A sequence that has no Cauchy subsequence
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Give an example of a sequence in $mathbb{R}$ which has no subsequence which is a Cauchy sequence.
I can find out a sequence that is not a Cauchy sequence such as ${ln(n)}$ once $|ln(n)-ln(n+1)|=0$ but $|ln(n)-ln(2n)|=|ln(frac{1}{2})|>epsilon$
$forall epsilon<ln(frac{1}{2})$
I can still find a subsequence of the type ${ln(2n)}_{2ninmathbb{N}}$ such that $|ln(2n)-ln(2n+1)|=0$
Question:
What should I do to get a sequence that has no Cauchy subsequence?
Thanks in advance!
real-analysis sequences-and-series general-topology metric-spaces cauchy-sequences
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Give an example of a sequence in $mathbb{R}$ which has no subsequence which is a Cauchy sequence.
I can find out a sequence that is not a Cauchy sequence such as ${ln(n)}$ once $|ln(n)-ln(n+1)|=0$ but $|ln(n)-ln(2n)|=|ln(frac{1}{2})|>epsilon$
$forall epsilon<ln(frac{1}{2})$
I can still find a subsequence of the type ${ln(2n)}_{2ninmathbb{N}}$ such that $|ln(2n)-ln(2n+1)|=0$
Question:
What should I do to get a sequence that has no Cauchy subsequence?
Thanks in advance!
real-analysis sequences-and-series general-topology metric-spaces cauchy-sequences
1
In the first place, you should only be looking at sequences which are not convergent, right?
– MPW
yesterday
3
I do not understand your question. What do you mean by $|ln(2n)-ln(2n+1)|=0$?
– Carsten S
20 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Give an example of a sequence in $mathbb{R}$ which has no subsequence which is a Cauchy sequence.
I can find out a sequence that is not a Cauchy sequence such as ${ln(n)}$ once $|ln(n)-ln(n+1)|=0$ but $|ln(n)-ln(2n)|=|ln(frac{1}{2})|>epsilon$
$forall epsilon<ln(frac{1}{2})$
I can still find a subsequence of the type ${ln(2n)}_{2ninmathbb{N}}$ such that $|ln(2n)-ln(2n+1)|=0$
Question:
What should I do to get a sequence that has no Cauchy subsequence?
Thanks in advance!
real-analysis sequences-and-series general-topology metric-spaces cauchy-sequences
Give an example of a sequence in $mathbb{R}$ which has no subsequence which is a Cauchy sequence.
I can find out a sequence that is not a Cauchy sequence such as ${ln(n)}$ once $|ln(n)-ln(n+1)|=0$ but $|ln(n)-ln(2n)|=|ln(frac{1}{2})|>epsilon$
$forall epsilon<ln(frac{1}{2})$
I can still find a subsequence of the type ${ln(2n)}_{2ninmathbb{N}}$ such that $|ln(2n)-ln(2n+1)|=0$
Question:
What should I do to get a sequence that has no Cauchy subsequence?
Thanks in advance!
real-analysis sequences-and-series general-topology metric-spaces cauchy-sequences
real-analysis sequences-and-series general-topology metric-spaces cauchy-sequences
edited yesterday
Bernard
115k637107
115k637107
asked yesterday
Pedro Gomes
1,5692620
1,5692620
1
In the first place, you should only be looking at sequences which are not convergent, right?
– MPW
yesterday
3
I do not understand your question. What do you mean by $|ln(2n)-ln(2n+1)|=0$?
– Carsten S
20 hours ago
add a comment |
1
In the first place, you should only be looking at sequences which are not convergent, right?
– MPW
yesterday
3
I do not understand your question. What do you mean by $|ln(2n)-ln(2n+1)|=0$?
– Carsten S
20 hours ago
1
1
In the first place, you should only be looking at sequences which are not convergent, right?
– MPW
yesterday
In the first place, you should only be looking at sequences which are not convergent, right?
– MPW
yesterday
3
3
I do not understand your question. What do you mean by $|ln(2n)-ln(2n+1)|=0$?
– Carsten S
20 hours ago
I do not understand your question. What do you mean by $|ln(2n)-ln(2n+1)|=0$?
– Carsten S
20 hours ago
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
up vote
25
down vote
accepted
Take $a_n=n$. Then for any subsequence $n_k$, $|n_k-n_{k-1}|geq 1$. So, it has no Cauchy sub-sequence.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
Take a sequence $(a_n)$ such that $a_nto infty$. Then each subsequence $(a_{n_k})$ is such that $a_{n_k}to infty$ and thus can't be Cauchy since necessarily Cauchy sequences are bounded.
