Proof that real Cauchy sequences converge using the definitions only

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












What I have been given is that all Cauchy Sequences are bounded (proven by the definition of Cauchy sequences), definition of Cauchy sequences, definition of convergent sequences.



Note that all Cauchy Sequences are in real set. Also, I don't yet know about spaces and all, so please don't use those terminologies and all. Also, please don't use subsequences and all, if you want, please specify their meanings and definitions.



Can I prove that Cauchy Sequences converge?



My try (Not at all successful):



Given that, for every $epsilon>0$, there exists a natural number $N$, such that $$|a_m-a_n|<epsilon spacespaceforallspace space n,mgeq N$$



So $|a_n-L|leq|a_n-a_m|+|a_n-L|leqepsilon+|a_m-L|$ where L is any real number.



I think that it can be done after that, but I just cannot get anything ahead.







share|cite|improve this question






















  • Do you know the meaning of $limsup $and $liminf$ of a bounded sequence?
    – dmtri
    Aug 15 at 9:36










  • No. If you use their definitions, I can follow.
    – Aditya Agarwal
    Aug 15 at 9:36






  • 1




    The problem with your argument is that $L$ is not defined.
    – uniquesolution
    Aug 15 at 9:37










  • You can find a lengthy but absolutely elementary proof here: proofwiki.org/wiki/…
    – James
    Aug 15 at 9:37






  • 1




    @AdityaAgarwal which real number? Any real number? Does it hold for $L$, $2L$, $3L$
    – uniquesolution
    Aug 15 at 9:43














up vote
1
down vote

favorite












What I have been given is that all Cauchy Sequences are bounded (proven by the definition of Cauchy sequences), definition of Cauchy sequences, definition of convergent sequences.



Note that all Cauchy Sequences are in real set. Also, I don't yet know about spaces and all, so please don't use those terminologies and all. Also, please don't use subsequences and all, if you want, please specify their meanings and definitions.



Can I prove that Cauchy Sequences converge?



My try (Not at all successful):



Given that, for every $epsilon>0$, there exists a natural number $N$, such that $$|a_m-a_n|<epsilon spacespaceforallspace space n,mgeq N$$



So $|a_n-L|leq|a_n-a_m|+|a_n-L|leqepsilon+|a_m-L|$ where L is any real number.



I think that it can be done after that, but I just cannot get anything ahead.







share|cite|improve this question






















  • Do you know the meaning of $limsup $and $liminf$ of a bounded sequence?
    – dmtri
    Aug 15 at 9:36










  • No. If you use their definitions, I can follow.
    – Aditya Agarwal
    Aug 15 at 9:36






  • 1




    The problem with your argument is that $L$ is not defined.
    – uniquesolution
    Aug 15 at 9:37










  • You can find a lengthy but absolutely elementary proof here: proofwiki.org/wiki/…
    – James
    Aug 15 at 9:37






  • 1




    @AdityaAgarwal which real number? Any real number? Does it hold for $L$, $2L$, $3L$
    – uniquesolution
    Aug 15 at 9:43












up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











What I have been given is that all Cauchy Sequences are bounded (proven by the definition of Cauchy sequences), definition of Cauchy sequences, definition of convergent sequences.



Note that all Cauchy Sequences are in real set. Also, I don't yet know about spaces and all, so please don't use those terminologies and all. Also, please don't use subsequences and all, if you want, please specify their meanings and definitions.



Can I prove that Cauchy Sequences converge?



My try (Not at all successful):



Given that, for every $epsilon>0$, there exists a natural number $N$, such that $$|a_m-a_n|<epsilon spacespaceforallspace space n,mgeq N$$



So $|a_n-L|leq|a_n-a_m|+|a_n-L|leqepsilon+|a_m-L|$ where L is any real number.



I think that it can be done after that, but I just cannot get anything ahead.







share|cite|improve this question














What I have been given is that all Cauchy Sequences are bounded (proven by the definition of Cauchy sequences), definition of Cauchy sequences, definition of convergent sequences.



Note that all Cauchy Sequences are in real set. Also, I don't yet know about spaces and all, so please don't use those terminologies and all. Also, please don't use subsequences and all, if you want, please specify their meanings and definitions.



Can I prove that Cauchy Sequences converge?



