Show that the following sequence converges. Please Critique my proof.
$begingroup$
The problem is as follows:
Let ${a_n}$ be a sequence of nonnegative numbers such that
$$
a_{n+1}leq a_n+frac{(-1)^n}{n}.
$$
Show that $a_n$ converges.
My (wrong) proof:
Notice that
$$
|a_{n+1}-a_n|leq left|frac{(-1)^n}{n}right|leqfrac{1}{n}
$$
and since it is known that $frac{1}{n}rightarrow 0$ as $nrightarrow infty$. We see that we can arbitarily bound, $|a_{n+1}-a_n|$. Thus, $a_n$ converges.
My question:
This is a question from a comprehensive exam I found and am using to review.
Should I argue that we should select $N$ so that $n>N$ implies $left|frac{1}{n}right|<epsilon$ as well?
Notes: Currently working on the proof.
real-analysis sequences-and-series convergence fake-proofs
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The problem is as follows:
Let ${a_n}$ be a sequence of nonnegative numbers such that
$$
a_{n+1}leq a_n+frac{(-1)^n}{n}.
$$
Show that $a_n$ converges.
My (wrong) proof:
Notice that
$$
|a_{n+1}-a_n|leq left|frac{(-1)^n}{n}right|leqfrac{1}{n}
$$
and since it is known that $frac{1}{n}rightarrow 0$ as $nrightarrow infty$. We see that we can arbitarily bound, $|a_{n+1}-a_n|$. Thus, $a_n$ converges.
My question:
This is a question from a comprehensive exam I found and am using to review.
Should I argue that we should select $N$ so that $n>N$ implies $left|frac{1}{n}right|<epsilon$ as well?
Notes: Currently working on the proof.
real-analysis sequences-and-series convergence fake-proofs
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
Your proof is not correct. Your arguments would also work for $a_n = sum_{i=1}^n frac 1 i$, which does not converge.
$endgroup$
– Falrach
Mar 1 at 21:13
1
$begingroup$
Note that you not only need to bound $left| a_{n+1} - a_n right|$ arbitrarily small, but also $left| a_{m} - a_n right|$ for all $m,n geq N$ (where $N$ can be chosen according to the bound).
$endgroup$
– Maximilian Janisch
Mar 1 at 22:49
1
$begingroup$
This is a duplicate, but I’m too lazy to find the original...
$endgroup$
– Shalop
Mar 2 at 14:53
$begingroup$
@Shalop if you do find the original, then please tell me.
$endgroup$
– Darel
Mar 2 at 16:35
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The problem is as follows:
Let ${a_n}$ be a sequence of nonnegative numbers such that
$$
a_{n+1}leq a_n+frac{(-1)^n}{n}.
$$
Show that $a_n$ converges.
My (wrong) proof:
Notice that
$$
|a_{n+1}-a_n|leq left|frac{(-1)^n}{n}right|leqfrac{1}{n}
$$
and since it is known that $frac{1}{n}rightarrow 0$ as $nrightarrow infty$. We see that we can arbitarily bound, $|a_{n+1}-a_n|$. Thus, $a_n$ converges.
My question:
This is a question from a comprehensive exam I found and am using to review.
Should I argue that we should select $N$ so that $n>N$ implies $left|frac{1}{n}right|<epsilon$ as well?
Notes: Currently working on the proof.
real-analysis sequences-and-series convergence fake-proofs
$endgroup$
The problem is as follows:
Let ${a_n}$ be a sequence of nonnegative numbers such that
$$
a_{n+1}leq a_n+frac{(-1)^n}{n}.
$$
Show that $a_n$ converges.
My (wrong) proof:
Notice that
$$
|a_{n+1}-a_n|leq left|frac{(-1)^n}{n}right|leqfrac{1}{n}
$$
and since it is known that $frac{1}{n}rightarrow 0$ as $nrightarrow infty$. We see that we can arbitarily bound, $|a_{n+1}-a_n|$. Thus, $a_n$ converges.
My question:
This is a question from a comprehensive exam I found and am using to review.
Should I argue that we should select $N$ so that $n>N$ implies $left|frac{1}{n}right|<epsilon$ as well?
