There exist a sequence x_n E S s.t. x_n -> sup S

  • Thread starter kingwinner
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Sequence
In summary: The proof is confusing. They take ε = 1/n and then use it to construct a sequence. But it's not clear to me how this sequence is related to the inequality that they say must hold for all n to be xn->a. I think you should try not to get bogged down in the definitions. Instead, try to look at the big picture and see if you can spot what the proof is trying to achieve.
  • #1
kingwinner
1,270
0

Homework Statement


Consider sequence of real numbers.
Theorem: If a= sup S, then there exist a sequence xn E S such that xn ->a

Proof:
Take ε = 1/n and find xn E S such that 0 ≤ a - xn < 1/n.
Now show xn -> a.
======================================

I am very very confused about this proof.
1) Why are they taking ε = 1/n? What motivates this?

2) It seems to me that n is simply a "subscript" of the sequence xn and it's a bit weird to talk about ε = 1/n. Is there any relationship between the "n" in ε = 1/n and the "n" in the sequence xn? Are they the SAME "n"?

3) In the proof, they say "find xn E S such that 0 ≤ a - xn < 1/n", but how do we know that such a thing even EXISTS?

4) At the end of the proof, they say "show xn -> a", but HOW??

Homework Equations


N/A

The Attempt at a Solution


N/A

Can someone please explain the proof in greater detail?
Any help is much appreciated! :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If there were NOT an element of S so that for all n, [tex]0 \leq a - x_n < 1/n[/tex], is [tex]a[/tex] really the supremum of S?

Note that this inequality can also be written

[tex] a- \frac{1}{n} < x_n \leq a [/tex]

which may be more illustrative. The point of choosing [tex]\epsilon = 1/n[/tex] is because this will shrink the neighborhood around [tex]a[/tex] as [tex]n[/tex] gets larger. This should give you some indication as to the construction of the sequence.
 
  • #3
OK, and here is my attempt to rewrite and understand the proof in a more presentable manner.

Proof:
Take ε = 1/n.
Now a = sup S => for EACH n=1,2,... there exists an x E S such that a -1/n < x ≤ a.
For EACH n=1,2,... PICK one such point and CALL it xn,
so that a -1/n < xn ≤ a for all n=1,2,...
Now we need to prove that this sequence xn->a.
By definition, xn->a iff
for ALL ε>0, there exists an integer N such that n≥N => |xn - a|< ε.
So for ANY given ε>0, I must be able to choose an N that works.
But I am stuck here. How can we choose such an N in our case?

Thank you! :)
 
  • #4
It looks like you're on the right track. Given [tex] \epsilon >0 [/tex], can you manipulate the quantity [tex] 1/n[/tex] in some manner to help you? Remember, [tex]n[/tex] gets really, really big as you go out in the sequence. What does this say about [tex]1/n[/tex]?

You have literally constructed the sequence already in the first part of your proof...
 
  • #5
I've constructed the sequence, but I am not sure how to prove it "rigorously" that the sequence converges to a.

Definition: xn->a iff
for ALL ε>0, there exists an integer N such that n≥N => |xn - a|< ε.

Now,
a -1/n < xn ≤ a for all n=1,2,...
=> -1/n < xn - a ≤ 0 < 1/n for all n=1,2,...
=> |xn - a| < 1/n for all n=1,2,...

But at the beginning of the proof we said that ε = 1/n? So I am a little confused...why is ε changing for different values of n? This is really werid...shouldn't epsilon be given to be some fixed positive number?
Also, given ε, how should I choose N such that n≥N => |xn - a|< ε?

Can someone please help me out?
Thanks!
 
  • #6
Mmm'kay, I don't really like how they set [tex]\epsilon = 1/n[/tex]. That seems strange.

Rather, for any given [tex]\epsilon>0[/tex], there always exists an [tex]n[/tex] large enough so that [tex] 1/n < \epsilon[/tex]. But, you've already constructed a sequence such that

[tex] a - \frac{1}{n} < x_n \leq a [/tex]

for all [tex]n[/tex]. How is [tex] \left|x_n - a \right| < \epsilon[/tex] related to this inequality given that [tex]1/n < \epsilon[/tex]? What should you choose for your [tex]N[/tex]?

Try not to get too bogged down in the definitions; i.e., try to look at the big picture before diving into epsilons and stuff.
 
  • #7
OK, so I think taking N>(1/ε) works.

At the beginning of the proof, they said that ε = 1/n and ε changing for different values of n? This is werid. I believe that in the definition of limit, ε should be given to be some FIXED arbitrary positive number?

When they say "ε = 1/n" at the beginning of the proof, is this the "same" ε as the one that appears at the end when we're trying to prove the limit using definition? or are they totally unrelated?

thanks!
 

FAQ: There exist a sequence x_n E S s.t. x_n -> sup S

What does the statement "There exist a sequence x_n E S s.t. x_n -> sup S" mean?

This statement means that for a given set S, there exists a sequence of elements in S (x_n) such that the limit of x_n approaches the supremum (or least upper bound) of S.

What is the difference between a limit and a supremum?

A limit is the value that a sequence or function approaches as the input approaches a certain value. A supremum, on the other hand, is the smallest number that is greater than or equal to all the elements in a set.

How is the supremum of a set determined?

The supremum of a set can be determined by finding the least upper bound of the set, which means finding the smallest number that is greater than or equal to all the elements in the set.

Can the supremum of a set be equal to any of its elements?

Yes, the supremum of a set can be equal to one of its elements if that element is the largest element in the set. In this case, the supremum would also be the maximum element of the set.

Is it possible for a set to have a supremum but no maximum element?

Yes, it is possible for a set to have a supremum but no maximum element. This can happen when the set is unbounded and does not have a largest element, but still has a least upper bound.

Back
Top