Cauchy sequence and subsequence
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
"Let ${x_n}subset U$ be a Cauchy sequence. Give a direct proof that if a subsequence ${x_{nk}}subset S$ has a limit $L$, then the Cauchy sequence ${x_n}subset U$ has $L$ as a limit. Do not assume that general Cauchy sequences are convergent."
Ok I know a lot of people hate helping others with homework when they feel that the person asking the question hasn't worked on the problem. I have spent about 30 minutes going through all my theorems from my textbook on Cauchy sequences and I don't know where to start. Please help me
proof-writing cauchy-sequences
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
"Let ${x_n}subset U$ be a Cauchy sequence. Give a direct proof that if a subsequence ${x_{nk}}subset S$ has a limit $L$, then the Cauchy sequence ${x_n}subset U$ has $L$ as a limit. Do not assume that general Cauchy sequences are convergent."
Ok I know a lot of people hate helping others with homework when they feel that the person asking the question hasn't worked on the problem. I have spent about 30 minutes going through all my theorems from my textbook on Cauchy sequences and I don't know where to start. Please help me
proof-writing cauchy-sequences
New contributor
Hint: You want to show that the cauchy sequence is close to $L$ from some point onwards. How can you do that using the closeness you get from the subsequence?
– NL1992
Dec 3 at 2:05
is that using tails?
– Sam Cole
Dec 3 at 2:08
You have that $|x_{n_k}-L|<epsilon$ for all $k>K$ and $|x_n-x_m|<epsilon$ for all $n,m>N$. How can you translate that for $|x_n-L|<epsilon$?
– NL1992
Dec 3 at 2:12
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
"Let ${x_n}subset U$ be a Cauchy sequence. Give a direct proof that if a subsequence ${x_{nk}}subset S$ has a limit $L$, then the Cauchy sequence ${x_n}subset U$ has $L$ as a limit. Do not assume that general Cauchy sequences are convergent."
Ok I know a lot of people hate helping others with homework when they feel that the person asking the question hasn't worked on the problem. I have spent about 30 minutes going through all my theorems from my textbook on Cauchy sequences and I don't know where to start. Please help me
proof-writing cauchy-sequences
New contributor
"Let ${x_n}subset U$ be a Cauchy sequence. Give a direct proof that if a subsequence ${x_{nk}}subset S$ has a limit $L$, then the Cauchy sequence ${x_n}subset U$ has $L$ as a limit. Do not assume that general Cauchy sequences are convergent."
Ok I know a lot of people hate helping others with homework when they feel that the person asking the question hasn't worked on the problem. I have spent about 30 minutes going through all my theorems from my textbook on Cauchy sequences and I don't know where to start. Please help me
proof-writing cauchy-sequences
proof-writing cauchy-sequences
New contributor
New contributor
edited Dec 3 at 2:07
Boshu
694315
694315
New contributor
asked Dec 3 at 1:54
Sam Cole
162
162
New contributor
New contributor
Hint: You want to show that the cauchy sequence is close to $L$ from some point onwards. How can you do that using the closeness you get from the subsequence?
– NL1992
Dec 3 at 2:05
is that using tails?
– Sam Cole
Dec 3 at 2:08
You have that $|x_{n_k}-L|<epsilon$ for all $k>K$ and $|x_n-x_m|<epsilon$ for all $n,m>N$. How can you translate that for $|x_n-L|<epsilon$?
– NL1992
Dec 3 at 2:12
add a comment |
Hint: You want to show that the cauchy sequence is close to $L$ from some point onwards. How can you do that using the closeness you get from the subsequence?
– NL1992
Dec 3 at 2:05
is that using tails?
– Sam Cole
Dec 3 at 2:08
You have that $|x_{n_k}-L|<epsilon$ for all $k>K$ and $|x_n-x_m|<epsilon$ for all $n,m>N$. How can you translate that for $|x_n-L|<epsilon$?
– NL1992
Dec 3 at 2:12
Hint: You want to show that the cauchy sequence is close to $L$ from some point onwards. How can you do that using the closeness you get from the subsequence?
– NL1992
Dec 3 at 2:05
Hint: You want to show that the cauchy sequence is close to $L$ from some point onwards. How can you do that using the closeness you get from the subsequence?
– NL1992
Dec 3 at 2:05
is that using tails?
– Sam Cole
Dec 3 at 2:08
is that using tails?
– Sam Cole
Dec 3 at 2:08
You have that $|x_{n_k}-L|<epsilon$ for all $k>K$ and $|x_n-x_m|<epsilon$ for all $n,m>N$. How can you translate that for $|x_n-L|<epsilon$?
– NL1992
Dec 3 at 2:12
You have that $|x_{n_k}-L|<epsilon$ for all $k>K$ and $|x_n-x_m|<epsilon$ for all $n,m>N$. How can you translate that for $|x_n-L|<epsilon$?
