Rearrangement of Sequence $leftx_nright$ [duplicate]

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
Proof that injective rearrangements of a convergent sequence preserves its limit
3 answers
We say that a sequence $lefty_nright$ is a rearrangement of a sequence $leftx_nright$ if there is a 1-1 correspondence $f : mathbbN rightarrow mathbbN$ such that $forall$ $n in mathbbN$, $y_n = x_f(n)$. Suppose $lefty_nright$ is a rearrangement of $leftx_nright$. Prove that $lefty_nright rightarrow L$ iff $leftx_nright rightarrow L$.
1) How do I prove this ?
real-analysis sequences-and-series
marked as duplicate by Martin R, Sil, Theoretical Economist, Lord Shark the Unknown, paf Aug 12 at 11:08
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
Proof that injective rearrangements of a convergent sequence preserves its limit
3 answers
We say that a sequence $lefty_nright$ is a rearrangement of a sequence $leftx_nright$ if there is a 1-1 correspondence $f : mathbbN rightarrow mathbbN$ such that $forall$ $n in mathbbN$, $y_n = x_f(n)$. Suppose $lefty_nright$ is a rearrangement of $leftx_nright$. Prove that $lefty_nright rightarrow L$ iff $leftx_nright rightarrow L$.
1) How do I prove this ?
real-analysis sequences-and-series
marked as duplicate by Martin R, Sil, Theoretical Economist, Lord Shark the Unknown, paf Aug 12 at 11:08
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
5
What have you tried? It is pretty straightforward if you know the definitions and are not afraid to try.
â Arnaud Mortier
Aug 11 at 21:35
1
I have wasted 3hrs trying this problem. I'm sorry that I don't have an IQ over 150 to solve this
â Minto P
Aug 11 at 21:47
3
@MintoP No need to be aggressive, Arnaud is simply asking for your thoughts â as, well, this site's very policy suggests you describe them to us.
â Clement C.
Aug 11 at 21:48
2
"I have wasted 3hrs trying this problem." Good, then I expect that you have some of your attempts and thought process to share.
â JMoravitz
Aug 11 at 21:52
2
@MintoP You know you tried for 3h. How are we supposed to? Be objective: how are we supposed to tell apart your question, with no details on your efforts but asked after 3h of unfruitful attempts, from the same question from someone else, with no details on their efforts and asked immediately after reading their homework statement?
â Clement C.
Aug 11 at 22:04
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
Proof that injective rearrangements of a convergent sequence preserves its limit
3 answers
We say that a sequence $lefty_nright$ is a rearrangement of a sequence $leftx_nright$ if there is a 1-1 correspondence $f : mathbbN rightarrow mathbbN$ such that $forall$ $n in mathbbN$, $y_n = x_f(n)$. Suppose $lefty_nright$ is a rearrangement of $leftx_nright$. Prove that $lefty_nright rightarrow L$ iff $leftx_nright rightarrow L$.
1) How do I prove this ?
real-analysis sequences-and-series
This question already has an answer here:
Proof that injective rearrangements of a convergent sequence preserves its limit
3 answers
We say that a sequence $lefty_nright$ is a rearrangement of a sequence $leftx_nright$ if there is a 1-1 correspondence $f : mathbbN rightarrow mathbbN$ such that $forall$ $n in mathbbN$, $y_n = x_f(n)$. Suppose $lefty_nright$ is a rearrangement of $leftx_nright$. Prove that $lefty_nright rightarrow L$ iff $leftx_nright rightarrow L$.
1) How do I prove this ?
This question already has an answer here:
Proof that injective rearrangements of a convergent sequence preserves its limit
3 answers
real-analysis sequences-and-series
asked Aug 11 at 21:27
Minto P
174
174
marked as duplicate by Martin R, Sil, Theoretical Economist, Lord Shark the Unknown, paf Aug 12 at 11:08
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by Martin R, Sil, Theoretical Economist, Lord Shark the Unknown, paf Aug 12 at 11:08
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
5
What have you tried? It is pretty straightforward if you know the definitions and are not afraid to try.
