The set of convergent subsequences

  • Thread starter Thread starter zbr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Convergent Set
zbr
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Hello all,

(*) I have a question about convergent subsequences. Specifically I am looking for an example of a sequence that is unbounded but who has convergent subsequences in the interval [0,1].

A similar question would be to have an unbounded sequence, but who has a convergent subsequence to a specific number, let's say 0.

For this I would take the sequence:
a_n = -1,0,1,-2,0,2,-3,0,3,...,-n,0,n

Can I do a similar thing for (*)? i.e Can I take the following sequence:

a_n = -1, [0,1], 1, -2, [0,1], 2,...,-n, [0,1], n

My intuition tell me no since there will be infinite terms in each of the intervals [0,1].

Thanks in advance for any and all help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
zbr said:
Hello all,

(*) I have a question about convergent subsequences. Specifically I am looking for an example of a sequence that is unbounded but who has convergent subsequences in the interval [0,1].

A similar question would be to have an unbounded sequence, but who has a convergent subsequence to a specific number, let's say 0.

For this I would take the sequence:
a_n = -1,0,1,-2,0,2,-3,0,3,...,-n,0,n

Can I do a similar thing for (*)? i.e Can I take the following sequence:

a_n = -1, [0,1], 1, -2, [0,1], 2,...,-n, [0,1], n

My intuition tell me no since there will be infinite terms in each of the intervals [0,1].

Thanks in advance for any and all help!

You can arrange all of the rational number in [0,1] into a sequence, right? Now throw some extra numbers into make it unbounded, just like you did for the zero sequence.
 
Ah, yes of coarse, set sequence 1, 1/2, 1/4, 3/4, 1/8, 3/8, 5/8, 7/8, 1/16, ... would satisfy the sequence with convergent subsequences within the interval [0,1], then just throwing in divergent terms would satisfy the second requirement.

Thanks so much for your help Dick!
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top