Notes: Currently working on the proof.
real-analysis sequences-and-series convergence fake-proofs
real-analysis sequences-and-series convergence fake-proofs
edited Mar 2 at 1:37
Darel
asked Mar 1 at 21:07
DarelDarel
1249
1249
4
$begingroup$
Your proof is not correct. Your arguments would also work for $a_n = sum_{i=1}^n frac 1 i$, which does not converge.
$endgroup$
– Falrach
Mar 1 at 21:13
1
$begingroup$
Note that you not only need to bound $left| a_{n+1} - a_n right|$ arbitrarily small, but also $left| a_{m} - a_n right|$ for all $m,n geq N$ (where $N$ can be chosen according to the bound).
$endgroup$
– Maximilian Janisch
Mar 1 at 22:49
1
$begingroup$
This is a duplicate, but I’m too lazy to find the original...
$endgroup$
– Shalop
Mar 2 at 14:53
$begingroup$
@Shalop if you do find the original, then please tell me.
$endgroup$
– Darel
Mar 2 at 16:35
add a comment |
4
$begingroup$
Your proof is not correct. Your arguments would also work for $a_n = sum_{i=1}^n frac 1 i$, which does not converge.
$endgroup$
– Falrach
Mar 1 at 21:13
1
$begingroup$
Note that you not only need to bound $left| a_{n+1} - a_n right|$ arbitrarily small, but also $left| a_{m} - a_n right|$ for all $m,n geq N$ (where $N$ can be chosen according to the bound).
$endgroup$
– Maximilian Janisch
Mar 1 at 22:49
1
$begingroup$
This is a duplicate, but I’m too lazy to find the original...
$endgroup$
– Shalop
Mar 2 at 14:53
$begingroup$
@Shalop if you do find the original, then please tell me.
$endgroup$
– Darel
Mar 2 at 16:35
4
4
$begingroup$
Your proof is not correct. Your arguments would also work for $a_n = sum_{i=1}^n frac 1 i$, which does not converge.
$endgroup$
– Falrach
Mar 1 at 21:13
$begingroup$
Your proof is not correct. Your arguments would also work for $a_n = sum_{i=1}^n frac 1 i$, which does not converge.
$endgroup$
– Falrach
Mar 1 at 21:13
1
1
$begingroup$
Note that you not only need to bound $left| a_{n+1} - a_n right|$ arbitrarily small, but also $left| a_{m} - a_n right|$ for all $m,n geq N$ (where $N$ can be chosen according to the bound).
$endgroup$
– Maximilian Janisch
Mar 1 at 22:49
$begingroup$
Note that you not only need to bound $left| a_{n+1} - a_n right|$ arbitrarily small, but also $left| a_{m} - a_n right|$ for all $m,n geq N$ (where $N$ can be chosen according to the bound).
$endgroup$
– Maximilian Janisch
Mar 1 at 22:49
1
1
$begingroup$
This is a duplicate, but I’m too lazy to find the original...
$endgroup$
– Shalop
Mar 2 at 14:53
$begingroup$
This is a duplicate, but I’m too lazy to find the original...
$endgroup$
– Shalop
Mar 2 at 14:53
$begingroup$
@Shalop if you do find the original, then please tell me.
$endgroup$
– Darel
Mar 2 at 16:35
$begingroup$
@Shalop if you do find the original, then please tell me.
$endgroup$
– Darel
Mar 2 at 16:35
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Consider $b_n = a_n + sum_{k=1}^{n-1} frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k}$. Then
$$ b_{n+1}
= a_{n+1} + sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k}
leq a_n + frac{(-1)^n}{n} + sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k}
= b_n, $$
which shows that $(b_n)$ is non-increasing. Moreover, since $sum_{k=1}^{infty} frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k}$ converges by alternating series test and $(a_n)$ is non-negative, it follows that $(b_n)$ is bounded from below. Therefore $(b_n)$ converges, and so, $(a_n)$ converges as well.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Thank you, that's neat! One might add that this argument always works for lower-bounded $(a_n)$ with $a_{n+1}le a_n+c_n$ for some summable $(c_n)$ by setting $b_n=a_n-sum_{k=1}^{n-1}c_k$.