â Arnaud Mortier
Aug 11 at 21:35
1
I have wasted 3hrs trying this problem. I'm sorry that I don't have an IQ over 150 to solve this
â Minto P
Aug 11 at 21:47
3
@MintoP No need to be aggressive, Arnaud is simply asking for your thoughts â as, well, this site's very policy suggests you describe them to us.
â Clement C.
Aug 11 at 21:48
2
"I have wasted 3hrs trying this problem." Good, then I expect that you have some of your attempts and thought process to share.
â JMoravitz
Aug 11 at 21:52
2
@MintoP You know you tried for 3h. How are we supposed to? Be objective: how are we supposed to tell apart your question, with no details on your efforts but asked after 3h of unfruitful attempts, from the same question from someone else, with no details on their efforts and asked immediately after reading their homework statement?
â Clement C.
Aug 11 at 22:04
 |Â
show 4 more comments
5
What have you tried? It is pretty straightforward if you know the definitions and are not afraid to try.
â Arnaud Mortier
Aug 11 at 21:35
1
I have wasted 3hrs trying this problem. I'm sorry that I don't have an IQ over 150 to solve this
â Minto P
Aug 11 at 21:47
3
@MintoP No need to be aggressive, Arnaud is simply asking for your thoughts â as, well, this site's very policy suggests you describe them to us.
â Clement C.
Aug 11 at 21:48
2
"I have wasted 3hrs trying this problem." Good, then I expect that you have some of your attempts and thought process to share.
â JMoravitz
Aug 11 at 21:52
2
@MintoP You know you tried for 3h. How are we supposed to? Be objective: how are we supposed to tell apart your question, with no details on your efforts but asked after 3h of unfruitful attempts, from the same question from someone else, with no details on their efforts and asked immediately after reading their homework statement?
â Clement C.
Aug 11 at 22:04
5
5
What have you tried? It is pretty straightforward if you know the definitions and are not afraid to try.
â Arnaud Mortier
Aug 11 at 21:35
What have you tried? It is pretty straightforward if you know the definitions and are not afraid to try.
â Arnaud Mortier
Aug 11 at 21:35
1
1
I have wasted 3hrs trying this problem. I'm sorry that I don't have an IQ over 150 to solve this
â Minto P
Aug 11 at 21:47
I have wasted 3hrs trying this problem. I'm sorry that I don't have an IQ over 150 to solve this
â Minto P
Aug 11 at 21:47
3
3
@MintoP No need to be aggressive, Arnaud is simply asking for your thoughts â as, well, this site's very policy suggests you describe them to us.
â Clement C.
Aug 11 at 21:48
@MintoP No need to be aggressive, Arnaud is simply asking for your thoughts â as, well, this site's very policy suggests you describe them to us.
â Clement C.
Aug 11 at 21:48
2
2
"I have wasted 3hrs trying this problem." Good, then I expect that you have some of your attempts and thought process to share.
â JMoravitz
Aug 11 at 21:52
"I have wasted 3hrs trying this problem." Good, then I expect that you have some of your attempts and thought process to share.
â JMoravitz
Aug 11 at 21:52
2
2
@MintoP You know you tried for 3h. How are we supposed to? Be objective: how are we supposed to tell apart your question, with no details on your efforts but asked after 3h of unfruitful attempts, from the same question from someone else, with no details on their efforts and asked immediately after reading their homework statement?
â Clement C.
Aug 11 at 22:04
@MintoP You know you tried for 3h. How are we supposed to? Be objective: how are we supposed to tell apart your question, with no details on your efforts but asked after 3h of unfruitful attempts, from the same question from someone else, with no details on their efforts and asked immediately after reading their homework statement?
â Clement C.
