$x_n rightarrow x$ iff the modified sequence is Cauchy
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. How to prove:
A sequence $x_n rightarrow x$ in $X$ if and only if the sequence $y_n$ is a Cauchy sequence in $X$ where $y_n$ is defined as $y_2k-1=x_k$ and $y_2k=x$
My try:
Here $(y_n)=x_1,x,x_2,x,....$
Assume $x_n rightarrow x$ in $X$. Then $d(x_n,x) < epsilon$ for all $n>N$.
Now to check $d(y_n,y_m) < epsilon$ for all $m,n>N_1 in BbbN$.
Case(i): $m$ and $n$ is even
In this case, $d(y_n,y_m) =d(x,x)=0< epsilon$
Case(ii): $m$ and $n$ is odd
In this case, $d(y_n,y_m) =d(x_n,x_m)< epsilon$, since $x_n$ is Cauchy
Case(iii): $m$ is odd and $n$ is even
In this case, $d(y_n,y_m) =d(x,x_m)< epsilon$
Hence $y_n$ is Cauchy
Is this correct and how about the other part?
real-analysis
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. How to prove:
A sequence $x_n rightarrow x$ in $X$ if and only if the sequence $y_n$ is a Cauchy sequence in $X$ where $y_n$ is defined as $y_2k-1=x_k$ and $y_2k=x$
My try:
Here $(y_n)=x_1,x,x_2,x,....$
Assume $x_n rightarrow x$ in $X$. Then $d(x_n,x) < epsilon$ for all $n>N$.
Now to check $d(y_n,y_m) < epsilon$ for all $m,n>N_1 in BbbN$.
Case(i): $m$ and $n$ is even
In this case, $d(y_n,y_m) =d(x,x)=0< epsilon$
Case(ii): $m$ and $n$ is odd
In this case, $d(y_n,y_m) =d(x_n,x_m)< epsilon$, since $x_n$ is Cauchy
Case(iii): $m$ is odd and $n$ is even
In this case, $d(y_n,y_m) =d(x,x_m)< epsilon$
Hence $y_n$ is Cauchy
Is this correct and how about the other part?
real-analysis
How is $N_1$ related to $N$? Your case (ii) seems fishy. Why should $d(x_n,x_m)<epsilon$? Yes, convergence implies Cauchy, but how do you know that $x_n$ and $x_m$ are that close? All you know is that $x_n$ is close to $x$ and $x_m$ is close to $x$, not necessarily $epsilon$ close to each other.
– Matt
Sep 11 at 2:57
Agreeing with @Matt. You need to get your $epsilon$s straight up front.
– Randall
Sep 11 at 3:00
@Matt & Randall: So the only problem is to use the same $epsilon$ ?
– user444830
Sep 11 at 3:09
I mean, the $N$ and the $epsilon$ you use in the first line $d(x_n,x)<epsilon$ for all $ngeq N$, cannot tell you that $d(x_n,x_m)<epsilon$ for all $n,mgeq N$. Yes, convergence implies Cauchy, but the $N$ you have in each setting may be different. So you cannot use the same $epsilon$ in both settings here.
– Matt
Sep 12 at 3:01
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. How to prove:
A sequence $x_n rightarrow x$ in $X$ if and only if the sequence $y_n$ is a Cauchy sequence in $X$ where $y_n$ is defined as $y_2k-1=x_k$ and $y_2k=x$
My try:
Here $(y_n)=x_1,x,x_2,x,....$
Assume $x_n rightarrow x$ in $X$. Then $d(x_n,x) < epsilon$ for all $n>N$.
Now to check $d(y_n,y_m) < epsilon$ for all $m,n>N_1 in BbbN$.
Case(i): $m$ and $n$ is even
In this case, $d(y_n,y_m) =d(x,x)=0< epsilon$
Case(ii): $m$ and $n$ is odd
In this case, $d(y_n,y_m) =d(x_n,x_m)< epsilon$, since $x_n$ is Cauchy
Case(iii): $m$ is odd and $n$ is even
In this case, $d(y_n,y_m) =d(x,x_m)< epsilon$
Hence $y_n$ is Cauchy
Is this correct and how about the other part?
real-analysis
Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. How to prove:
A sequence $x_n rightarrow x$ in $X$ if and only if the sequence $y_n$ is a Cauchy sequence in $X$ where $y_n$ is defined as $y_2k-1=x_k$ and $y_2k=x$
My try:
Here $(y_n)=x_1,x,x_2,x,....$
Assume $x_n rightarrow x$ in $X$. Then $d(x_n,x) < epsilon$ for all $n>N$.
Now to check $d(y_n,y_m) < epsilon$ for all $m,n>N_1 in BbbN$.