$endgroup$
– Mars Plastic
Mar 1 at 23:04
$begingroup$
@MarsPlastic The argument works even if $(a_n)$ is not bounded below, in that case $a_n to -infty$ follows.
$endgroup$
– Martin R
Mar 2 at 7:28
$begingroup$
@MarsPlastic: Btw, thank you for pointing out the flaw in my answer. I was able to fix that, but this answer is so elegant and much simpler, that I deleted mine again.
$endgroup$
– Martin R
Mar 2 at 8:04
1
$begingroup$
This is really an elegant way. Unfortunately I just got it done by brute force.
$endgroup$
– Falrach
Mar 2 at 8:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Define $b_k := a_{2k+1}$. Then
$$b_k leq a_{2k} + (-1)^{2k}frac{1}{2k} leq b_{k-1} + (frac{1}{2k} - frac{1}{2k-1}) leq b_{k-1}$$
Since $b_k$ is non-negative and non-increasing: $b_k to b$.
Suppose $a_n nrightarrow b$. Then there exists an $varepsilon > 0 $ s.t. for infinitely many $n$ holds $|a_{2n} - b| > varepsilon$.
Assume that $|a_{2m+1}-a_m| > frac{varepsilon}{2}$ for infinitely many $m$. Then, since $a_{2m+1}- a_m leq frac{1}{2m}$ we have that
begin{align}
a_{2m+1} - a_m < - frac{varepsilon}{2}
end{align}
for infinitely many $m$. Let $M := {m geq 1 : a_{2m+1} - a_m < - frac{varepsilon}{2} text{ is fulfilled for } m }$
begin{align*}
d_m := 1_M (m)
end{align*}
This implies
begin{align*}
0 leq a_{2m+1} = a_1 + sum_{k=1}^{2m} (a_{k+1} - a_k ) = a_1 + sum_{k=1}^m (a_{2k+1} - a_{2k}) + sum_{k=1}^m (a_{2k} - {a_{2k-1}}) \
leq a_1 + sum_{k=1}^m (-1)^{2k} frac{1}{2k}- frac{varepsilon}{2} d_k + sum_{k=1}^m (-1)^{2k-1}frac{1}{2k-1} to a_1 - sum_{k=1}^infty frac{varepsilon}{2} d_k + sum_{i=1}^infty (-1)^i frac{1}{i} = - infty
end{align*}
since $|M| = infty$ and the last series converges. This is a contradiction.
Therefore we have that there exists $Kgeq 1$ s.t. for all $kgeq K$ it holds: $|a_{2k+1} - a_k| leq frac{varepsilon}{2}$. We can conclude that
begin{align*}
|a{2n+1} - b| geq |a_{2n} - b| - |a_{2n+1} - a_n| geq varepsilon - frac{varepsilon}{2} = frac{varepsilon}{2}
end{align*}
for infinitely $n geq K$. Contradiction. Thus $a_n to b$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3131816%2fshow-that-the-following-sequence-converges-please-critique-my-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Consider $b_n = a_n + sum_{k=1}^{n-1} frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k}$. Then
$$ b_{n+1}
= a_{n+1} + sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k}
leq a_n + frac{(-1)^n}{n} + sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k}
= b_n, $$
which shows that $(b_n)$ is non-increasing. Moreover, since $sum_{k=1}^{infty} frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k}$ converges by alternating series test and $(a_n)$ is non-negative, it follows that $(b_n)$ is bounded from below. Therefore $(b_n)$ converges, and so, $(a_n)$ converges as well.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Thank you, that's neat! One might add that this argument always works for lower-bounded $(a_n)$ with $a_{n+1}le a_n+c_n$ for some summable $(c_n)$ by setting $b_n=a_n-sum_{k=1}^{n-1}c_k$.
$endgroup$
– Mars Plastic
Mar 1 at 23:04
$begingroup$
@MarsPlastic The argument works even if $(a_n)$ is not bounded below, in that case $a_n to -infty$ follows.
$endgroup$
– Martin R
Mar 2 at 7:28
$begingroup$
@MarsPlastic: Btw, thank you for pointing out the flaw in my answer. I was able to fix that, but this answer is so elegant and much simpler, that I deleted mine again.