Aug 11 at 22:04
 |Â
show 4 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Here is a proof using the definition of convergence with $varepsilon$'s. It's quite straightforward, and relies on the fact that if all but finitely many elements of $(x_n)_n$ are at distance at most $varepsilon$ from $ell$, then you have all but finitely many elements of $(y_n)_n$ that are far from $ell$ -- basically, the same "finitely many" elements. These elements can be spread out a bit more (by $f$), but since there are finitely many they all must be bounded by some $N$.
It is sufficient to prove a single direction (convergence of $(x_n)_n$ implies convergence of $(y_n)_n$), since by symmetry this implies both directions. (Indeed, if $(y_n)_n$ is a rearrangement of $(x_n)_n$, then $(x_n)_n$ is a rearrangement of $(y_n)_n$.)
Suppose $(y_n)_n$ is a rearrangement of $(x_n)_n$, and let $fcolonmathbbNtomathbbN$ be the corresponding bijection. Suppose $(x_n)_n$ converges to some $ellinmathbbR$.
Fix any $varepsilon > 0$. By assumption, there exists $n_varepsilongeq 1$ such that, for every $ngeq n_varepsilon$, $lvert x_n - ellrvert leq varepsilon$.
Now consider $$S_varepsilon = f^-1(n) : n < n_varepsilon = f(1,2,dots,n_varepsilon-1),.tag1$$
This set is finite (it has size $n_varepsilon-1$), and therefore it has an upper bound $N_varepsilon$:
$$
forall n in S_varepsilon,qquad n < N_varepsilon,. tag2
$$
I claim that for every $ngeq N_varepsilon$ we have $f(n) geq n_varepsilon$. (Indeed, suppose by contradiction this is not the case, i.e., there exists $n^ast geq N_varepsilon$ with $f(n^ast) < n_varepsilon$. Then $n^ast = f^-1(f(n^ast)) in S_varepsilon$, contradicting $(2)$).Therefore, for every $ngeq N_varepsilon$, we have $f(n) geq n_varepsilon$ and therefore
$$
lvert y_n - ellrvert = lvert x_f(n) - ellrvert leq varepsilon,.tag3
$$Since $varepsilon$ was arbitrary, we showed that $(y_n)_n$ converges to $ell$.
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Here is a proof using the definition of convergence with $varepsilon$'s. It's quite straightforward, and relies on the fact that if all but finitely many elements of $(x_n)_n$ are at distance at most $varepsilon$ from $ell$, then you have all but finitely many elements of $(y_n)_n$ that are far from $ell$ -- basically, the same "finitely many" elements. These elements can be spread out a bit more (by $f$), but since there are finitely many they all must be bounded by some $N$.
It is sufficient to prove a single direction (convergence of $(x_n)_n$ implies convergence of $(y_n)_n$), since by symmetry this implies both directions. (Indeed, if $(y_n)_n$ is a rearrangement of $(x_n)_n$, then $(x_n)_n$ is a rearrangement of $(y_n)_n$.)
Suppose $(y_n)_n$ is a rearrangement of $(x_n)_n$, and let $fcolonmathbbNtomathbbN$ be the corresponding bijection. Suppose $(x_n)_n$ converges to some $ellinmathbbR$.
Fix any $varepsilon > 0$. By assumption, there exists $n_varepsilongeq 1$ such that, for every $ngeq n_varepsilon$, $lvert x_n - ellrvert leq varepsilon$.
Now consider $$S_varepsilon = f^-1(n) : n < n_varepsilon = f(1,2,dots,n_varepsilon-1),.tag1$$
This set is finite (it has size $n_varepsilon-1$), and therefore it has an upper bound $N_varepsilon$:
$$
forall n in S_varepsilon,qquad n < N_varepsilon,. tag2
$$
I claim that for every $ngeq N_varepsilon$ we have $f(n) geq n_varepsilon$. (Indeed, suppose by contradiction this is not the case, i.e., there exists $n^ast geq N_varepsilon$ with $f(n^ast) < n_varepsilon$. Then $n^ast = f^-1(f(n^ast)) in S_varepsilon$, contradicting $(2)$).Therefore, for every $ngeq N_varepsilon$, we have $f(n) geq n_varepsilon$ and therefore
$$
lvert y_n - ellrvert = lvert x_f(n) - ellrvert leq varepsilon,.tag3
$$Since $varepsilon$ was arbitrary, we showed that $(y_n)_n$ converges to $ell$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Here is a proof using the definition of convergence with $varepsilon$'s. It's quite straightforward, and relies on the fact that if all but finitely many elements of $(x_n)_n$ are at distance at most $varepsilon$ from $ell$, then you have all but finitely many elements of $(y_n)_n$ that are far from $ell$ -- basically, the same "finitely many" elements. These elements can be spread out a bit more (by $f$), but since there are finitely many they all must be bounded by some $N$.