My try (Not at all successful):



Given that, for every $epsilon>0$, there exists a natural number $N$, such that $$|a_m-a_n|<epsilon spacespaceforallspace space n,mgeq N$$



So $|a_n-L|leq|a_n-a_m|+|a_n-L|leqepsilon+|a_m-L|$ where L is any real number.



I think that it can be done after that, but I just cannot get anything ahead.









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 15 at 12:08









Bernard

111k635103




111k635103










asked Aug 15 at 9:26









Aditya Agarwal

2,88611536




2,88611536











  • Do you know the meaning of $limsup $and $liminf$ of a bounded sequence?
    – dmtri
    Aug 15 at 9:36










  • No. If you use their definitions, I can follow.
    – Aditya Agarwal
    Aug 15 at 9:36






  • 1




    The problem with your argument is that $L$ is not defined.
    – uniquesolution
    Aug 15 at 9:37










  • You can find a lengthy but absolutely elementary proof here: proofwiki.org/wiki/…
    – James
    Aug 15 at 9:37






  • 1




    @AdityaAgarwal which real number? Any real number? Does it hold for $L$, $2L$, $3L$
    – uniquesolution
    Aug 15 at 9:43
















  • Do you know the meaning of $limsup $and $liminf$ of a bounded sequence?
    – dmtri
    Aug 15 at 9:36










  • No. If you use their definitions, I can follow.
    – Aditya Agarwal
    Aug 15 at 9:36






  • 1




    The problem with your argument is that $L$ is not defined.
    – uniquesolution
    Aug 15 at 9:37










  • You can find a lengthy but absolutely elementary proof here: proofwiki.org/wiki/…
    – James
    Aug 15 at 9:37






  • 1




    @AdityaAgarwal which real number? Any real number? Does it hold for $L$, $2L$, $3L$
    – uniquesolution
    Aug 15 at 9:43















Do you know the meaning of $limsup $and $liminf$ of a bounded sequence?
– dmtri
Aug 15 at 9:36




Do you know the meaning of $limsup $and $liminf$ of a bounded sequence?
– dmtri
Aug 15 at 9:36












No. If you use their definitions, I can follow.
– Aditya Agarwal
Aug 15 at 9:36




No. If you use their definitions, I can follow.
– Aditya Agarwal
Aug 15 at 9:36




1




1




The problem with your argument is that $L$ is not defined.
– uniquesolution
Aug 15 at 9:37




The problem with your argument is that $L$ is not defined.
– uniquesolution
Aug 15 at 9:37












You can find a lengthy but absolutely elementary proof here: proofwiki.org/wiki/…
– James
Aug 15 at 9:37




You can find a lengthy but absolutely elementary proof here: proofwiki.org/wiki/…
– James
Aug 15 at 9:37




1




1




@AdityaAgarwal which real number? Any real number? Does it hold for $L$, $2L$, $3L$
– uniquesolution
Aug 15 at 9:43




@AdityaAgarwal which real number? Any real number? Does it hold for $L$, $2L$, $3L$
– uniquesolution
Aug 15 at 9:43










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote













The reason why Cauchy sequences converge has less to do with elementary definitions of the limit, than with the topological property of completeness, whose very definition is precisely this: every Cauchy sequence converges. Equipped only with the information that a certain sequence is Cauchy, you cannot prove that it converges without reference to the completeness of the underyling space containing it, because if you could, you could copy the argument to a non-complete metric space, where some Cauchy sequences do not converge.



The fact that every bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence also uses completeness, indirectly.



As your "argument" shows, the main difficulty lies in producing the candidate for the limit. It is simply not part of the information carried by just being a Cauchy sequence. This is because the only candidate for the limit may simply not exist in the underlying space - as in the case of rational numbers with the usual metric. This is the essence of the definition of completeness: filling in the "holes" created by those "non existent" limits of Cauchy sequences. This is in fact how completion of a metric space is constructed.



The proof in wikiproof referred to in the comments is not correct.






share|cite|improve this answer





























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    In the construction of the reals from the rationals, there is a theorem called the general principle of convergence which states that in the reals that all Cauchy sequences converge.




    (General Principle of Convergence) All Cauchy sequences converge.




    This can be deduced from your other properties such as L.U.B(Least Upper Bound Property) or Bounded Monotonic Sequence Property.




