Understanding the ##ε## as used in limits of sequences

  • #1
chwala
Gold Member
2,753
388
TL;DR Summary
Showing that for any given ##ε>0## (no matter how small), there exists a number
##N##( depending on ##ε##) s.t ##|U_n - l| <ε##
I will create my own example on this- Phew atleast this concepts are becoming clearer ; your indulgence is welcome.
Let me have a sequence given as,

##Un = \dfrac {7n-1}{9n+2}##

##Lim_{n→∞} \left[\dfrac {7n-1}{9n+2}\right] = \dfrac {7}{9} ##

Now,

##\left[ \dfrac {7n-1}{9n+2} - \dfrac {7}{9} \right] = \left[ \dfrac {-23}{9(9n+2)} \right]##

when,

##\left[ \dfrac {23}{9(9n+2)} \right] <ε##

or

##\left[ \dfrac {9(9n+2)}{23} \right] >\left[\dfrac{1}{ε}\right]##

##9n+2 >\dfrac{23}{9ε}##

##9n > \dfrac{23}{9ε} -2##

##n > \dfrac{1}{9} \left[ \dfrac{23}{9ε} -2 \right]##

choosing ##N= \dfrac{1}{9} \left[ \dfrac{23}{9ε} -2 \right]## where say for e.g Let ##ε = 0.01##

##N= \dfrac{1}{9} [ 255.55555-2]=253.5555##

This means that, all terms beyond ##253## differ from ##\dfrac {7}{9} ## by an absolute value less than ##0.01##.

Let us check,

If ##N=300, u_n =\left|\dfrac{2099}{2702} - \dfrac {7}{9}\right|=|0.77683-0.7777|=0.00087<0.01##

Implying that if i pick a sequence less than ##253## then the proof will not hold. This is the time that i am getting to understand some analysis ...particularly of this epsilon thing!

Cheers. Any insight welcome.

Maybe the question that i may need to ask is how small can ##ε## be and how big can it be? I could say less than ##1## in order for the limit to exist.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes PeroK
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
chwala said:
Maybe the question that i may need to ask is how small can ##ε## be and how big can it be? I could say less than ##1## in order for the limit to exist.
##\varepsilon## can be any positive number no matter how big or how small. You can restrict ##N(\varepsilon)## but not ##\varepsilon.## Proofs often have a setting of ##N(\varepsilon)## as the maximum of something, e.g. ##N(\varepsilon)=\max\left\{2,\dfrac{1}{9}\left|\dfrac{23}{9\varepsilon}\right|\right\}.## You do not need the tightest number like the ##-2/9## in your setting. As long as you make ##N(\varepsilon)## bigger, there won't be a problem. I often add ##1## simply because I do not want to bother in which direction the rounding takes place or whether something is equal or strictly less. Be generous with ##N(\varepsilon)## but do not touch ##\varepsilon.##

Proofs are usually written twice: one direction to find ##N(\varepsilon) ## as you did, but then the other way around, which is the important one! You left that one out, which is a mistake. You have to show ##\left|\dfrac{7n-1}{9n+2}-\dfrac{7}{9}\right|< \ldots\ \, < \, \ldots \, < \, \varepsilon## by using your setting for ##N(\varepsilon)## only.
chwala said:
Let us check,

If ...
is what you really have to do. And not for a specific example, but rather for any choice of ##\varepsilon>0.## The first step of finding ##N(\varepsilon)## is your private pleasure. The proof has to be written "backward". Here is a similar example: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/epsilontic-limits-and-continuity/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes SammyS and chwala
  • #3
Appreciated on your article @fresh_42
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top