Case(i): $m$ and $n$ is even
In this case, $d(y_n,y_m) =d(x,x)=0< epsilon$
Case(ii): $m$ and $n$ is odd
In this case, $d(y_n,y_m) =d(x_n,x_m)< epsilon$, since $x_n$ is Cauchy
Case(iii): $m$ is odd and $n$ is even
In this case, $d(y_n,y_m) =d(x,x_m)< epsilon$
Hence $y_n$ is Cauchy
Is this correct and how about the other part?
real-analysis
real-analysis
asked Sep 11 at 2:40
user444830
How is $N_1$ related to $N$? Your case (ii) seems fishy. Why should $d(x_n,x_m)<epsilon$? Yes, convergence implies Cauchy, but how do you know that $x_n$ and $x_m$ are that close? All you know is that $x_n$ is close to $x$ and $x_m$ is close to $x$, not necessarily $epsilon$ close to each other.
– Matt
Sep 11 at 2:57
Agreeing with @Matt. You need to get your $epsilon$s straight up front.
– Randall
Sep 11 at 3:00
@Matt & Randall: So the only problem is to use the same $epsilon$ ?
– user444830
Sep 11 at 3:09
I mean, the $N$ and the $epsilon$ you use in the first line $d(x_n,x)<epsilon$ for all $ngeq N$, cannot tell you that $d(x_n,x_m)<epsilon$ for all $n,mgeq N$. Yes, convergence implies Cauchy, but the $N$ you have in each setting may be different. So you cannot use the same $epsilon$ in both settings here.
– Matt
Sep 12 at 3:01
add a comment |
How is $N_1$ related to $N$? Your case (ii) seems fishy. Why should $d(x_n,x_m)<epsilon$? Yes, convergence implies Cauchy, but how do you know that $x_n$ and $x_m$ are that close? All you know is that $x_n$ is close to $x$ and $x_m$ is close to $x$, not necessarily $epsilon$ close to each other.
– Matt
Sep 11 at 2:57
Agreeing with @Matt. You need to get your $epsilon$s straight up front.
– Randall
Sep 11 at 3:00
@Matt & Randall: So the only problem is to use the same $epsilon$ ?
– user444830
Sep 11 at 3:09
I mean, the $N$ and the $epsilon$ you use in the first line $d(x_n,x)<epsilon$ for all $ngeq N$, cannot tell you that $d(x_n,x_m)<epsilon$ for all $n,mgeq N$. Yes, convergence implies Cauchy, but the $N$ you have in each setting may be different. So you cannot use the same $epsilon$ in both settings here.
– Matt
Sep 12 at 3:01
How is $N_1$ related to $N$? Your case (ii) seems fishy. Why should $d(x_n,x_m)<epsilon$? Yes, convergence implies Cauchy, but how do you know that $x_n$ and $x_m$ are that close? All you know is that $x_n$ is close to $x$ and $x_m$ is close to $x$, not necessarily $epsilon$ close to each other.
– Matt
Sep 11 at 2:57
How is $N_1$ related to $N$? Your case (ii) seems fishy. Why should $d(x_n,x_m)<epsilon$? Yes, convergence implies Cauchy, but how do you know that $x_n$ and $x_m$ are that close? All you know is that $x_n$ is close to $x$ and $x_m$ is close to $x$, not necessarily $epsilon$ close to each other.
– Matt
Sep 11 at 2:57
Agreeing with @Matt. You need to get your $epsilon$s straight up front.
– Randall
Sep 11 at 3:00
Agreeing with @Matt. You need to get your $epsilon$s straight up front.
– Randall
Sep 11 at 3:00
@Matt & Randall: So the only problem is to use the same $epsilon$ ?
– user444830
Sep 11 at 3:09
@Matt & Randall: So the only problem is to use the same $epsilon$ ?
– user444830
Sep 11 at 3:09
I mean, the $N$ and the $epsilon$ you use in the first line $d(x_n,x)<epsilon$ for all $ngeq N$, cannot tell you that $d(x_n,x_m)<epsilon$ for all $n,mgeq N$. Yes, convergence implies Cauchy, but the $N$ you have in each setting may be different. So you cannot use the same $epsilon$ in both settings here.
– Matt
Sep 12 at 3:01
I mean, the $N$ and the $epsilon$ you use in the first line $d(x_n,x)<epsilon$ for all $ngeq N$, cannot tell you that $d(x_n,x_m)<epsilon$ for all $n,mgeq N$. Yes, convergence implies Cauchy, but the $N$ you have in each setting may be different. So you cannot use the same $epsilon$ in both settings here.
– Matt
Sep 12 at 3:01
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
The direct side of the theorem is easy. If $x_n$ is convergent so is $y_n$ therefore $y_n$ is also Cauchy. For proving the converse side, let $y_n$ be Cauchy, then we have:$$forallepsilon>0quad,quadexists Nquad,quadforall m,n>Nquad,quad|y_m-y_n|<epsilon$$For each such $N$ choose $n$ such that $2n,2n-1>N$. This choice leads to$$|y_2n-y_2n-1|<epsilon$$because $y_n$ is Cauchy or equivalently$$|x_n-x|<epsilon$$which means that $x_n$ is convergent to $x$.