It is sufficient to prove a single direction (convergence of $(x_n)_n$ implies convergence of $(y_n)_n$), since by symmetry this implies both directions. (Indeed, if $(y_n)_n$ is a rearrangement of $(x_n)_n$, then $(x_n)_n$ is a rearrangement of $(y_n)_n$.)
Suppose $(y_n)_n$ is a rearrangement of $(x_n)_n$, and let $fcolonmathbbNtomathbbN$ be the corresponding bijection. Suppose $(x_n)_n$ converges to some $ellinmathbbR$.
Fix any $varepsilon > 0$. By assumption, there exists $n_varepsilongeq 1$ such that, for every $ngeq n_varepsilon$, $lvert x_n - ellrvert leq varepsilon$.
Now consider $$S_varepsilon = f^-1(n) : n < n_varepsilon = f(1,2,dots,n_varepsilon-1),.tag1$$
This set is finite (it has size $n_varepsilon-1$), and therefore it has an upper bound $N_varepsilon$:
$$
forall n in S_varepsilon,qquad n < N_varepsilon,. tag2
$$
I claim that for every $ngeq N_varepsilon$ we have $f(n) geq n_varepsilon$. (Indeed, suppose by contradiction this is not the case, i.e., there exists $n^ast geq N_varepsilon$ with $f(n^ast) < n_varepsilon$. Then $n^ast = f^-1(f(n^ast)) in S_varepsilon$, contradicting $(2)$).Therefore, for every $ngeq N_varepsilon$, we have $f(n) geq n_varepsilon$ and therefore
$$
lvert y_n - ellrvert = lvert x_f(n) - ellrvert leq varepsilon,.tag3
$$Since $varepsilon$ was arbitrary, we showed that $(y_n)_n$ converges to $ell$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Here is a proof using the definition of convergence with $varepsilon$'s. It's quite straightforward, and relies on the fact that if all but finitely many elements of $(x_n)_n$ are at distance at most $varepsilon$ from $ell$, then you have all but finitely many elements of $(y_n)_n$ that are far from $ell$ -- basically, the same "finitely many" elements. These elements can be spread out a bit more (by $f$), but since there are finitely many they all must be bounded by some $N$.
It is sufficient to prove a single direction (convergence of $(x_n)_n$ implies convergence of $(y_n)_n$), since by symmetry this implies both directions. (Indeed, if $(y_n)_n$ is a rearrangement of $(x_n)_n$, then $(x_n)_n$ is a rearrangement of $(y_n)_n$.)
Suppose $(y_n)_n$ is a rearrangement of $(x_n)_n$, and let $fcolonmathbbNtomathbbN$ be the corresponding bijection. Suppose $(x_n)_n$ converges to some $ellinmathbbR$.
Fix any $varepsilon > 0$. By assumption, there exists $n_varepsilongeq 1$ such that, for every $ngeq n_varepsilon$, $lvert x_n - ellrvert leq varepsilon$.