    (Least Upper Bound Property) If every non-empty susbset with an upper bound has a least upper bound.




    And




    (Monotonic Sequence Property) Every monotonically increasing/decreasing sequence with an upper bound/lower bound converges.




    In fact, it can be shown that the following three are equivalent.



    1. (General Principle of Convergence) plus Archimedean Principle(which states the naturals are unbounded)


    2. (Least Upper Bound Property)


    3. (Monotonic Sequence Property)


    Usually, one starts with the Least Upper Bound Property or the Monotonic Sequence Property and deduce the other equivalences.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • How? Please elaborate?
      – Aditya Agarwal
      Aug 15 at 9:38










    • If you don't mind could you just briefly tell me how your lecturer tried to construct the real numbers? (They are all equivalent but it depends on what you take as your starting premise.)
      – daruma
      Aug 15 at 9:40










    • We haven't yet constructed the real numbers. :|
      – Aditya Agarwal
      Aug 15 at 9:41










    • You explicitly said don't use subsequences but the proof does require subsequences. Firstly, you find that the sequence is eventually bounded. You show that there is a convergent subsequence by Bolzano Weierstrass. Then, you show that this limit is acutally the limit of the original sequence. (I will edit it later if you want a fully written out but as I said, it may require things you haven't talked about yet.)
      – daruma
      Aug 15 at 9:48

















    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Every bounded sequence of real numbers have limit numbers. That is numbers that the terms of sequence can arbitrarily come close to them. This set of limits numbers has minimum and maximum. The sequence has then a limit if these 2 coincidice.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • You may want to clarify "limit numbers". (Clearly, not all bounded sequence have limits such as $0,1,0,1,...$ but yes, they do have limsup and liminf if that is what you mean)
      – daruma
      Aug 15 at 9:49










    • Can you find a number so as infinite many terms of the sequence are close to it as you like? Then this is a limit number of the sequence.
      – dmtri
      Aug 15 at 9:55

















    up vote
    0
    down vote













    It depends on what you are using as your primary definition of the real numbers - all definitions are equivalent, but proofs like this one are part of demonstrating that this is true. Let's assume you know that every non-empty set of reals which is bounded above/below has a least upper/greatest lower bound.



    Let $U$ be the set of real numbers which are greater than an infinite number of elements of the sequence, and $D$ be the set of real numbers which are less than an infinite number of elements of the sequence. Show that $U$ is non-empty and bounded below, hence has a greatest lower bound $L_u$. Similarly $D$ has a least upper bound $L_d$. Now show that $L_u=L_d=L$ the limit you are looking for.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















      Your Answer




      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      );
      );
      , "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: false,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );








       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2883394%2fproof-that-real-cauchy-sequences-converge-using-the-definitions-only%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest






























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      2
      down vote













      The reason why Cauchy sequences converge has less to do with elementary definitions of the limit, than with the topological property of completeness, whose very definition is precisely this: every Cauchy sequence converges. Equipped only with the information that a certain sequence is Cauchy, you cannot prove that it converges without reference to the completeness of the underyling space containing it, because if you could, you could copy the argument to a non-complete metric space, where some Cauchy sequences do not converge.



      The fact that every bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence also uses completeness, indirectly.



      As your "argument" shows, the main difficulty lies in producing the candidate for the limit. It is simply not part of the information carried by just being a Cauchy sequence. This is because the only candidate for the limit may simply not exist in the underlying space - as in the case of rational numbers with the usual metric. This is the essence of the definition of completeness: filling in the "holes" created by those "non existent" limits of Cauchy sequences. This is in fact how completion of a metric space is constructed.



      The proof in wikiproof referred to in the comments is not correct.






      share|cite|improve this answer


























        up vote
        2
        down vote













        The reason why Cauchy sequences converge has less to do with elementary definitions of the limit, than with the topological property of completeness, whose very definition is precisely this: every Cauchy sequence converges. Equipped only with the information that a certain sequence is Cauchy, you cannot prove that it converges without reference to the completeness of the underyling space containing it, because if you could, you could copy the argument to a non-complete metric space, where some Cauchy sequences do not converge.



        The fact that every bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence also uses completeness, indirectly.