$endgroup$
– Martin R
Mar 2 at 8:04
1
$begingroup$
This is really an elegant way. Unfortunately I just got it done by brute force.
$endgroup$
– Falrach
Mar 2 at 8:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Consider $b_n = a_n + sum_{k=1}^{n-1} frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k}$. Then
$$ b_{n+1}
= a_{n+1} + sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k}
leq a_n + frac{(-1)^n}{n} + sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k}
= b_n, $$
which shows that $(b_n)$ is non-increasing. Moreover, since $sum_{k=1}^{infty} frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k}$ converges by alternating series test and $(a_n)$ is non-negative, it follows that $(b_n)$ is bounded from below. Therefore $(b_n)$ converges, and so, $(a_n)$ converges as well.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Thank you, that's neat! One might add that this argument always works for lower-bounded $(a_n)$ with $a_{n+1}le a_n+c_n$ for some summable $(c_n)$ by setting $b_n=a_n-sum_{k=1}^{n-1}c_k$.
$endgroup$
– Mars Plastic
Mar 1 at 23:04
$begingroup$
@MarsPlastic The argument works even if $(a_n)$ is not bounded below, in that case $a_n to -infty$ follows.
$endgroup$
– Martin R
Mar 2 at 7:28
$begingroup$
@MarsPlastic: Btw, thank you for pointing out the flaw in my answer. I was able to fix that, but this answer is so elegant and much simpler, that I deleted mine again.
$endgroup$
– Martin R
Mar 2 at 8:04
1
$begingroup$
This is really an elegant way. Unfortunately I just got it done by brute force.
$endgroup$
– Falrach
Mar 2 at 8:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Consider $b_n = a_n + sum_{k=1}^{n-1} frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k}$. Then
$$ b_{n+1}
= a_{n+1} + sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k}
leq a_n + frac{(-1)^n}{n} + sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k}
= b_n, $$
which shows that $(b_n)$ is non-increasing. Moreover, since $sum_{k=1}^{infty} frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k}$ converges by alternating series test and $(a_n)$ is non-negative, it follows that $(b_n)$ is bounded from below. Therefore $(b_n)$ converges, and so, $(a_n)$ converges as well.
$endgroup$
Consider $b_n = a_n + sum_{k=1}^{n-1} frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k}$. Then
$$ b_{n+1}
= a_{n+1} + sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k}
leq a_n + frac{(-1)^n}{n} + sum_{k=1}^{n} frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k}
= b_n, $$
which shows that $(b_n)$ is non-increasing. Moreover, since $sum_{k=1}^{infty} frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k}$ converges by alternating series test and $(a_n)$ is non-negative, it follows that $(b_n)$ is bounded from below. Therefore $(b_n)$ converges, and so, $(a_n)$ converges as well.
answered Mar 1 at 22:47
Sangchul LeeSangchul Lee
95.5k12171279
95.5k12171279
3
$begingroup$
Thank you, that's neat! One might add that this argument always works for lower-bounded $(a_n)$ with $a_{n+1}le a_n+c_n$ for some summable $(c_n)$ by setting $b_n=a_n-sum_{k=1}^{n-1}c_k$.
$endgroup$
– Mars Plastic
Mar 1 at 23:04
$begingroup$
@MarsPlastic The argument works even if $(a_n)$ is not bounded below, in that case $a_n to -infty$ follows.
$endgroup$
– Martin R
Mar 2 at 7:28
$begingroup$
@MarsPlastic: Btw, thank you for pointing out the flaw in my answer. I was able to fix that, but this answer is so elegant and much simpler, that I deleted mine again.
$endgroup$
– Martin R
Mar 2 at 8:04
1
$begingroup$
This is really an elegant way. Unfortunately I just got it done by brute force.
$endgroup$
– Falrach
Mar 2 at 8:36
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
Thank you, that's neat! One might add that this argument always works for lower-bounded $(a_n)$ with $a_{n+1}le a_n+c_n$ for some summable $(c_n)$ by setting $b_n=a_n-sum_{k=1}^{n-1}c_k$.
