1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What did I do wrong

  1. Jun 8, 2006 #1
    Suppose (xn) is a bounded sequence that does not converge. Show that (xn) has at least two subsequences that converge to different limits.

    By the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem there exists a subsequence of (xn) that converges. Delete that subsequence from (xn) and form a new sequence (xn1) with the remaining terms. (xn1) is bounded and hence has a convergent subsequence. If that subsequence converges to a different limit then we are done. If it does not, delete that subsequence from (xn1) and form a new sequence (xn2) with the remaining terms; ad infinitum. My argument is that not all of those subsequences can converge to the same limit, because the main sequence (xn) is not convergent.

    I dug up this problem while flipping through my old analysis book. What did I do wrong? I feel as though something is not right with this proof.

    I found another proof:

    There exists a convergent subsequence by B-W, converging to some number x. Since (xn) does not converge, it has a tail that is at least e>0 away from x. From that tail there exists another convergent subsequence which must be at least e away from x, hence there are two convergent subsequences.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 8, 2006 #2

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The problem is that you don't show that your algorithm ever terminates, indeed it might not: you might keep picking 'bad' subsequences. You would need to invoke some kind of axiom of choice argument to say that there is a maximal set of convergent subsequences converging to a given x.

    The second proof is good though I'm not sure that I'd use the word 'tail', that sort of implies that all of the sequence after some point is e away from x. I'd say that there are infinitely many terms at least e away from x (or it'd converge), and these have a convergent subsequence.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: What did I do wrong
  1. What did I do Wrong? (Replies: 7)

Loading...