Now consider $$S_varepsilon = f^-1(n) : n < n_varepsilon = f(1,2,dots,n_varepsilon-1),.tag1$$
This set is finite (it has size $n_varepsilon-1$), and therefore it has an upper bound $N_varepsilon$:
$$
forall n in S_varepsilon,qquad n < N_varepsilon,. tag2
$$
I claim that for every $ngeq N_varepsilon$ we have $f(n) geq n_varepsilon$. (Indeed, suppose by contradiction this is not the case, i.e., there exists $n^ast geq N_varepsilon$ with $f(n^ast) < n_varepsilon$. Then $n^ast = f^-1(f(n^ast)) in S_varepsilon$, contradicting $(2)$).Therefore, for every $ngeq N_varepsilon$, we have $f(n) geq n_varepsilon$ and therefore
$$
lvert y_n - ellrvert = lvert x_f(n) - ellrvert leq varepsilon,.tag3
$$Since $varepsilon$ was arbitrary, we showed that $(y_n)_n$ converges to $ell$.
Here is a proof using the definition of convergence with $varepsilon$'s. It's quite straightforward, and relies on the fact that if all but finitely many elements of $(x_n)_n$ are at distance at most $varepsilon$ from $ell$, then you have all but finitely many elements of $(y_n)_n$ that are far from $ell$ -- basically, the same "finitely many" elements. These elements can be spread out a bit more (by $f$), but since there are finitely many they all must be bounded by some $N$.
It is sufficient to prove a single direction (convergence of $(x_n)_n$ implies convergence of $(y_n)_n$), since by symmetry this implies both directions. (Indeed, if $(y_n)_n$ is a rearrangement of $(x_n)_n$, then $(x_n)_n$ is a rearrangement of $(y_n)_n$.)
Suppose $(y_n)_n$ is a rearrangement of $(x_n)_n$, and let $fcolonmathbbNtomathbbN$ be the corresponding bijection. Suppose $(x_n)_n$ converges to some $ellinmathbbR$.
Fix any $varepsilon > 0$. By assumption, there exists $n_varepsilongeq 1$ such that, for every $ngeq n_varepsilon$, $lvert x_n - ellrvert leq varepsilon$.
Now consider $$S_varepsilon = f^-1(n) : n < n_varepsilon = f(1,2,dots,n_varepsilon-1),.tag1$$
This set is finite (it has size $n_varepsilon-1$), and therefore it has an upper bound $N_varepsilon$:
$$
forall n in S_varepsilon,qquad n < N_varepsilon,. tag2
$$
I claim that for every $ngeq N_varepsilon$ we have $f(n) geq n_varepsilon$. (Indeed, suppose by contradiction this is not the case, i.e., there exists $n^ast geq N_varepsilon$ with $f(n^ast) < n_varepsilon$. Then $n^ast = f^-1(f(n^ast)) in S_varepsilon$, contradicting $(2)$).Therefore, for every $ngeq N_varepsilon$, we have $f(n) geq n_varepsilon$ and therefore
$$
lvert y_n - ellrvert = lvert x_f(n) - ellrvert leq varepsilon,.tag3
$$Since $varepsilon$ was arbitrary, we showed that $(y_n)_n$ converges to $ell$.
edited Aug 11 at 21:50
answered Aug 11 at 21:43
Clement C.
47.2k33682
47.2k33682
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
5
What have you tried? It is pretty straightforward if you know the definitions and are not afraid to try.
â Arnaud Mortier
Aug 11 at 21:35
1
I have wasted 3hrs trying this problem. I'm sorry that I don't have an IQ over 150 to solve this
â Minto P
Aug 11 at 21:47
3
@MintoP No need to be aggressive, Arnaud is simply asking for your thoughts â as, well, this site's very policy suggests you describe them to us.
â Clement C.
Aug 11 at 21:48
2
"I have wasted 3hrs trying this problem." Good, then I expect that you have some of your attempts and thought process to share.
â JMoravitz
Aug 11 at 21:52
2
@MintoP You know you tried for 3h. How are we supposed to? Be objective: how are we supposed to tell apart your question, with no details on your efforts but asked after 3h of unfruitful attempts, from the same question from someone else, with no details on their efforts and asked immediately after reading their homework statement?
â Clement C.
Aug 11 at 22:04