$endgroup$
– Mars Plastic
Mar 1 at 23:04
$begingroup$
@MarsPlastic The argument works even if $(a_n)$ is not bounded below, in that case $a_n to -infty$ follows.
$endgroup$
– Martin R
Mar 2 at 7:28
$begingroup$
@MarsPlastic: Btw, thank you for pointing out the flaw in my answer. I was able to fix that, but this answer is so elegant and much simpler, that I deleted mine again.
$endgroup$
– Martin R
Mar 2 at 8:04
1
$begingroup$
This is really an elegant way. Unfortunately I just got it done by brute force.
$endgroup$
– Falrach
Mar 2 at 8:36
3
3
$begingroup$
Thank you, that's neat! One might add that this argument always works for lower-bounded $(a_n)$ with $a_{n+1}le a_n+c_n$ for some summable $(c_n)$ by setting $b_n=a_n-sum_{k=1}^{n-1}c_k$.
$endgroup$
– Mars Plastic
Mar 1 at 23:04
$begingroup$
Thank you, that's neat! One might add that this argument always works for lower-bounded $(a_n)$ with $a_{n+1}le a_n+c_n$ for some summable $(c_n)$ by setting $b_n=a_n-sum_{k=1}^{n-1}c_k$.
$endgroup$
– Mars Plastic
Mar 1 at 23:04
$begingroup$
@MarsPlastic The argument works even if $(a_n)$ is not bounded below, in that case $a_n to -infty$ follows.
$endgroup$
– Martin R
Mar 2 at 7:28
$begingroup$
@MarsPlastic The argument works even if $(a_n)$ is not bounded below, in that case $a_n to -infty$ follows.
$endgroup$
– Martin R
Mar 2 at 7:28
$begingroup$
@MarsPlastic: Btw, thank you for pointing out the flaw in my answer. I was able to fix that, but this answer is so elegant and much simpler, that I deleted mine again.
$endgroup$
– Martin R
Mar 2 at 8:04
$begingroup$
@MarsPlastic: Btw, thank you for pointing out the flaw in my answer. I was able to fix that, but this answer is so elegant and much simpler, that I deleted mine again.
$endgroup$
– Martin R
Mar 2 at 8:04
1
1
$begingroup$
This is really an elegant way. Unfortunately I just got it done by brute force.
$endgroup$
– Falrach
Mar 2 at 8:36
$begingroup$
This is really an elegant way. Unfortunately I just got it done by brute force.
$endgroup$
– Falrach
Mar 2 at 8:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Define $b_k := a_{2k+1}$. Then
$$b_k leq a_{2k} + (-1)^{2k}frac{1}{2k} leq b_{k-1} + (frac{1}{2k} - frac{1}{2k-1}) leq b_{k-1}$$
Since $b_k$ is non-negative and non-increasing: $b_k to b$.
Suppose $a_n nrightarrow b$. Then there exists an $varepsilon > 0 $ s.t. for infinitely many $n$ holds $|a_{2n} - b| > varepsilon$.
Assume that $|a_{2m+1}-a_m| > frac{varepsilon}{2}$ for infinitely many $m$. Then, since $a_{2m+1}- a_m leq frac{1}{2m}$ we have that
begin{align}
a_{2m+1} - a_m < - frac{varepsilon}{2}
end{align}
for infinitely many $m$. Let $M := {m geq 1 : a_{2m+1} - a_m < - frac{varepsilon}{2} text{ is fulfilled for } m }$
begin{align*}
d_m := 1_M (m)
end{align*}
This implies
begin{align*}
0 leq a_{2m+1} = a_1 + sum_{k=1}^{2m} (a_{k+1} - a_k ) = a_1 + sum_{k=1}^m (a_{2k+1} - a_{2k}) + sum_{k=1}^m (a_{2k} - {a_{2k-1}}) \
leq a_1 + sum_{k=1}^m (-1)^{2k} frac{1}{2k}- frac{varepsilon}{2} d_k + sum_{k=1}^m (-1)^{2k-1}frac{1}{2k-1} to a_1 - sum_{k=1}^infty frac{varepsilon}{2} d_k + sum_{i=1}^infty (-1)^i frac{1}{i} = - infty
end{align*}
since $|M| = infty$ and the last series converges. This is a contradiction.