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
Take the sequence $1,2,3,4,ldots$ It has no Cauchy subsequence since the distance between any two distinct terms is at least $1$.
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
I didn't understand your analysis but sequence $a_n = ln n$ doesn't have Cauchy subsequence since its limit is $infty$
I guess this one uses the theorem that every Cauchy sequence converges
– Robert Frost
9 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
As Foobaz John says, any sequence with $a_ntoinfty$ works, and it's easy to see that $|a_n|toinfty$ is also sufficient. In fact this latter condition is necessary and sufficient. If $|a_n|nottoinfty$, then by definition there is some $c>0$ for which there are infinitely many values $n_i$ such that $|a_{n_i}|<c$ for each $i$. Now by Bolzano-Weierstrass the subsequence $a_{n_i}$ has an infinite subsequence $a_{n_{i_j}}$ which is convergent, and therefore Cauchy.
Ah, Bolzano-Weierstrass, also known as the theorem about subsubsubscripts.
– Misha Lavrov
12 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Bolzano-Weierstrass: Every bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence.
Fact: Every convergent sequence is bounded.
Strategy: Try an unbounded sequence.
Guess: $a_n=n$
Conclusion: (I leave it to you)
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
25
down vote
accepted
Take $a_n=n$. Then for any subsequence $n_k$, $|n_k-n_{k-1}|geq 1$. So, it has no Cauchy sub-sequence.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
25
down vote
accepted
Take $a_n=n$. Then for any subsequence $n_k$, $|n_k-n_{k-1}|geq 1$. So, it has no Cauchy sub-sequence.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
25
down vote
accepted
up vote
25
down vote
accepted
Take $a_n=n$. Then for any subsequence $n_k$, $|n_k-n_{k-1}|geq 1$. So, it has no Cauchy sub-sequence.
New contributor
Take $a_n=n$. Then for any subsequence $n_k$, $|n_k-n_{k-1}|geq 1$. So, it has no Cauchy sub-sequence.
New contributor
New contributor
answered yesterday
John_Wick
70419
70419
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
Take a sequence $(a_n)$ such that $a_nto infty$. Then each subsequence $(a_{n_k})$ is such that $a_{n_k}to infty$ and thus can't be Cauchy since necessarily Cauchy sequences are bounded.
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
Take a sequence $(a_n)$ such that $a_nto infty$. Then each subsequence $(a_{n_k})$ is such that $a_{n_k}to infty$ and thus can't be Cauchy since necessarily Cauchy sequences are bounded.
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
up vote
11
down vote
Take a sequence $(a_n)$ such that $a_nto infty$. Then each subsequence $(a_{n_k})$ is such that $a_{n_k}to infty$ and thus can't be Cauchy since necessarily Cauchy sequences are bounded.
Take a sequence $(a_n)$ such that $a_nto infty$. Then each subsequence $(a_{n_k})$ is such that $a_{n_k}to infty$ and thus can't be Cauchy since necessarily Cauchy sequences are bounded.
answered yesterday
Foobaz John
19.6k41250
19.6k41250
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
Take the sequence $1,2,3,4,ldots$ It has no Cauchy subsequence since the distance between any two distinct terms is at least $1$.
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
Take the sequence $1,2,3,4,ldots$ It has no Cauchy subsequence since the distance between any two distinct terms is at least $1$.
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
up vote
10
down vote
Take the sequence $1,2,3,4,ldots$ It has no Cauchy subsequence since the distance between any two distinct terms is at least $1$.
Take the sequence $1,2,3,4,ldots$ It has no Cauchy subsequence since the distance between any two distinct terms is at least $1$.