        As your "argument" shows, the main difficulty lies in producing the candidate for the limit. It is simply not part of the information carried by just being a Cauchy sequence. This is because the only candidate for the limit may simply not exist in the underlying space - as in the case of rational numbers with the usual metric. This is the essence of the definition of completeness: filling in the "holes" created by those "non existent" limits of Cauchy sequences. This is in fact how completion of a metric space is constructed.



        The proof in wikiproof referred to in the comments is not correct.






        share|cite|improve this answer
























          up vote
          2
          down vote










          up vote
          2
          down vote









          The reason why Cauchy sequences converge has less to do with elementary definitions of the limit, than with the topological property of completeness, whose very definition is precisely this: every Cauchy sequence converges. Equipped only with the information that a certain sequence is Cauchy, you cannot prove that it converges without reference to the completeness of the underyling space containing it, because if you could, you could copy the argument to a non-complete metric space, where some Cauchy sequences do not converge.



          The fact that every bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence also uses completeness, indirectly.



          As your "argument" shows, the main difficulty lies in producing the candidate for the limit. It is simply not part of the information carried by just being a Cauchy sequence. This is because the only candidate for the limit may simply not exist in the underlying space - as in the case of rational numbers with the usual metric. This is the essence of the definition of completeness: filling in the "holes" created by those "non existent" limits of Cauchy sequences. This is in fact how completion of a metric space is constructed.



          The proof in wikiproof referred to in the comments is not correct.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          The reason why Cauchy sequences converge has less to do with elementary definitions of the limit, than with the topological property of completeness, whose very definition is precisely this: every Cauchy sequence converges. Equipped only with the information that a certain sequence is Cauchy, you cannot prove that it converges without reference to the completeness of the underyling space containing it, because if you could, you could copy the argument to a non-complete metric space, where some Cauchy sequences do not converge.



          The fact that every bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence also uses completeness, indirectly.



          As your "argument" shows, the main difficulty lies in producing the candidate for the limit. It is simply not part of the information carried by just being a Cauchy sequence. This is because the only candidate for the limit may simply not exist in the underlying space - as in the case of rational numbers with the usual metric. This is the essence of the definition of completeness: filling in the "holes" created by those "non existent" limits of Cauchy sequences. This is in fact how completion of a metric space is constructed.



          The proof in wikiproof referred to in the comments is not correct.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Aug 15 at 10:50

























          answered Aug 15 at 9:50









          uniquesolution

          8,216723




          8,216723




















              up vote
              0
              down vote













              In the construction of the reals from the rationals, there is a theorem called the general principle of convergence which states that in the reals that all Cauchy sequences converge.




              (General Principle of Convergence) All Cauchy sequences converge.




              This can be deduced from your other properties such as L.U.B(Least Upper Bound Property) or Bounded Monotonic Sequence Property.




              (Least Upper Bound Property) If every non-empty susbset with an upper bound has a least upper bound.




              And




              (Monotonic Sequence Property) Every monotonically increasing/decreasing sequence with an upper bound/lower bound converges.




              In fact, it can be shown that the following three are equivalent.



              1. (General Principle of Convergence) plus Archimedean Principle(which states the naturals are unbounded)


              2. (Least Upper Bound Property)


              3. (Monotonic Sequence Property)


              Usually, one starts with the Least Upper Bound Property or the Monotonic Sequence Property and deduce the other equivalences.






              share|cite|improve this answer




















              • How? Please elaborate?
                – Aditya Agarwal
                Aug 15 at 9:38










              • If you don't mind could you just briefly tell me how your lecturer tried to construct the real numbers? (They are all equivalent but it depends on what you take as your starting premise.)
                – daruma
                Aug 15 at 9:40










              • We haven't yet constructed the real numbers. :|
                – Aditya Agarwal
                Aug 15 at 9:41










              • You explicitly said don't use subsequences but the proof does require subsequences. Firstly, you find that the sequence is eventually bounded. You show that there is a convergent subsequence by Bolzano Weierstrass. Then, you show that this limit is acutally the limit of the original sequence. (I will edit it later if you want a fully written out but as I said, it may require things you haven't talked about yet.)
                – daruma
                Aug 15 at 9:48














              up vote
              0
              down vote













              In the construction of the reals from the rationals, there is a theorem called the general principle of convergence which states that in the reals that all Cauchy sequences converge.




              (General Principle of Convergence) All Cauchy sequences converge.