Therefore we have that there exists $Kgeq 1$ s.t. for all $kgeq K$ it holds: $|a_{2k+1} - a_k| leq frac{varepsilon}{2}$. We can conclude that
begin{align*}
|a{2n+1} - b| geq |a_{2n} - b| - |a_{2n+1} - a_n| geq varepsilon - frac{varepsilon}{2} = frac{varepsilon}{2}
end{align*}
for infinitely $n geq K$. Contradiction. Thus $a_n to b$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Define $b_k := a_{2k+1}$. Then
$$b_k leq a_{2k} + (-1)^{2k}frac{1}{2k} leq b_{k-1} + (frac{1}{2k} - frac{1}{2k-1}) leq b_{k-1}$$
Since $b_k$ is non-negative and non-increasing: $b_k to b$.
Suppose $a_n nrightarrow b$. Then there exists an $varepsilon > 0 $ s.t. for infinitely many $n$ holds $|a_{2n} - b| > varepsilon$.
Assume that $|a_{2m+1}-a_m| > frac{varepsilon}{2}$ for infinitely many $m$. Then, since $a_{2m+1}- a_m leq frac{1}{2m}$ we have that
begin{align}
a_{2m+1} - a_m < - frac{varepsilon}{2}
end{align}
for infinitely many $m$. Let $M := {m geq 1 : a_{2m+1} - a_m < - frac{varepsilon}{2} text{ is fulfilled for } m }$
begin{align*}
d_m := 1_M (m)
end{align*}
This implies
begin{align*}
0 leq a_{2m+1} = a_1 + sum_{k=1}^{2m} (a_{k+1} - a_k ) = a_1 + sum_{k=1}^m (a_{2k+1} - a_{2k}) + sum_{k=1}^m (a_{2k} - {a_{2k-1}}) \
leq a_1 + sum_{k=1}^m (-1)^{2k} frac{1}{2k}- frac{varepsilon}{2} d_k + sum_{k=1}^m (-1)^{2k-1}frac{1}{2k-1} to a_1 - sum_{k=1}^infty frac{varepsilon}{2} d_k + sum_{i=1}^infty (-1)^i frac{1}{i} = - infty
end{align*}
since $|M| = infty$ and the last series converges. This is a contradiction.
Therefore we have that there exists $Kgeq 1$ s.t. for all $kgeq K$ it holds: $|a_{2k+1} - a_k| leq frac{varepsilon}{2}$. We can conclude that
begin{align*}
|a{2n+1} - b| geq |a_{2n} - b| - |a_{2n+1} - a_n| geq varepsilon - frac{varepsilon}{2} = frac{varepsilon}{2}
end{align*}
for infinitely $n geq K$. Contradiction. Thus $a_n to b$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Define $b_k := a_{2k+1}$. Then
$$b_k leq a_{2k} + (-1)^{2k}frac{1}{2k} leq b_{k-1} + (frac{1}{2k} - frac{1}{2k-1}) leq b_{k-1}$$
Since $b_k$ is non-negative and non-increasing: $b_k to b$.
Suppose $a_n nrightarrow b$. Then there exists an $varepsilon > 0 $ s.t. for infinitely many $n$ holds $|a_{2n} - b| > varepsilon$.
Assume that $|a_{2m+1}-a_m| > frac{varepsilon}{2}$ for infinitely many $m$. Then, since $a_{2m+1}- a_m leq frac{1}{2m}$ we have that
begin{align}
a_{2m+1} - a_m < - frac{varepsilon}{2}
end{align}
for infinitely many $m$. Let $M := {m geq 1 : a_{2m+1} - a_m < - frac{varepsilon}{2} text{ is fulfilled for } m }$
begin{align*}
d_m := 1_M (m)
end{align*}
This implies
begin{align*}
0 leq a_{2m+1} = a_1 + sum_{k=1}^{2m} (a_{k+1} - a_k ) = a_1 + sum_{k=1}^m (a_{2k+1} - a_{2k}) + sum_{k=1}^m (a_{2k} - {a_{2k-1}}) \
leq a_1 + sum_{k=1}^m (-1)^{2k} frac{1}{2k}- frac{varepsilon}{2} d_k + sum_{k=1}^m (-1)^{2k-1}frac{1}{2k-1} to a_1 - sum_{k=1}^infty frac{varepsilon}{2} d_k + sum_{i=1}^infty (-1)^i frac{1}{i} = - infty
end{align*}
since $|M| = infty$ and the last series converges. This is a contradiction.