answered yesterday
José Carlos Santos
140k19111205
140k19111205
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
I didn't understand your analysis but sequence $a_n = ln n$ doesn't have Cauchy subsequence since its limit is $infty$
I guess this one uses the theorem that every Cauchy sequence converges
– Robert Frost
9 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
I didn't understand your analysis but sequence $a_n = ln n$ doesn't have Cauchy subsequence since its limit is $infty$
I guess this one uses the theorem that every Cauchy sequence converges
– Robert Frost
9 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
I didn't understand your analysis but sequence $a_n = ln n$ doesn't have Cauchy subsequence since its limit is $infty$
I didn't understand your analysis but sequence $a_n = ln n$ doesn't have Cauchy subsequence since its limit is $infty$
answered 23 hours ago
RiaD
720717
720717
I guess this one uses the theorem that every Cauchy sequence converges
– Robert Frost
9 hours ago
add a comment |
I guess this one uses the theorem that every Cauchy sequence converges
– Robert Frost
9 hours ago
I guess this one uses the theorem that every Cauchy sequence converges
– Robert Frost
9 hours ago
I guess this one uses the theorem that every Cauchy sequence converges
– Robert Frost
9 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
As Foobaz John says, any sequence with $a_ntoinfty$ works, and it's easy to see that $|a_n|toinfty$ is also sufficient. In fact this latter condition is necessary and sufficient. If $|a_n|nottoinfty$, then by definition there is some $c>0$ for which there are infinitely many values $n_i$ such that $|a_{n_i}|<c$ for each $i$. Now by Bolzano-Weierstrass the subsequence $a_{n_i}$ has an infinite subsequence $a_{n_{i_j}}$ which is convergent, and therefore Cauchy.
Ah, Bolzano-Weierstrass, also known as the theorem about subsubsubscripts.
– Misha Lavrov
12 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
As Foobaz John says, any sequence with $a_ntoinfty$ works, and it's easy to see that $|a_n|toinfty$ is also sufficient. In fact this latter condition is necessary and sufficient. If $|a_n|nottoinfty$, then by definition there is some $c>0$ for which there are infinitely many values $n_i$ such that $|a_{n_i}|<c$ for each $i$. Now by Bolzano-Weierstrass the subsequence $a_{n_i}$ has an infinite subsequence $a_{n_{i_j}}$ which is convergent, and therefore Cauchy.
Ah, Bolzano-Weierstrass, also known as the theorem about subsubsubscripts.
– Misha Lavrov
12 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
As Foobaz John says, any sequence with $a_ntoinfty$ works, and it's easy to see that $|a_n|toinfty$ is also sufficient. In fact this latter condition is necessary and sufficient. If $|a_n|nottoinfty$, then by definition there is some $c>0$ for which there are infinitely many values $n_i$ such that $|a_{n_i}|<c$ for each $i$. Now by Bolzano-Weierstrass the subsequence $a_{n_i}$ has an infinite subsequence $a_{n_{i_j}}$ which is convergent, and therefore Cauchy.
As Foobaz John says, any sequence with $a_ntoinfty$ works, and it's easy to see that $|a_n|toinfty$ is also sufficient. In fact this latter condition is necessary and sufficient. If $|a_n|nottoinfty$, then by definition there is some $c>0$ for which there are infinitely many values $n_i$ such that $|a_{n_i}|<c$ for each $i$. Now by Bolzano-Weierstrass the subsequence $a_{n_i}$ has an infinite subsequence $a_{n_{i_j}}$ which is convergent, and therefore Cauchy.
answered 18 hours ago
Especially Lime
21k22655
21k22655
Ah, Bolzano-Weierstrass, also known as the theorem about subsubsubscripts.
– Misha Lavrov
12 hours ago
add a comment |
Ah, Bolzano-Weierstrass, also known as the theorem about subsubsubscripts.
– Misha Lavrov
12 hours ago
Ah, Bolzano-Weierstrass, also known as the theorem about subsubsubscripts.
– Misha Lavrov
12 hours ago
Ah, Bolzano-Weierstrass, also known as the theorem about subsubsubscripts.
– Misha Lavrov
12 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Bolzano-Weierstrass: Every bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence.
Fact: Every convergent sequence is bounded.
Strategy: Try an unbounded sequence.
Guess: $a_n=n$
Conclusion: (I leave it to you)
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Bolzano-Weierstrass: Every bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence.
Fact: Every convergent sequence is bounded.
Strategy: Try an unbounded sequence.
Guess: $a_n=n$
Conclusion: (I leave it to you)
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Bolzano-Weierstrass: Every bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence.
Fact: Every convergent sequence is bounded.
Strategy: Try an unbounded sequence.
Guess: $a_n=n$
Conclusion: (I leave it to you)
Bolzano-Weierstrass: Every bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence.
Fact: Every convergent sequence is bounded.
Strategy: Try an unbounded sequence.
Guess: $a_n=n$
Conclusion: (I leave it to you)
answered 3 hours ago
Jack Bauer
1,226531
1,226531
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3009766%2fa-sequence-that-has-no-cauchy-subsequence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
In the first place, you should only be looking at sequences which are not convergent, right?
– MPW
yesterday
3
I do not understand your question. What do you mean by $|ln(2n)-ln(2n+1)|=0$?
– Carsten S
20 hours ago