Why Do We Need to Show M - Epsilon < x_k in the Monotone Sequence Theorem Proof?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pantin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sequence Theorem
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Monotone Sequence Theorem, specifically addressing the necessity of demonstrating that \( M - \epsilon < x_k \) in the proof of convergence for a bounded monotone increasing sequence. Participants explore the implications of the theorem and the proof steps involved.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant explains that the theorem states every bounded monotone sequence in \( \mathbb{R} \) is convergent and outlines the proof steps leading to the conclusion that \( x_k \to M \).
  • Another participant questions why the proof requires showing \( M - \epsilon < x_k \) in addition to \( x_k \leq M \), suggesting that proving convergence requires more than just establishing bounds.
  • A different participant acknowledges the initial confusion regarding a counterexample and clarifies that the sequence must be monotone for the theorem to apply.
  • One participant introduces a new question about proving that the sequence \( x_n = \frac{n-10}{n+10} \) is both bounded and monotone, prompting a discussion on how to approach this proof.
  • Another participant responds to the new question by advising against hijacking the thread and suggests methods for determining the monotonicity and boundedness of the sequence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the necessity of demonstrating that \( M - \epsilon < x_k \) for proving convergence, but there is some confusion regarding the implications of boundedness alone. The discussion about the new question introduces a separate topic, indicating a lack of consensus on that issue.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the importance of monotonicity in the context of the theorem and raises questions about the sufficiency of boundedness for convergence. There are also unresolved aspects regarding the new question posed about the sequence \( x_n \).

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and individuals studying real analysis, particularly those interested in sequence convergence and the Monotone Sequence Theorem.

pantin
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
The thm says:
Every bded monotone sequence in R is convergent.

The proof:
suppose {x_k} is a bded increasing sequence. Let M be the sup of the set of values {x_1, x_2,...} I claim that x_k -> M.
Since M is an upper bd, we have x_k <= M for all k. (***)

on the other hand, since M is the least upper bd, for any epislon >0, there is some K for which x_K > M - epislon. Since the x_k's increase with k, we also have x_k > M - epislon for all k > K.

therefore M - epislon < x_k <= M for all k > K, and this shows that x_k -> M


-------------------------------------
my question is here, I understand most of the proof, but what I want to ask is , why don't we just stop at the line ending with (***) sign above, if we just show M is the least upper bd and x_k is increasing, then we are done, why do we need to show M-epislon < x_k as well?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because a sequence can be bounded, yet not convergent. Consider the sequence

[tex]a_n = (-1)^n[/tex]

Wait, never mind...the sequence must be monotone increasing. Hmm...

Ah, I see, the reason is this:

At the (***), we have proved only that x_k <= M for all k. This does not prove convergence (see above). To prove convergence, we use the fact that x_k is monotone increasing, which is your second paragraph. (It so happens that the easiest way to prove convergence is to prove that the sequence converges specifically to its least upper bound.)
 
Ben, you were right to begin with. Your example didn't work because the sequence you gave was not monotone- and we only use monotone in the proof after the "***".
 
anybody can solve this prob??

show dat the sequence xn= (n-10)/(n+10) is both bounded & monotone
 
Yes! But the important thing is can YOU?

First, do NOT hijack someone else's thread for a new question! It's very easy to start your own thread.

I will assume that "dat" was supposed to be "that".

Have you calculated any values? What are x1, x2, x3, ...? If xn is monotone, is it increasing or decreasing? If you have determined that, you can try a "proof by contradiction". That is if you know the function is decreasing, try setting xk> x(k+1) for some k and see if you can't get a contradiction.

Suppose xn is both bounded and monotone. Then it must converge. What does it converge to? Knowing that will help find a bound on it. You should be able to prove that bound by induction on "n".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K