*Proof verification* If a rational sequence $(y_n)$ converges to non-zero $y$, then $(y_n^{-1})$ converges to...












1














For $epsilon > 0$, there exists $Nin mathbb{N}$ such that $|y_n - y| < epsilon$ for $ngeq N$. Removing the absolute value, adding $y$, then "inverting" the inequalities gives us $(y + epsilon)^{-1} < y_n^{-1} < (y - epsilon)^{-1}$.



We want $(y - epsilon)^{-1} = epsilon_0 + y^{-1}$ for $epsilon_0 > 0$. If we solve for $epsilon$ , we get $epsilon = y(1 - (epsilon_0y + 1)^{-1})$. I observed that, given a small enough $epsilon_0>0$, $epsilon$ is positive regardless of if $y$ is positive or negative. Then we can find a positive $epsilon$, and a corresponding index $N_0 in mathbb{N}$, for an arbitrarily small $epsilon_0$.



I would proceed by defining a third epsilon, $epsilon^* = max{|(y+ epsilon)^{-1} - y^{-1}|,epsilon_0}$, observing that since the former expression tends to zero as $epsilon_0$ tends to zero, $epsilon^*$ can be made arbitrarily small. Then $|y_n^{-1} - y^{-1}|<epsilon^*$ for $ngeq N_0$.






real-analysis sequences-and-series convergence







share|cite|improve this question




















  • 2




    Note that this follows immediately from the fact that $xmapsto 1/x$ is a continuous map $mathbb Rsetminus{0}tomathbb Rsetminus{0}$
    – MPW
    Nov 22 '18 at 22:54
















1














For $epsilon > 0$, there exists $Nin mathbb{N}$ such that $|y_n - y| < epsilon$ for $ngeq N$. Removing the absolute value, adding $y$, then "inverting" the inequalities gives us $(y + epsilon)^{-1} < y_n^{-1} < (y - epsilon)^{-1}$.



We want $(y - epsilon)^{-1} = epsilon_0 + y^{-1}$ for $epsilon_0 > 0$. If we solve for $epsilon$ , we get $epsilon = y(1 - (epsilon_0y + 1)^{-1})$. I observed that, given a small enough $epsilon_0>0$, $epsilon$ is positive regardless of if $y$ is positive or negative. Then we can find a positive $epsilon$, and a corresponding index $N_0 in mathbb{N}$, for an arbitrarily small $epsilon_0$.



I would proceed by defining a third epsilon, $epsilon^* = max{|(y+ epsilon)^{-1} - y^{-1}|,epsilon_0}$, observing that since the former expression tends to zero as $epsilon_0$ tends to zero, $epsilon^*$ can be made arbitrarily small. Then $|y_n^{-1} - y^{-1}|<epsilon^*$ for $ngeq N_0$.






real-analysis sequences-and-series convergence







share|cite|improve this question




















  • 2




    Note that this follows immediately from the fact that $xmapsto 1/x$ is a continuous map $mathbb Rsetminus{0}tomathbb Rsetminus{0}$
    – MPW
    Nov 22 '18 at 22:54














1












1








1


0





For $epsilon > 0$, there exists $Nin mathbb{N}$ such that $|y_n - y| < epsilon$ for $ngeq N$. Removing the absolute value, adding $y$, then "inverting" the inequalities gives us $(y + epsilon)^{-1} < y_n^{-1} < (y - epsilon)^{-1}$.



We want $(y - epsilon)^{-1} = epsilon_0 + y^{-1}$ for $epsilon_0 > 0$. If we solve for $epsilon$ , we get $epsilon = y(1 - (epsilon_0y + 1)^{-1})$. I observed that, given a small enough $epsilon_0>0$, $epsilon$ is positive regardless of if $y$ is positive or negative. Then we can find a positive $epsilon$, and a corresponding index $N_0 in mathbb{N}$, for an arbitrarily small $epsilon_0$.



I would proceed by defining a third epsilon, $epsilon^* = max{|(y+ epsilon)^{-1} - y^{-1}|,epsilon_0}$, observing that since the former expression tends to zero as $epsilon_0$ tends to zero, $epsilon^*$ can be made arbitrarily small. Then $|y_n^{-1} - y^{-1}|<epsilon^*$ for $ngeq N_0$.






real-analysis sequences-and-series convergence







share|cite|improve this question















For $epsilon > 0$, there exists $Nin mathbb{N}$ such that $|y_n - y| < epsilon$ for $ngeq N$. Removing the absolute value, adding $y$, then "inverting" the inequalities gives us $(y + epsilon)^{-1} < y_n^{-1} < (y - epsilon)^{-1}$.



