Convergence of two limits (Analysis)

In summary: I?By the way, I never mentioned it explicitly, but I'm assuming that a_n and b_n are both sequences of real numbers, and that the limits a and b are real numbers as well.
  • #1
MrGandalf
30
0
Hello. I'm using T.W. Korners 'A Companion to analysis', and I'm struggling with the exercises. Never been interested in proofs or how to derive them, so I guess I'm in for a tough semester. :approve:

Homework Statement


Prove that the first few terms of a sequence do not affect convergence.
Formally, show that if there exists an N such that [tex]a_n = b_n[/tex] for [tex]n \geq N[/tex], then [tex]a_n \rightarrow a[/tex] as [tex]n \rightarrow \infty[/tex] implies [tex]a_n \rightarrow b[/tex] as [tex]n \rightarrow \infty[/tex].

Homework Equations


In the text we just prooved the uniqueness of the limit.
(i) If [tex]a_n \rightarrow a[/tex] and [tex]a_n \rightarrow b[/tex] as [tex]n \rightarrow \infty[/tex], then [tex]a = b[/tex].

The Attempt at a Solution


Since we have [tex]a_n = b_n[/tex] for [tex]n\geq N[/tex] we can use (i) to prove that the limit is the same since the sequences coincide.

Can someone with a bigger brain than mine confirm that this is correct? If not, could you please point out where my reasoning fails?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It looks to me like you just reworded the problem. I think the point here is to actually use the formal definition of convergence.
 
  • #3
MrGandalf said:
Hello. I'm using T.W. Korners 'A Companion to analysis', and I'm struggling with the exercises. Never been interested in proofs or how to derive them, so I guess I'm in for a tough semester. :approve:

Homework Statement


Prove that the first few terms of a sequence do not affect convergence.
Formally, show that if there exists an N such that [tex]a_n = b_n[/tex] for [tex]n \geq N[/tex], then [tex]a_n \rightarrow a[/tex] as [tex]n \rightarrow \infty[/tex] implies [tex]a_n \rightarrow b[/tex] as [tex]n \rightarrow \infty[/tex].



Homework Equations


In the text we just prooved the uniqueness of the limit.
(i) If [tex]a_n \rightarrow a[/tex] and [tex]a_n \rightarrow b[/tex] as [tex]n \rightarrow \infty[/tex], then [tex]a = b[/tex].


The Attempt at a Solution


Since we have [tex]a_n = b_n[/tex] for [tex]n\geq N[/tex] we can use (i) to prove that the limit is the same since the sequences coincide.

Can someone with a bigger brain than mine confirm that this is correct? If not, could you please point out where my reasoning fails?

Thanks!
Don't know about a "bigger brain". More experience perhaps.

Your theorem only says that if a sequence converges it can't have two different limits. You can't define {bn} to be a different sequence and then declare that it is the same sequence! The two sequence do not "coincide" until after "N" and these two different sequences have the same limit is what you want to prove!

The definition of convergence is: {an} converges to L if and only if, for all [itex]\epsilon> 0[/itex] there exist M (I'm using M here because you are already using N for a different purpose) such that if n> M then |an- L|< [itex]\epsilon[/itex]. Now, how big do you think M should be relative to your N?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
Thank you, I'll get back to this exercise later and see what I can do.

Btw. I probably have the bigger brain. My head is exceptionally large. :-p
 
  • #5
After further straining my enormous noggin, I noticed another lemma, which I think can be applied to this exercise.

(ii) If [tex]a_n \rightarrow a[/tex] as [tex]n \rightarrow \infty[/tex] and [tex]1 \leq n(1) < n(2) < n(3) < \dots[/tex], then [tex]a_{n(j)} \rightarrow a[/tex] as [tex]j \rightarrow \infty[/tex]

This one basically says that if we have a sequence tending to a limit, we can take a subset of that sequence, and make a new subsequence. The subsequence will converge to the same limit as the supersequence.

Returning to the exercise: I have two sequences [tex]a_n[/tex] and [tex]b_n[/tex] that I know are equal when [tex]n \geq N[/tex]. I make two new subsequences, that in fact will be the same because we choose them to be (we just start the subsequences from N). From (ii) we know that they will have the same limits as the supersequence, and from (i) we know that they will have the same limit, because this time they are the same sequences and the limit is unique.

Just wanted to try my way a little more.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
That certainly works. :smile: But still, at this level I think it's important to prove this directly from the definition, if only for the experience.
 
  • #7
You might consider a set up like this:
[tex]|a_{n}-b|=|(a_{n}-b_{n})+(b_{n}-b)|\leq{|}a_{n}-b_{n}|+|b_{n}-b|[/tex]
Now, what can you deduce about this inequality for n's greater than N?
 
