$x_n rightarrow x$ iff the modified sequence is Cauchy

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash 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?










share|cite|improve this question





















  • 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














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?










share|cite|improve this question





















  • 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












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?










share|cite|improve this question














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






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










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
















  • 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










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote



accepted
+50










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 $x$.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • Thanks!........
    – user444830
    Sep 15 at 9:44










  • You're welcome. Wish you luck!
    – Mostafa Ayaz
    Sep 16 at 8:41










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: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
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%2f2912675%2fx-n-rightarrow-x-iff-the-modified-sequence-is-cauchy%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest





























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
0
down vote



accepted
+50










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 $x$.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • Thanks!........
    – user444830
    Sep 15 at 9:44










  • You're welcome. Wish you luck!
    – Mostafa Ayaz
    Sep 16 at 8:41














up vote
0
down vote



accepted
+50










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 $x$.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • Thanks!........
    – user444830
    Sep 15 at 9:44










  • You're welcome. Wish you luck!
    – Mostafa Ayaz
    Sep 16 at 8:41












up vote
0
down vote



accepted
+50







up vote
0
down vote



accepted
+50




+50




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 $x$.






share|cite|improve this answer












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 $x$.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










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
















  • 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

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














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













































































這個網誌中的熱門文章

How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

Mutual Information Always Non-negative

Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?