We want $(y - epsilon)^{-1} = epsilon_0 + y^{-1}$ for $epsilon_0 > 0$. If we solve for $epsilon$ , we get $epsilon = y(1 - (epsilon_0y + 1)^{-1})$. I observed that, given a small enough $epsilon_0>0$, $epsilon$ is positive regardless of if $y$ is positive or negative. Then we can find a positive $epsilon$, and a corresponding index $N_0 in mathbb{N}$, for an arbitrarily small $epsilon_0$.



I would proceed by defining a third epsilon, $epsilon^* = max{|(y+ epsilon)^{-1} - y^{-1}|,epsilon_0}$, observing that since the former expression tends to zero as $epsilon_0$ tends to zero, $epsilon^*$ can be made arbitrarily small. Then $|y_n^{-1} - y^{-1}|<epsilon^*$ for $ngeq N_0$.






real-analysis sequences-and-series convergence




real-analysis sequences-and-series convergence






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 22 '18 at 22:57









José Carlos Santos

152k22123226




152k22123226










asked Nov 22 '18 at 22:42









hiroshinhiroshin

666




666








  • 2




    Note that this follows immediately from the fact that $xmapsto 1/x$ is a continuous map $mathbb Rsetminus{0}tomathbb Rsetminus{0}$
    – MPW
    Nov 22 '18 at 22:54














  • 2




    Note that this follows immediately from the fact that $xmapsto 1/x$ is a continuous map $mathbb Rsetminus{0}tomathbb Rsetminus{0}$
    – MPW
    Nov 22 '18 at 22:54








2




2




Note that this follows immediately from the fact that $xmapsto 1/x$ is a continuous map $mathbb Rsetminus{0}tomathbb Rsetminus{0}$
– MPW
Nov 22 '18 at 22:54




Note that this follows immediately from the fact that $xmapsto 1/x$ is a continuous map $mathbb Rsetminus{0}tomathbb Rsetminus{0}$
– MPW
Nov 22 '18 at 22:54










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3














This is wrong. You cannot define a $varepsilon^*$. You need to work with any $varepsilon>0$.



First of all, note that there is a $N_1inmathbb N$ such that$$ngeqslant N_1implieslvert y-y_nrvert<frac{lvert yrvert}2implieslvert y_nrvert>frac{lvert yrvert}2.$$ But then, if $ngeqslant N_1$,$$leftlvertfrac1y-frac1{y_n}rightrvert=frac{lvert y-y_nrvert}{lvert yrvertrvert y_nrvert}leqslantfrac2{lvert yrvert^2}lvert y-y_nrvert.$$Now, take $N_2inmathbb N$ such that $ngeqslant N_2implieslvert y-y_nrvert<dfrac{varepsilonlvert yrvert^2}2.$ Then$$ngeqslantmax{N_1,N_2}impliesleftlvertfrac1y-frac1{y_n}rightrvert<varepsilon.$$






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Your proof is very clear, thank you! Regarding $epsilon^*$, if given how I've "assigned" the new epsilon I can find an index $N$ such that $|y_n^{-1}- y^{-1}|<epsilon^*$ for $ngeq N$ and for however small an $epsilon^*$, won't that satisfy the "for every $epsilon > 0$" condition for convergence?
    – hiroshin
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:00








  • 1




    Yes, that would work. To be more precise, if you define $varepsilon^*$ as a function of $varepsilon$ in such a way that $varepsilonto0iffvarepsilon^*to0$, that would work.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:13













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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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%2f3009775%2fproof-verification-if-a-rational-sequence-y-n-converges-to-non-zero-y-t%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3














This is wrong. You cannot define a $varepsilon^*$. You need to work with any $varepsilon>0$.