              This can be deduced from your other properties such as L.U.B(Least Upper Bound Property) or Bounded Monotonic Sequence Property.




              (Least Upper Bound Property) If every non-empty susbset with an upper bound has a least upper bound.




              And




              (Monotonic Sequence Property) Every monotonically increasing/decreasing sequence with an upper bound/lower bound converges.




              In fact, it can be shown that the following three are equivalent.



              1. (General Principle of Convergence) plus Archimedean Principle(which states the naturals are unbounded)


              2. (Least Upper Bound Property)


              3. (Monotonic Sequence Property)


              Usually, one starts with the Least Upper Bound Property or the Monotonic Sequence Property and deduce the other equivalences.






              share|cite|improve this answer




















              • How? Please elaborate?
                – Aditya Agarwal
                Aug 15 at 9:38










              • If you don't mind could you just briefly tell me how your lecturer tried to construct the real numbers? (They are all equivalent but it depends on what you take as your starting premise.)
                – daruma
                Aug 15 at 9:40










              • We haven't yet constructed the real numbers. :|
                – Aditya Agarwal
                Aug 15 at 9:41










              • You explicitly said don't use subsequences but the proof does require subsequences. Firstly, you find that the sequence is eventually bounded. You show that there is a convergent subsequence by Bolzano Weierstrass. Then, you show that this limit is acutally the limit of the original sequence. (I will edit it later if you want a fully written out but as I said, it may require things you haven't talked about yet.)
                – daruma
                Aug 15 at 9:48












              up vote
              0
              down vote










              up vote
              0
              down vote









              In the construction of the reals from the rationals, there is a theorem called the general principle of convergence which states that in the reals that all Cauchy sequences converge.




              (General Principle of Convergence) All Cauchy sequences converge.




              This can be deduced from your other properties such as L.U.B(Least Upper Bound Property) or Bounded Monotonic Sequence Property.




              (Least Upper Bound Property) If every non-empty susbset with an upper bound has a least upper bound.




              And




              (Monotonic Sequence Property) Every monotonically increasing/decreasing sequence with an upper bound/lower bound converges.




              In fact, it can be shown that the following three are equivalent.



              1. (General Principle of Convergence) plus Archimedean Principle(which states the naturals are unbounded)


              2. (Least Upper Bound Property)


              3. (Monotonic Sequence Property)


              Usually, one starts with the Least Upper Bound Property or the Monotonic Sequence Property and deduce the other equivalences.






              share|cite|improve this answer












              In the construction of the reals from the rationals, there is a theorem called the general principle of convergence which states that in the reals that all Cauchy sequences converge.




              (General Principle of Convergence) All Cauchy sequences converge.




              This can be deduced from your other properties such as L.U.B(Least Upper Bound Property) or Bounded Monotonic Sequence Property.




              (Least Upper Bound Property) If every non-empty susbset with an upper bound has a least upper bound.




              And




              (Monotonic Sequence Property) Every monotonically increasing/decreasing sequence with an upper bound/lower bound converges.




              In fact, it can be shown that the following three are equivalent.



              1. (General Principle of Convergence) plus Archimedean Principle(which states the naturals are unbounded)


              2. (Least Upper Bound Property)


              3. (Monotonic Sequence Property)


              Usually, one starts with the Least Upper Bound Property or the Monotonic Sequence Property and deduce the other equivalences.







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Aug 15 at 9:36









              daruma

              905612




              905612











              • How? Please elaborate?
                – Aditya Agarwal
                Aug 15 at 9:38










              • If you don't mind could you just briefly tell me how your lecturer tried to construct the real numbers? (They are all equivalent but it depends on what you take as your starting premise.)
                – daruma
                Aug 15 at 9:40










              • We haven't yet constructed the real numbers. :|
                – Aditya Agarwal
                Aug 15 at 9:41










              • You explicitly said don't use subsequences but the proof does require subsequences. Firstly, you find that the sequence is eventually bounded. You show that there is a convergent subsequence by Bolzano Weierstrass. Then, you show that this limit is acutally the limit of the original sequence. (I will edit it later if you want a fully written out but as I said, it may require things you haven't talked about yet.)
                – daruma
                Aug 15 at 9:48
















              • How? Please elaborate?
                – Aditya Agarwal
                Aug 15 at 9:38










