilon n}$ can be arbitrary big, so probably this isn't the best way to solve this problem.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Kokuhaku,

A proof by contraposition seems appropriate here. Suppose $\{x_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ is not a Cauchy sequence. Then there exists a positive number $M$ and an increasing sequence $n_1 < n_2 < n_3 < \cdots$ of indices such that $\lvert x_{n_{k+1}} - x_{n_k}\rvert \ge M$, for $k = 1,2,3,\ldots$. Consequently
$$\limsup_{n\to \infty} \frac{1}{n}\log\, \lvert x_{n+1} - x_n\rvert \ge \limsup_{k\to \infty} \frac{1}{n_k}\log\, \lvert x_{n_{k+1}} - x_{n_k}\rvert \ge \limsup_{k\to \infty} \frac{1}{n_k}\log M = 0.$$
 
Kokuhaku said:
If $\{x_n\}_{n \ge 1}$ is real sequence and $\limsup\limits_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log |x_{n+1}-x_n|<0$, prove that $\{x_n\}$ is Cauchy sequence.

My work: Let $a=\limsup\limits_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log |x_{n+1}-x_n| <0$. Then, for every $\varepsilon >0$ there exist $N \in \mathbb{N}$ such that for all $n \ge N$ is $\frac{1}{n} \log |x_{n+1}-x_n| < a+ \varepsilon < \varepsilon$. From that, we see that for $n \ge N$ we have $|x_{n+1}-x_n| < e^{n \varepsilon}$.

Then I tried to use $$|x_m - x_n| \le \sum_{k=n}^{m-1} |x_{k+1} - x_k| \le \sum_{k=n}^{m-1} e^{k \varepsilon} = \frac{e^{\varepsilon m} - e^{\varepsilon n}}{e-1}$$ for $m,n \ge N$.

Now, problem is that $e^{\varepsilon m} - e^{\varepsilon n}$ can be arbitrary big, so probably this isn't the best way to solve this problem.
It may seem too obvious to be worth mentioning, but the fact that $a=\limsup\limits_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \bigl|x_{n+1}-x_n\bigr| <0$ tells you that $a$ is negative. So you can choose $\varepsilon$ sufficiently small that $a + \varepsilon$ is still negative.

I prefer to write $c$ for $a + \varepsilon.$ Then $c<0$. From the fact that $\frac{1}{n} \log \bigl|x_{n+1}-x_n\bigr| < a+ \varepsilon = c$ it follows that $\bigl|x_{n+1}-x_n\bigr| < e^{nc}$ (for all sufficiently large $n$). Then (just as in your post) $$\bigl|x_m - x_n\bigr| \leqslant \sum_{k=n}^{m-1} \bigl|x_{k+1} - x_k\bigr| < \sum_{k=n}^{m-1} e^{kc} = \frac{e^{mc} - e^{nc}}{e^c-1}$$ for $m > n \geqslant N$. But now the fact that $c$ is negative tells you that the numerator can be made as small as you want provided that $n$ and $m$ are sufficiently large.
 
I see that Opalg, but that works only for $a+\varepsilon <0$, that is $\varepsilon < -a$. But $\varepsilon$ can be arbitrary. Am I missing something?
 
Kokuhaku said:
That works only for $a+\varepsilon <0$, that is $\varepsilon < -a$. But $\varepsilon$ can be arbitrary. Am I missing something?

Since the argument works for $\varepsilon < -a$, it also works for any greater value of $\varepsilon$: Given $\varepsilon > 0$, let $\varepsilon' > 0$ such that $\varepsilon' < -a$ and $\varepsilon' < \varepsilon$.
 
Kokuhaku said:
I see that Opalg, but that works only for $a+\varepsilon <0$, that is $\varepsilon < -a$. But $\varepsilon$ can be arbitrary. Am I missing something?
If you are given a problem where you need to prove that a lim sup exists, then you have to show that the defining property is satisfied for all $\varepsilon>0$. But in this problem, you are told that the lim sup exists. So you know that the defining property holds for all $\varepsilon>0$. In order to solve the problem, it is sufficient in this case to choose one convenient value of $\varepsilon$, namely one for which $a + \varepsilon < 0$.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K