MHB To prove that Cauchy sequence

  • Thread starter Thread starter ozkan12
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cauchy Sequence
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the use of "n" in inequalities related to Cauchy sequences and the implications of limits involving distances between terms in the sequence. Participants question the reasoning behind multiplying by "n" and the significance of the limit expression leading to zero, suggesting it might relate to convergence definitions. There is also debate about the choice of the specific form of ε as \( \frac{1}{n^{1/r}} \) and whether alternative forms could be valid. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities of proving convergence in the context of Cauchy sequences and the nuances of mathematical definitions involved. The need for clarity in these concepts is emphasized by participants.
ozkan12
Messages
145
Reaction score
0
View attachment 4866View attachment 4867View attachment 4868View attachment 4859View attachment 4860View attachment 4861View attachment 4862View attachment 4863View attachment 4864View attachment 4865View attachment 4869

My Questions:

1) İn both sides of inequality of (*) why we use "n", that is, why we do multiplication with "n" ?

2) in (**) by Letting $n\to\infty$ we obtain $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}} n\left[d\left({T}^{n}x,{T}^{n+1}x\right)\right]{}^{r}=0$ How this happened ?

3) Since, $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}} n\left[d\left({T}^{n}x,{T}^{n+1}x\right)\right]{}^{r}=0$ there exists ${n}_{1}\in\Bbb{N}$ such that $d\left({T}^{n}x, {T}^{n+1}x\right)\le\frac{1}{{n}^{\frac{1}{r}}}$... How we can write this ?
Also, why we use number $\frac{1}{{n}^{\frac{1}{r}}}$ ?

Please can you give an answer to my questions ? Thank you for your attention..
 

Attachments

  • 4.png
    4.png
    51.9 KB · Views: 110
  • 5.png
    5.png
    42.8 KB · Views: 116
  • 6.png
    6.png
    43.4 KB · Views: 118
  • 7.png
    7.png
    42.6 KB · Views: 113
  • 8.png
    8.png
    48 KB · Views: 125
  • 9.png
    9.png
    44.7 KB · Views: 115
  • 10.png
    10.png
    37.9 KB · Views: 117
  • 1.png
    1.png
    54.5 KB · Views: 112
  • 2.png
    2.png
    61.2 KB · Views: 113
  • 3.png
    3.png
    58.4 KB · Views: 107
  • 11.png
    11.png
    50.4 KB · Views: 119
Physics news on Phys.org
ozkan12 said:
My Questions:

1) İn both sides of inequality of (*) why we use "n", that is, why we do multiplication with "n" ?

2) in (**) by Letting $n\to\infty$ we obtain $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}} n\left[d\left({T}^{n}x,{T}^{n+1}x\right)\right]{}^{r}=0$ How this happened ?

I'm not at all sure I buy it, myself. It's not clear at all from, say, the $(\Theta_3)$ condition that $\theta^{k^n}$ goes to $1$ faster than $n\to\infty$, which is certainly what you'd need to conclude (**). I could buy, from the $(\Theta_3)$ condition, that
$$\lim_{n\to\infty}n^r \left(\theta^{n^k}-1\right)=\ell,$$
where $0<r<1$, but as we don't seem to have much control over the size of $\ell$, I'm not sure that helps us much.

Hang on: I think it might be a typo. I think you could conclude that IF:
$$\lim_{n\to\infty}[d(T^nx,T^{n+1}x)]^r=0,$$
THEN there exists an $n_1>0$ such that for all $n>n_1$, you have
$$d(T^nx,T^{n+1}x)\le \frac{1}{n^{1/r}}.$$
Isn't that pretty close to the definition of convergence? Our $\varepsilon$ is just written in this fancy way. I could be wrong, but I think this works.

3) Since, $\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}} n\left[d\left({T}^{n}x,{T}^{n+1}x\right)\right]{}^{r}=0$ there exists ${n}_{1}\in\Bbb{N}$ such that $d\left({T}^{n}x, {T}^{n+1}x\right)\le\frac{1}{{n}^{\frac{1}{r}}}$... How we can write this ?
Also, why we use number $\frac{1}{{n}^{\frac{1}{r}}}$ ?

Please can you give an answer to my questions ? Thank you for your attention..

I think the author wants to be able to do the sums at the very end of the proof, and this form of $\varepsilon$ let's him do that.
 
Dear Ackbach

İn your post, I think these definitions close to definition of convergence but this carry very special conditions...But I didnt understand why we choose $\varepsilon$ in this way ? Because this is very special, I think that can we take $\varepsilon$ different from this ? This article is hard for me :)
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K