              • If you don't mind could you just briefly tell me how your lecturer tried to construct the real numbers? (They are all equivalent but it depends on what you take as your starting premise.)
                – daruma
                Aug 15 at 9:40










              • We haven't yet constructed the real numbers. :|
                – Aditya Agarwal
                Aug 15 at 9:41










              • You explicitly said don't use subsequences but the proof does require subsequences. Firstly, you find that the sequence is eventually bounded. You show that there is a convergent subsequence by Bolzano Weierstrass. Then, you show that this limit is acutally the limit of the original sequence. (I will edit it later if you want a fully written out but as I said, it may require things you haven't talked about yet.)
                – daruma
                Aug 15 at 9:48















              How? Please elaborate?
              – Aditya Agarwal
              Aug 15 at 9:38




              How? Please elaborate?
              – Aditya Agarwal
              Aug 15 at 9:38












              If you don't mind could you just briefly tell me how your lecturer tried to construct the real numbers? (They are all equivalent but it depends on what you take as your starting premise.)
              – daruma
              Aug 15 at 9:40




              If you don't mind could you just briefly tell me how your lecturer tried to construct the real numbers? (They are all equivalent but it depends on what you take as your starting premise.)
              – daruma
              Aug 15 at 9:40












              We haven't yet constructed the real numbers. :|
              – Aditya Agarwal
              Aug 15 at 9:41




              We haven't yet constructed the real numbers. :|
              – Aditya Agarwal
              Aug 15 at 9:41












              You explicitly said don't use subsequences but the proof does require subsequences. Firstly, you find that the sequence is eventually bounded. You show that there is a convergent subsequence by Bolzano Weierstrass. Then, you show that this limit is acutally the limit of the original sequence. (I will edit it later if you want a fully written out but as I said, it may require things you haven't talked about yet.)
              – daruma
              Aug 15 at 9:48




              You explicitly said don't use subsequences but the proof does require subsequences. Firstly, you find that the sequence is eventually bounded. You show that there is a convergent subsequence by Bolzano Weierstrass. Then, you show that this limit is acutally the limit of the original sequence. (I will edit it later if you want a fully written out but as I said, it may require things you haven't talked about yet.)
              – daruma
              Aug 15 at 9:48










              up vote
              0
              down vote













              Every bounded sequence of real numbers have limit numbers. That is numbers that the terms of sequence can arbitrarily come close to them. This set of limits numbers has minimum and maximum. The sequence has then a limit if these 2 coincidice.






              share|cite|improve this answer




















              • You may want to clarify "limit numbers". (Clearly, not all bounded sequence have limits such as $0,1,0,1,...$ but yes, they do have limsup and liminf if that is what you mean)
                – daruma
                Aug 15 at 9:49










              • Can you find a number so as infinite many terms of the sequence are close to it as you like? Then this is a limit number of the sequence.
                – dmtri
                Aug 15 at 9:55














              up vote
              0
              down vote













              Every bounded sequence of real numbers have limit numbers. That is numbers that the terms of sequence can arbitrarily come close to them. This set of limits numbers has minimum and maximum. The sequence has then a limit if these 2 coincidice.






              share|cite|improve this answer




















              • You may want to clarify "limit numbers". (Clearly, not all bounded sequence have limits such as $0,1,0,1,...$ but yes, they do have limsup and liminf if that is what you mean)
                – daruma
                Aug 15 at 9:49










              • Can you find a number so as infinite many terms of the sequence are close to it as you like? Then this is a limit number of the sequence.
                – dmtri
                Aug 15 at 9:55












              up vote
              0
              down vote










              up vote
              0
              down vote









              Every bounded sequence of real numbers have limit numbers. That is numbers that the terms of sequence can arbitrarily come close to them. This set of limits numbers has minimum and maximum. The sequence has then a limit if these 2 coincidice.






              share|cite|improve this answer












              Every bounded sequence of real numbers have limit numbers. That is numbers that the terms of sequence can arbitrarily come close to them. This set of limits numbers has minimum and maximum. The sequence has then a limit if these 2 coincidice.