First of all, note that there is a $N_1inmathbb N$ such that$$ngeqslant N_1implieslvert y-y_nrvert<frac{lvert yrvert}2implieslvert y_nrvert>frac{lvert yrvert}2.$$ But then, if $ngeqslant N_1$,$$leftlvertfrac1y-frac1{y_n}rightrvert=frac{lvert y-y_nrvert}{lvert yrvertrvert y_nrvert}leqslantfrac2{lvert yrvert^2}lvert y-y_nrvert.$$Now, take $N_2inmathbb N$ such that $ngeqslant N_2implieslvert y-y_nrvert<dfrac{varepsilonlvert yrvert^2}2.$ Then$$ngeqslantmax{N_1,N_2}impliesleftlvertfrac1y-frac1{y_n}rightrvert<varepsilon.$$






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Your proof is very clear, thank you! Regarding $epsilon^*$, if given how I've "assigned" the new epsilon I can find an index $N$ such that $|y_n^{-1}- y^{-1}|<epsilon^*$ for $ngeq N$ and for however small an $epsilon^*$, won't that satisfy the "for every $epsilon > 0$" condition for convergence?
    – hiroshin
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:00








  • 1




    Yes, that would work. To be more precise, if you define $varepsilon^*$ as a function of $varepsilon$ in such a way that $varepsilonto0iffvarepsilon^*to0$, that would work.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:13


















3














This is wrong. You cannot define a $varepsilon^*$. You need to work with any $varepsilon>0$.



First of all, note that there is a $N_1inmathbb N$ such that$$ngeqslant N_1implieslvert y-y_nrvert<frac{lvert yrvert}2implieslvert y_nrvert>frac{lvert yrvert}2.$$ But then, if $ngeqslant N_1$,$$leftlvertfrac1y-frac1{y_n}rightrvert=frac{lvert y-y_nrvert}{lvert yrvertrvert y_nrvert}leqslantfrac2{lvert yrvert^2}lvert y-y_nrvert.$$Now, take $N_2inmathbb N$ such that $ngeqslant N_2implieslvert y-y_nrvert<dfrac{varepsilonlvert yrvert^2}2.$ Then$$ngeqslantmax{N_1,N_2}impliesleftlvertfrac1y-frac1{y_n}rightrvert<varepsilon.$$






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Your proof is very clear, thank you! Regarding $epsilon^*$, if given how I've "assigned" the new epsilon I can find an index $N$ such that $|y_n^{-1}- y^{-1}|<epsilon^*$ for $ngeq N$ and for however small an $epsilon^*$, won't that satisfy the "for every $epsilon > 0$" condition for convergence?
    – hiroshin
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:00








  • 1




    Yes, that would work. To be more precise, if you define $varepsilon^*$ as a function of $varepsilon$ in such a way that $varepsilonto0iffvarepsilon^*to0$, that would work.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:13
















3












3








3






This is wrong. You cannot define a $varepsilon^*$. You need to work with any $varepsilon>0$.



First of all, note that there is a $N_1inmathbb N$ such that$$ngeqslant N_1implieslvert y-y_nrvert<frac{lvert yrvert}2implieslvert y_nrvert>frac{lvert yrvert}2.$$ But then, if $ngeqslant N_1$,$$leftlvertfrac1y-frac1{y_n}rightrvert=frac{lvert y-y_nrvert}{lvert yrvertrvert y_nrvert}leqslantfrac2{lvert yrvert^2}lvert y-y_nrvert.$$Now, take $N_2inmathbb N$ such that $ngeqslant N_2implieslvert y-y_nrvert<dfrac{varepsilonlvert yrvert^2}2.$ Then$$ngeqslantmax{N_1,N_2}impliesleftlvertfrac1y-frac1{y_n}rightrvert<varepsilon.$$






share|cite|improve this answer














This is wrong. You cannot define a $varepsilon^*$. You need to work with any $varepsilon>0$.



First of all, note that there is a $N_1inmathbb N$ such that$$ngeqslant N_1implieslvert y-y_nrvert<frac{lvert yrvert}2implieslvert y_nrvert>frac{lvert yrvert}2.$$ But then, if $ngeqslant N_1$,$$leftlvertfrac1y-frac1{y_n}rightrvert=frac{lvert y-y_nrvert}{lvert yrvertrvert y_nrvert}leqslantfrac2{lvert yrvert^2}lvert y-y_nrvert.$$Now, take $N_2inmathbb N$ such that $ngeqslant N_2implieslvert y-y_nrvert<dfrac{varepsilonlvert yrvert^2}2.$ Then$$ngeqslantmax{N_1,N_2}impliesleftlvertfrac1y-frac1{y_n}rightrvert<varepsilon.$$







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Nov 22 '18 at 23:11

























answered Nov 22 '18 at 22:51









José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos

152k22123226




152k22123226












  • Your proof is very clear, thank you! Regarding $epsilon^*$, if given how I've "assigned" the new epsilon I can find an index $N$ such that $|y_n^{-1}- y^{-1}|<epsilon^*$ for $ngeq N$ and for however small an $epsilon^*$, won't that satisfy the "for every $epsilon > 0$" condition for convergence?
    – hiroshin
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:00