Thanks!........
– user444830
Sep 15 at 9:44
You're welcome. Wish you luck!
– Mostafa Ayaz
Sep 16 at 8:41
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
The direct side of the theorem is easy. If $x_n$ is convergent so is $y_n$ therefore $y_n$ is also Cauchy. For proving the converse side, let $y_n$ be Cauchy, then we have:$$forallepsilon>0quad,quadexists Nquad,quadforall m,n>Nquad,quad|y_m-y_n|<epsilon$$For each such $N$ choose $n$ such that $2n,2n-1>N$. This choice leads to$$|y_2n-y_2n-1|<epsilon$$because $y_n$ is Cauchy or equivalently$$|x_n-x|<epsilon$$which means that $x_n$ is convergent to $x$.
Thanks!........
– user444830
Sep 15 at 9:44
You're welcome. Wish you luck!
– Mostafa Ayaz
Sep 16 at 8:41
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
The direct side of the theorem is easy. If $x_n$ is convergent so is $y_n$ therefore $y_n$ is also Cauchy. For proving the converse side, let $y_n$ be Cauchy, then we have:$$forallepsilon>0quad,quadexists Nquad,quadforall m,n>Nquad,quad|y_m-y_n|<epsilon$$For each such $N$ choose $n$ such that $2n,2n-1>N$. This choice leads to$$|y_2n-y_2n-1|<epsilon$$because $y_n$ is Cauchy or equivalently$$|x_n-x|<epsilon$$which means that $x_n$ is convergent to $x$.
Thanks!........
– user444830
Sep 15 at 9:44
You're welcome. Wish you luck!
– Mostafa Ayaz
Sep 16 at 8:41
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
The direct side of the theorem is easy. If $x_n$ is convergent so is $y_n$ therefore $y_n$ is also Cauchy. For proving the converse side, let $y_n$ be Cauchy, then we have:$$forallepsilon>0quad,quadexists Nquad,quadforall m,n>Nquad,quad|y_m-y_n|<epsilon$$For each such $N$ choose $n$ such that $2n,2n-1>N$. This choice leads to$$|y_2n-y_2n-1|<epsilon$$because $y_n$ is Cauchy or equivalently$$|x_n-x|<epsilon$$which means that $x_n$ is convergent to $x$.
The direct side of the theorem is easy. If $x_n$ is convergent so is $y_n$ therefore $y_n$ is also Cauchy. For proving the converse side, let $y_n$ be Cauchy, then we have:$$forallepsilon>0quad,quadexists Nquad,quadforall m,n>Nquad,quad|y_m-y_n|<epsilon$$For each such $N$ choose $n$ such that $2n,2n-1>N$. This choice leads to$$|y_2n-y_2n-1|<epsilon$$because $y_n$ is Cauchy or equivalently$$|x_n-x|<epsilon$$which means that $x_n$ is convergent to $x$.
answered Sep 15 at 7:39
Mostafa Ayaz
11.1k3731
11.1k3731
Thanks!........
– user444830
Sep 15 at 9:44
You're welcome. Wish you luck!
– Mostafa Ayaz
Sep 16 at 8:41
add a comment |
Thanks!........
– user444830
Sep 15 at 9:44
You're welcome. Wish you luck!
– Mostafa Ayaz
Sep 16 at 8:41
Thanks!........
– user444830
Sep 15 at 9:44
Thanks!........
– user444830
Sep 15 at 9:44
You're welcome. Wish you luck!
– Mostafa Ayaz
Sep 16 at 8:41
You're welcome. Wish you luck!
– Mostafa Ayaz
Sep 16 at 8:41
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
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2912675%2fx-n-rightarrow-x-iff-the-modified-sequence-is-cauchy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
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
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
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
How is $N_1$ related to $N$? Your case (ii) seems fishy. Why should $d(x_n,x_m)<epsilon$? Yes, convergence implies Cauchy, but how do you know that $x_n$ and $x_m$ are that close? All you know is that $x_n$ is close to $x$ and $x_m$ is close to $x$, not necessarily $epsilon$ close to each other.
– Matt
Sep 11 at 2:57
Agreeing with @Matt. You need to get your $epsilon$s straight up front.
– Randall
Sep 11 at 3:00
@Matt & Randall: So the only problem is to use the same $epsilon$ ?
– user444830
Sep 11 at 3:09
I mean, the $N$ and the $epsilon$ you use in the first line $d(x_n,x)<epsilon$ for all $ngeq N$, cannot tell you that $d(x_n,x_m)<epsilon$ for all $n,mgeq N$. Yes, convergence implies Cauchy, but the $N$ you have in each setting may be different. So you cannot use the same $epsilon$ in both settings here.
– Matt
Sep 12 at 3:01