  • #8
arildno said:
You might consider a set up like this:
[tex]|a_{n}-b|=|(a_{n}-b_{n})+(b_{n}-b)|\leq{|}a_{n}-b_{n}|+|b_{n}-b|[/tex]
Now, what can you deduce about this inequality for n's greater than N?

Hmm, I'll have a go.

Well, for [tex]n\geq N[/tex], we know that [tex]a_n = b_n[/tex], so [tex]a_n - b_n = 0[/tex]

[tex]|a_{n}-b|=|(a_{n}-b_{n})+(b_{n}-b)| = |0 +b_{n}-b| = |b_n - b|[/tex]

[tex]|a_{n} - b| = |b_{n} - b|[/tex]

In the same way we can also deduce
[tex]|a_{n} - a| = |b_{n} - a|[/tex]

They will fulfill the exact same requirements for convergence, so the limits must be equal.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
It's really very simple- just a slight change in how you choose "N" for a given [itex]\epsilon[/itex].


By the way, be sure that you prove this both ways:\

Suppose that, for some N, {an} and {bn} are identical for all n> N. Then

1) If {an} converges then so does {bn}

2. If {an} does not converge then {bn} n does not converge.
Fortunately, that is identical to "if {bn} converges then so does {an}.
 
  • #10
We have two sequences [tex]\{a_n\}[/tex] and [tex]\{b_n\}[/tex] such that
(*) [tex]a_n = b_n[/tex] for all [tex]n \geq N_1[/tex].

From the definition of limits, we know that
[tex]a_n \rightarrow a[/tex] when [tex]n \rightarrow \infty[/tex] for some [tex]\epsilon[/tex] when [tex]n \geq N_2[/tex]

As I did in my previous post, using (*):
[tex]|a_{n}-a|=|(a_{n}-b_{n})+(b_{n}-a)| = |0 +b_{n}-a| = |b_n - a|[/tex]
[tex]|a_{n}-a| = |b_{n}-a|[/tex] for the same [tex]n[/tex].

and conversely
[tex]|b_{n}-a|=|(b_{n}-a_{n})+(a_{n}-a)| = |0 +a_{n}-a| = |a_n - b|[/tex]
[tex]|b_{n}-a|=|a_{n}-a|[/tex] for the same [tex]n[/tex]

They both fulfill the same requirements for the definition, and therefore they must have the same limit.

I did it right here, didn't I?
 
Last edited:
  • #11
I don't see any need for the "triangle inequality" here.

And since it has been some time since this was originally posted, what's wrong with this:


We are given that {an} converges to b. That means that, given any [itex]\epsilon> 0[/itex] there exist some M such that if n> M then [itex]|a_n- b|< \epsilon[/itex].

We are also given that if n> N, then an= bn. Now what can you say about |bn- b| if n> max(N, M)?
 
  • #12
Since [itex]a_n = b_n[/itex], it follows that [itex]|b_n - b| = |a_n - b|[/itex], so [itex]|b_n - b| < \epsilon[/itex] and we have shown that the sequence bn converges to the same limit as an.

Please confirm if I'm doing it right. May I also ask if my previous post was wrong, or just clumsy? I find this a bit difficult, and I'm not really able to determine these things by my self yet. :approve:
 

FAQ: Convergence of two limits (Analysis)

What is the definition of convergence of two limits?

The convergence of two limits in analysis is when two sequences, xn and yn, approach the same limit. This means that as n approaches infinity, both sequences get closer and closer to the same value.

How is the convergence of two limits different from the convergence of a single limit?

The convergence of two limits involves two sequences approaching the same limit, while the convergence of a single limit involves one sequence approaching a specific limit. In other words, the convergence of two limits compares the behavior of two sequences, while the convergence of a single limit describes the behavior of a single sequence.

What is the importance of studying convergence of two limits in analysis?

Understanding convergence of two limits is crucial in analysis because it helps us determine the behavior of functions and sequences as they approach a common limit. This is important in various mathematical applications, such as optimization problems, series expansions, and differential equations.

How can we prove the convergence of two limits?

To prove the convergence of two limits, we need to show that both sequences, xn and yn, get arbitrarily close to the same value as n approaches infinity. This can be done using the definition of convergence or by using other convergence theorems, such as the Squeeze Theorem or the Monotone Convergence Theorem.

Can the convergence of two limits fail to occur?

Yes, the convergence of two limits can fail to occur if the two sequences do not approach the same limit. This can happen if one sequence diverges or oscillates, or if the two sequences approach different limits as n approaches infinity. In such cases, we say that the convergence of two limits does not exist or is not possible.

Similar threads

Back
Top