  • 1




    Yes, that would work. To be more precise, if you define $varepsilon^*$ as a function of $varepsilon$ in such a way that $varepsilonto0iffvarepsilon^*to0$, that would work.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:13




















  • Your proof is very clear, thank you! Regarding $epsilon^*$, if given how I've "assigned" the new epsilon I can find an index $N$ such that $|y_n^{-1}- y^{-1}|<epsilon^*$ for $ngeq N$ and for however small an $epsilon^*$, won't that satisfy the "for every $epsilon > 0$" condition for convergence?
    – hiroshin
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:00








  • 1




    Yes, that would work. To be more precise, if you define $varepsilon^*$ as a function of $varepsilon$ in such a way that $varepsilonto0iffvarepsilon^*to0$, that would work.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Nov 23 '18 at 7:13


















Your proof is very clear, thank you! Regarding $epsilon^*$, if given how I've "assigned" the new epsilon I can find an index $N$ such that $|y_n^{-1}- y^{-1}|<epsilon^*$ for $ngeq N$ and for however small an $epsilon^*$, won't that satisfy the "for every $epsilon > 0$" condition for convergence?
– hiroshin
Nov 23 '18 at 7:00






Your proof is very clear, thank you! Regarding $epsilon^*$, if given how I've "assigned" the new epsilon I can find an index $N$ such that $|y_n^{-1}- y^{-1}|<epsilon^*$ for $ngeq N$ and for however small an $epsilon^*$, won't that satisfy the "for every $epsilon > 0$" condition for convergence?
– hiroshin
Nov 23 '18 at 7:00






1




1




Yes, that would work. To be more precise, if you define $varepsilon^*$ as a function of $varepsilon$ in such a way that $varepsilonto0iffvarepsilon^*to0$, that would work.
– José Carlos Santos
Nov 23 '18 at 7:13






Yes, that would work. To be more precise, if you define $varepsilon^*$ as a function of $varepsilon$ in such a way that $varepsilonto0iffvarepsilon^*to0$, that would work.
– José Carlos Santos
Nov 23 '18 at 7:13




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3009775%2fproof-verification-if-a-rational-sequence-y-n-converges-to-non-zero-y-t%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







-

Popular posts from this blog

How to change which sound is reproduced for terminal bell?

Image
3 Recently upgrade to 18.10 from 18.04, and using the terminal is becoming annoying: the new alert sound is a drip ( /usr/share/sounds/gnome/default/alerts/drip.ogg ), and the previous one is still located at ( /usr/share/sounds/ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg ). My issue is that at the gnome-terminal, when autocompleting or pressing left BOTH sounds are reproduced, at the same time. I want to just have ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg active, not both . At the moment I have been only able to reduce the volume of the alerts (but still both are played), or turn the alerts down (but I dislike both "solutions"). gnome-terminal 18.10 teminal-bell share | improve this question
Read more

Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents

Image
up vote 5 down vote favorite 2 I would like to make it so that the vertical space below the title of each chapter is the same when using the Bjornstrup package (i.e. so that the descenders do not affect the spacing - as shown by the red arrow in the picture below). I think I'm fairly happy with the spacing around "A chapter", so I'd really like titles without descenders (e.g. "Contents") to have the same vertical spacing as "A chapter" below the title. I would also like to remove the large "0" in the contents title. Any help appreciated, as always. documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{book} % Packages[![enter image description here][1]][1] usepackage[left=3.5cm, right=3.5cm, top=4.3cm, bottom=4.25cm]{geometry} usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} usepackage{libertine} usepackage[libertine]{newtx
Read more

Can I use Tabulator js library in my java Spring + Thymeleaf project?

Image
0 I want to add Tabulator js to my java project. I added tabulator.min.js, tabulator.min.css to resources folder. After that added to my html page these dependencies as recommending in readme.md. <link rel="stylesheet" th:href="@{/css/tabulator.min.css}"> <script type="text/javascript" th:src="@{/js/tabulator.min.js}"></script> Now my tables view all elements, that I have in the html page, but not correct. In the documentation of Tabulator is example how to create header and table, var table = new Tabulator("#example-table", { columns:[ {title:"Name", field:"name", sorter:"string", width:200, editor:true}, {title:"Age", field:"age", sorter:"
Read more