Proving the Truth of Various Convergence Statements in Analysis

  • Thread starter end3r7
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Analysis
In summary, the conversation discussed various statements and their validity. (i) states that a sequence which converges must converge. (ii) states that a sequence which is less than 1/n for all n must converge. (iii) states that if [a(n)]^2 --> A^2, then either a(n) --> A or a(n) --> -A. (iv) states that if [a(n)]^3 --> A^3, then a(n) --> A. (v) states that if [s(n)]^2 --> S^2 and \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} (s(n+1) - s(n)) = 0, then either s(n) --> S
  • #1
end3r7
171
0

Homework Statement


I need to prove if these are true, and provide a counter if they are false. Please tell me if I have these right, I think they are all true.

(i) Let s(n) be a sequence s.t. [tex]\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} (s(n+1) - s(n)) = 0[/tex]. Then s(n) must converge.

(ii) Let s(n) be a sequence s.t. [tex]|s(n+1) - s(n)| < \frac{1}{n}[/tex] for all n. Then s(n) must converge.

(iii) If [a(n)]^2 --> A^2, then either a(n) --> A or a(n) --> -A

(iv) If [a(n)]^3 --> A^3, then a(n) --> A

(v) If [s(n)]^2 --> S^2 and [tex]\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} (s(n+1) - s(n)) = 0[/tex], then either s(n) --> S or s(n) --> -S

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


(i) TRUE. It's a cauchy sequence. Proof involves showing that limit sup <= limit inf which implies limit sup = limit inf which in turn implies a limit exists.

(ii) TRUE. A cauchy sequence with epsilon = 1/n

(iii) TRUE. Trivial using the limit of the product of two convergent sequences is the product of the two limits.

(iv) TRUE. Same way.

(v) ? Just look back at (i) and (iii), I guess...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
(i) is false take s(n) = sqrt(n), so s(n + 1) - s(n) = sqrt(n + 1)-sqrt(n) = 1/(sqrt(n + 1) + sqrt(n)) -> 0 as n->inf but clearly s(n) diverges
 
  • #3
Good catch, sqrt(n) is not cauchy. Thanks.
 
  • #4
also your reasoning in (iii) and (iv) is wrong, i think they are true though(I didn't verify)
 
  • #5
How is the reasoning for (iii) wrong? I was going to argue this way.

Assume lim = B != A and B != -A.
the lim a^2 = lim a * lim a = B^2 = A^2.

This implies B = +-A, which contradicts assumption.

Where did I go wrong?
 
  • #6
I fixed (ii) by the way, there was a big typo...
 
  • #7
end3r7 said:
How is the reasoning for (iii) wrong? I was going to argue this way.

Assume lim = B != A and B != -A.
the lim a^2 = lim a * lim a = B^2 = A^2.

This implies B = +-A, which contradicts assumption.

Where did I go wrong?

Sorry about that! (iii) is false, and your reasoning is wrong, we don't know a_n converges,
try a_n = (-1)^n
 
  • #8
Oh, you are correct. I assumed a(n) converged.

Likewise, I believe (ii) is wrong and I need to compare to the harmonic series, I"m still wondering as to how though.
 
  • #9
Most of these can be dealt with by looking at the sequence (-1)^n.
 
  • #10
end3r7 said:
Oh, you are correct. I assumed a(n) converged.

Likewise, I believe (ii) is wrong and I need to compare to the harmonic series, I"m still wondering as to how though.

yes that works,

note (ii) is true if you replace 1/n by 1/k^n for some constant k >1, or if you replace 1/n by a constant c with 0<c< 1.
 
  • #11
For (ii), i can use s(n) = ln(x) to prove that it's false, correct?
 
  • #12
end3r7 said:
For (ii), i can use s(n) = ln(x) to prove that it's false, correct?

very nice yes that seems to work using the fact ln is increasing and ln1 = 0

and since you figured it out, here's how to do it with the harmonic series since you asked earlier,

set a_n = sum(1/k, k = 1,..., n), then a_(n + 1) - a_n = 1/(n + 1) < 1/n, and lim n->inf a_n diverges
 
Last edited:
  • #13
(iv) is tricky. I tried using the difference of squares, that is

[a(n)]^3 - A^3 = [a(n) - A]*[a(n)^2 + a(n)A + A^2]

I feel like from there I can argue that the second bracket is bounded and positive, but I'm not sure that's valid.
 
  • #14
*sigh*, I have no clue how to prove (iv) and (v).

I know they are true. Basically for (v) both restrictions tell me that the limiting behavior of the sequences are the same for consecutive terms (which eliminates the possibility of an oscilating sequence) and that it must be bounded (since the product of limits is convergent).
Likewise, I know for (iv) that a(n) must be bounded, and I know it doesn't oscillate, although I'm not sure I can come up with a great rigourous explanation as to why (I can say that a(n) and a(n)^3 always have the same sign, so if a(n) oscilates in the limit the actual magnitudes of its values will change, thus so will a(n)^3).
 
  • #15
For iv, if you know that the cube root is a continuous function, you're done, I believe.

And for v, maybe you could do something similar with the square root function, but I'm not sure.
 
  • #16
ok i'll give you a hint for (iv),
the way to solve this is to notice |a_n - a| = |a_n^3 - a^3|/|a_n^2 + a_na + a^2| < |a_n^3 - a^3|/|a_na| if a_na > 0, but if a is positive then a_n is also positive for all n greater than some N, so a_na > 0 for all n > N, similiarly if a is negative a_n is also negative for all n greater than some N'.

if a = 0 the result is trivial.

if a > 0 , since a_n^3 -> a^3, there is N_1 s.t. for all n > N_1, |a_n^3 - a^3| < (a^3)/2, so a_n^3 > (a^3)/2 > 0, so a_n > a/2^(1/3), so 1/a_n < 2^(1/3)/a. Now notice for n > N_1, |a_n - a| = |a_n^3 - a^3|/|a_n^2 + a_na + a^2| < |a_n^3 - a^3|/|a_na| < ...
(use convergence again to get another N_2 for a particular choice of e, take the max, call it N, continue the above)

if a < 0, same trick.
 
Last edited:

FAQ: Proving the Truth of Various Convergence Statements in Analysis

What is "True or False Analysis"?

"True or False Analysis" is a method of examining a statement or claim and determining its validity. It involves evaluating the evidence and reasoning behind the statement and determining if it is true or false.

How is "True or False Analysis" different from other methods of analysis?

"True or False Analysis" is unique in that it focuses on determining the truth or falsity of a statement or claim, rather than just analyzing its strengths and weaknesses. It also involves a more rigorous and systematic approach, using evidence and logical reasoning to arrive at a conclusion.

What are the steps involved in "True or False Analysis"?

The steps for "True or False Analysis" typically include identifying the statement or claim being analyzed, gathering evidence to support or refute it, evaluating the quality and reliability of the evidence, examining the reasoning behind the statement, and ultimately determining if the statement is true or false based on the evidence and reasoning.

Can "True or False Analysis" be applied to any type of statement or claim?

Yes, "True or False Analysis" can be applied to any statement or claim, as long as there is evidence and reasoning to support or refute it. This method can be used in various fields such as science, politics, and everyday life.

How can "True or False Analysis" benefit society?

"True or False Analysis" can help individuals and society as a whole to make more informed and logical decisions. It can also promote critical thinking skills and help to combat misinformation and false beliefs that can be harmful to society.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
874
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
995
Replies
1
Views
956
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
966
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top