Unbounded Sequences w.r Divergence

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter skunkswks
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Divergence Sequences
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
5 replies · 3K views
skunkswks
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
considering divergence of a sequence in the reals, a[itex]_{n}[/itex], if such a sequence → +∞ as → n, then I would like to know what type of sequence this reuqires. (excluding divergence to -∞ for now)

so a_n → +∞ iif:
[itex]\forall[/itex] M [itex]\exists[/itex] N, [itex]\forall[/itex] n[itex]\geq[/itex]N [itex]\Rightarrow[/itex] a_n [itex]\geq[/itex] M .

So is the above equivalent to stating ( and so another way of saying a_n → +∞ ):
1. a_{n} is increasing &
2. a_{n} NOT bounded above ?

now my main question is, why can't i simply say a_n → +∞ iff a_{n} is NOT BOUNDED ABOVE (and nothing else).

surely then a_{n} by the definition of being unbounded above means a_{n}has no choice but to increase towards +∞? Right...?

and one more consideration: so then a_{n} could be something like :

http://tinypic.com/r/11udow4/5

as drawn. This sequence oscillates, diverges and heads to + ∞ as well as -∞. So can I say this sequence → ∞ or -∞ or which!?

Thanks for any help.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
skunkswks said:
considering divergence of a sequence in the reals, a[itex]_{n}[/itex], if such a sequence → +∞ as → n, then I would like to know what type of sequence this reuqires.

so a_n → +∞ iif:
[itex]\forall[/itex] M [/itex][itex]\exists[/itex] N, [itex]\forall[/itex] n[itex]\geq[/itex]N [itex]\Rightarrow[/itex] a_n [itex]\geq[/itex]

[itex]a_n\rightarrow ∞ \Longleftrightarrow \forall M\in ℝ \,\,\exists N_M\in N\,\, s.t. \,\,n>N_M\Longrightarrow a_n > M[/itex] .

DonAntonio
 
yep that is the definition. M>0 could also work fine instead in that defination?
 
skunkswks said:
yep that is the definition. M>0 could also work fine instead in that defination?


Any M works.

DonAntonio
 
skunkswks said:
yep that is the definition. M>0 could also work fine instead in that defination?

I don't understand, aren't you using M as a variable, not a constant?

Re your function, if the pattern extends to infinity, then the function does not have a limit of oo.
 
Bacle2 said:
I don't understand, aren't you using M as a variable, not a constant?

Re your function, if the pattern extends to infinity, then the function does not have a limit of oo.

Okay M as a variable then, but I am just trying to specfiy what range of values it can take.

So with my original post, for a[itex]_{n}[/itex] → +∞ , does it only have to be Unbounded above (instead of also being increasing)?

and with the defination of a[itex]_{n}[/itex] → +∞, that function would not 'diverge to +∞' right?