– NL1992
Dec 3 at 2:12
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Let $x_n$ be a Cauchy sequence and $(x_n)_k$ a subsequence. Let $epsilon >0$. Then for sufficiently large $n$, since $x_n$ is Cauchy, $|x_n-(x_n)_k|<epsilon /2.$ Since the subsequence converges to $L$ we have $|(x_n)_k-L|<epsilon /2$ for sufficiently large $k$. Choosing the maximum of $n$ for which the above are satisfied gives $|x_n-L|=|x_n-(x_n)_k+(x_n)_k-L|leq |x_n-(x_n)_k|+|(x_n)_k-L|<epsilon$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The actual theorem states that a Cauchy sequence is convergent iff it has a convergent subsequence, and your question only asks us to prove the if part. It follows rather immediately from the triangle inequality. Pick $n_k$ such that $|x_{n_k}-L|leqdfrac{epsilon}{2}$, and $n,m$ such that $|x_n-x_m|leq dfrac{epsilon}{2}$. You should be able to see why these exist for integers sufficiently large. Then
$$|x_n-L|leq|x_n-x_m|+|x_{n_k}-L|$$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Fix $epsilon>0.$ $x_{n_k}rightarrow L$ implies there is an integer $k_0$ such that $d(x_{n_k},L)<epsilon/2$ for $kgeq k_0.$ $(x_n)$ is Cauchy implies there is an integer $n_0$ such that $d(x_m,x_n)<epsilon/2$ for $m,ngeq n_0.$ Take $N=max{n_0,n_{k_0}}.$ Then for $ngeq N,$ $d(x_n,L)leq d(x_n,x_{n_{k_0}})+d(x_{n_{k_0}},L)<epsilon.$ Hence $x_nrightarrow L.$
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Let $x_n$ be a Cauchy sequence and $(x_n)_k$ a subsequence. Let $epsilon >0$. Then for sufficiently large $n$, since $x_n$ is Cauchy, $|x_n-(x_n)_k|<epsilon /2.$ Since the subsequence converges to $L$ we have $|(x_n)_k-L|<epsilon /2$ for sufficiently large $k$. Choosing the maximum of $n$ for which the above are satisfied gives $|x_n-L|=|x_n-(x_n)_k+(x_n)_k-L|leq |x_n-(x_n)_k|+|(x_n)_k-L|<epsilon$.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Let $x_n$ be a Cauchy sequence and $(x_n)_k$ a subsequence. Let $epsilon >0$. Then for sufficiently large $n$, since $x_n$ is Cauchy, $|x_n-(x_n)_k|<epsilon /2.$ Since the subsequence converges to $L$ we have $|(x_n)_k-L|<epsilon /2$ for sufficiently large $k$. Choosing the maximum of $n$ for which the above are satisfied gives $|x_n-L|=|x_n-(x_n)_k+(x_n)_k-L|leq |x_n-(x_n)_k|+|(x_n)_k-L|<epsilon$.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Let $x_n$ be a Cauchy sequence and $(x_n)_k$ a subsequence. Let $epsilon >0$. Then for sufficiently large $n$, since $x_n$ is Cauchy, $|x_n-(x_n)_k|<epsilon /2.$ Since the subsequence converges to $L$ we have $|(x_n)_k-L|<epsilon /2$ for sufficiently large $k$. Choosing the maximum of $n$ for which the above are satisfied gives $|x_n-L|=|x_n-(x_n)_k+(x_n)_k-L|leq |x_n-(x_n)_k|+|(x_n)_k-L|<epsilon$.
Let $x_n$ be a Cauchy sequence and $(x_n)_k$ a subsequence. Let $epsilon >0$. Then for sufficiently large $n$, since $x_n$ is Cauchy, $|x_n-(x_n)_k|<epsilon /2.$ Since the subsequence converges to $L$ we have $|(x_n)_k-L|<epsilon /2$ for sufficiently large $k$. Choosing the maximum of $n$ for which the above are satisfied gives $|x_n-L|=|x_n-(x_n)_k+(x_n)_k-L|leq |x_n-(x_n)_k|+|(x_n)_k-L|<epsilon$.