Therefore we have that there exists $Kgeq 1$ s.t. for all $kgeq K$ it holds: $|a_{2k+1} - a_k| leq frac{varepsilon}{2}$. We can conclude that
begin{align*}
|a{2n+1} - b| geq |a_{2n} - b| - |a_{2n+1} - a_n| geq varepsilon - frac{varepsilon}{2} = frac{varepsilon}{2}
end{align*}
for infinitely $n geq K$. Contradiction. Thus $a_n to b$.
$endgroup$
Define $b_k := a_{2k+1}$. Then
$$b_k leq a_{2k} + (-1)^{2k}frac{1}{2k} leq b_{k-1} + (frac{1}{2k} - frac{1}{2k-1}) leq b_{k-1}$$
Since $b_k$ is non-negative and non-increasing: $b_k to b$.
Suppose $a_n nrightarrow b$. Then there exists an $varepsilon > 0 $ s.t. for infinitely many $n$ holds $|a_{2n} - b| > varepsilon$.
Assume that $|a_{2m+1}-a_m| > frac{varepsilon}{2}$ for infinitely many $m$. Then, since $a_{2m+1}- a_m leq frac{1}{2m}$ we have that
begin{align}
a_{2m+1} - a_m < - frac{varepsilon}{2}
end{align}
for infinitely many $m$. Let $M := {m geq 1 : a_{2m+1} - a_m < - frac{varepsilon}{2} text{ is fulfilled for } m }$
begin{align*}
d_m := 1_M (m)
end{align*}
This implies
begin{align*}
0 leq a_{2m+1} = a_1 + sum_{k=1}^{2m} (a_{k+1} - a_k ) = a_1 + sum_{k=1}^m (a_{2k+1} - a_{2k}) + sum_{k=1}^m (a_{2k} - {a_{2k-1}}) \
leq a_1 + sum_{k=1}^m (-1)^{2k} frac{1}{2k}- frac{varepsilon}{2} d_k + sum_{k=1}^m (-1)^{2k-1}frac{1}{2k-1} to a_1 - sum_{k=1}^infty frac{varepsilon}{2} d_k + sum_{i=1}^infty (-1)^i frac{1}{i} = - infty
end{align*}
since $|M| = infty$ and the last series converges. This is a contradiction.
Therefore we have that there exists $Kgeq 1$ s.t. for all $kgeq K$ it holds: $|a_{2k+1} - a_k| leq frac{varepsilon}{2}$. We can conclude that
begin{align*}
|a{2n+1} - b| geq |a_{2n} - b| - |a_{2n+1} - a_n| geq varepsilon - frac{varepsilon}{2} = frac{varepsilon}{2}
end{align*}
for infinitely $n geq K$. Contradiction. Thus $a_n to b$.
answered Mar 2 at 1:11
FalrachFalrach
1,701224
1,701224
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3131816%2fshow-that-the-following-sequence-converges-please-critique-my-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
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
4
$begingroup$
Your proof is not correct. Your arguments would also work for $a_n = sum_{i=1}^n frac 1 i$, which does not converge.
$endgroup$
– Falrach
Mar 1 at 21:13
1
$begingroup$
Note that you not only need to bound $left| a_{n+1} - a_n right|$ arbitrarily small, but also $left| a_{m} - a_n right|$ for all $m,n geq N$ (where $N$ can be chosen according to the bound).
$endgroup$
– Maximilian Janisch
Mar 1 at 22:49
1
$begingroup$
This is a duplicate, but I’m too lazy to find the original...
$endgroup$
– Shalop
Mar 2 at 14:53
$begingroup$
@Shalop if you do find the original, then please tell me.
$endgroup$
– Darel
Mar 2 at 16:35