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Aug 15 at 9:42









              dmtri

              611316




              611316











              • You may want to clarify "limit numbers". (Clearly, not all bounded sequence have limits such as $0,1,0,1,...$ but yes, they do have limsup and liminf if that is what you mean)
                – daruma
                Aug 15 at 9:49










              • Can you find a number so as infinite many terms of the sequence are close to it as you like? Then this is a limit number of the sequence.
                – dmtri
                Aug 15 at 9:55
















              • You may want to clarify "limit numbers". (Clearly, not all bounded sequence have limits such as $0,1,0,1,...$ but yes, they do have limsup and liminf if that is what you mean)
                – daruma
                Aug 15 at 9:49










              • Can you find a number so as infinite many terms of the sequence are close to it as you like? Then this is a limit number of the sequence.
                – dmtri
                Aug 15 at 9:55















              You may want to clarify "limit numbers". (Clearly, not all bounded sequence have limits such as $0,1,0,1,...$ but yes, they do have limsup and liminf if that is what you mean)
              – daruma
              Aug 15 at 9:49




              You may want to clarify "limit numbers". (Clearly, not all bounded sequence have limits such as $0,1,0,1,...$ but yes, they do have limsup and liminf if that is what you mean)
              – daruma
              Aug 15 at 9:49












              Can you find a number so as infinite many terms of the sequence are close to it as you like? Then this is a limit number of the sequence.
              – dmtri
              Aug 15 at 9:55




              Can you find a number so as infinite many terms of the sequence are close to it as you like? Then this is a limit number of the sequence.
              – dmtri
              Aug 15 at 9:55










              up vote
              0
              down vote













              It depends on what you are using as your primary definition of the real numbers - all definitions are equivalent, but proofs like this one are part of demonstrating that this is true. Let's assume you know that every non-empty set of reals which is bounded above/below has a least upper/greatest lower bound.



              Let $U$ be the set of real numbers which are greater than an infinite number of elements of the sequence, and $D$ be the set of real numbers which are less than an infinite number of elements of the sequence. Show that $U$ is non-empty and bounded below, hence has a greatest lower bound $L_u$. Similarly $D$ has a least upper bound $L_d$. Now show that $L_u=L_d=L$ the limit you are looking for.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                up vote
                0
                down vote













                It depends on what you are using as your primary definition of the real numbers - all definitions are equivalent, but proofs like this one are part of demonstrating that this is true. Let's assume you know that every non-empty set of reals which is bounded above/below has a least upper/greatest lower bound.



                Let $U$ be the set of real numbers which are greater than an infinite number of elements of the sequence, and $D$ be the set of real numbers which are less than an infinite number of elements of the sequence. Show that $U$ is non-empty and bounded below, hence has a greatest lower bound $L_u$. Similarly $D$ has a least upper bound $L_d$. Now show that $L_u=L_d=L$ the limit you are looking for.






                share|cite|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote









                  It depends on what you are using as your primary definition of the real numbers - all definitions are equivalent, but proofs like this one are part of demonstrating that this is true. Let's assume you know that every non-empty set of reals which is bounded above/below has a least upper/greatest lower bound.



                  Let $U$ be the set of real numbers which are greater than an infinite number of elements of the sequence, and $D$ be the set of real numbers which are less than an infinite number of elements of the sequence. Show that $U$ is non-empty and bounded below, hence has a greatest lower bound $L_u$. Similarly $D$ has a least upper bound $L_d$. Now show that $L_u=L_d=L$ the limit you are looking for.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  It depends on what you are using as your primary definition of the real numbers - all definitions are equivalent, but proofs like this one are part of demonstrating that this is true. Let's assume you know that every non-empty set of reals which is bounded above/below has a least upper/greatest lower bound.



                  Let $U$ be the set of real numbers which are greater than an infinite number of elements of the sequence, and $D$ be the set of real numbers which are less than an infinite number of elements of the sequence. Show that $U$ is non-empty and bounded below, hence has a greatest lower bound $L_u$. Similarly $D$ has a least upper bound $L_d$. Now show that $L_u=L_d=L$ the limit you are looking for.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Aug 15 at 10:42









                  Mark Bennet

                  76.8k773171




                  76.8k773171






















                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded


























                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2883394%2fproof-that-real-cauchy-sequences-converge-using-the-definitions-only%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest













































































                      這個網誌中的熱門文章

                      How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

                      Propositional logic and tautologies

                      Distribution of Stopped Wiener Process with Stochastic Volatility