answered Dec 3 at 2:18
AnyAD
1,946811
1,946811
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The actual theorem states that a Cauchy sequence is convergent iff it has a convergent subsequence, and your question only asks us to prove the if part. It follows rather immediately from the triangle inequality. Pick $n_k$ such that $|x_{n_k}-L|leqdfrac{epsilon}{2}$, and $n,m$ such that $|x_n-x_m|leq dfrac{epsilon}{2}$. You should be able to see why these exist for integers sufficiently large. Then
$$|x_n-L|leq|x_n-x_m|+|x_{n_k}-L|$$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The actual theorem states that a Cauchy sequence is convergent iff it has a convergent subsequence, and your question only asks us to prove the if part. It follows rather immediately from the triangle inequality. Pick $n_k$ such that $|x_{n_k}-L|leqdfrac{epsilon}{2}$, and $n,m$ such that $|x_n-x_m|leq dfrac{epsilon}{2}$. You should be able to see why these exist for integers sufficiently large. Then
$$|x_n-L|leq|x_n-x_m|+|x_{n_k}-L|$$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
The actual theorem states that a Cauchy sequence is convergent iff it has a convergent subsequence, and your question only asks us to prove the if part. It follows rather immediately from the triangle inequality. Pick $n_k$ such that $|x_{n_k}-L|leqdfrac{epsilon}{2}$, and $n,m$ such that $|x_n-x_m|leq dfrac{epsilon}{2}$. You should be able to see why these exist for integers sufficiently large. Then
$$|x_n-L|leq|x_n-x_m|+|x_{n_k}-L|$$.
The actual theorem states that a Cauchy sequence is convergent iff it has a convergent subsequence, and your question only asks us to prove the if part. It follows rather immediately from the triangle inequality. Pick $n_k$ such that $|x_{n_k}-L|leqdfrac{epsilon}{2}$, and $n,m$ such that $|x_n-x_m|leq dfrac{epsilon}{2}$. You should be able to see why these exist for integers sufficiently large. Then
$$|x_n-L|leq|x_n-x_m|+|x_{n_k}-L|$$.
answered Dec 3 at 2:13
Boshu
694315
694315
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Fix $epsilon>0.$ $x_{n_k}rightarrow L$ implies there is an integer $k_0$ such that $d(x_{n_k},L)<epsilon/2$ for $kgeq k_0.$ $(x_n)$ is Cauchy implies there is an integer $n_0$ such that $d(x_m,x_n)<epsilon/2$ for $m,ngeq n_0.$ Take $N=max{n_0,n_{k_0}}.$ Then for $ngeq N,$ $d(x_n,L)leq d(x_n,x_{n_{k_0}})+d(x_{n_{k_0}},L)<epsilon.$ Hence $x_nrightarrow L.$
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Fix $epsilon>0.$ $x_{n_k}rightarrow L$ implies there is an integer $k_0$ such that $d(x_{n_k},L)<epsilon/2$ for $kgeq k_0.$ $(x_n)$ is Cauchy implies there is an integer $n_0$ such that $d(x_m,x_n)<epsilon/2$ for $m,ngeq n_0.$ Take $N=max{n_0,n_{k_0}}.$ Then for $ngeq N,$ $d(x_n,L)leq d(x_n,x_{n_{k_0}})+d(x_{n_{k_0}},L)<epsilon.$ Hence $x_nrightarrow L.$
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Fix $epsilon>0.$ $x_{n_k}rightarrow L$ implies there is an integer $k_0$ such that $d(x_{n_k},L)<epsilon/2$ for $kgeq k_0.$ $(x_n)$ is Cauchy implies there is an integer $n_0$ such that $d(x_m,x_n)<epsilon/2$ for $m,ngeq n_0.$ Take $N=max{n_0,n_{k_0}}.$ Then for $ngeq N,$ $d(x_n,L)leq d(x_n,x_{n_{k_0}})+d(x_{n_{k_0}},L)<epsilon.$ Hence $x_nrightarrow L.$
Fix $epsilon>0.$ $x_{n_k}rightarrow L$ implies there is an integer $k_0$ such that $d(x_{n_k},L)<epsilon/2$ for $kgeq k_0.$ $(x_n)$ is Cauchy implies there is an integer $n_0$ such that $d(x_m,x_n)<epsilon/2$ for $m,ngeq n_0.$ Take $N=max{n_0,n_{k_0}}.$ Then for $ngeq N,$ $d(x_n,L)leq d(x_n,x_{n_{k_0}})+d(x_{n_{k_0}},L)<epsilon.$ Hence $x_nrightarrow L.$
answered Dec 3 at 2:15
John_Wick
1,154111
1,154111
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sam Cole is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sam Cole is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sam Cole is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sam Cole is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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%2f3023499%2fcauchy-sequence-and-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
Hint: You want to show that the cauchy sequence is close to $L$ from some point onwards. How can you do that using the closeness you get from the subsequence?
– NL1992
Dec 3 at 2:05
is that using tails?
– Sam Cole
Dec 3 at 2:08
You have that $|x_{n_k}-L|<epsilon$ for all $k>K$ and $|x_n-x_m|<epsilon$ for all $n,m>N$. How can you translate that for $|x_n-L|<epsilon$?
– NL1992
Dec 3 at 2:12