Determine if this specific sequence is a Cauchy sequence











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












I have the following sequence:
$$a_n =sum_{k = 1}^n (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2} $$
And the hint is that I have to prove that:
$$ {1over k^2} < {1over k-1} - {1over k} $$



So assuming $m>n$, I have to prove that:
$$forall epsilon >0, exists N in mathbb{N},$$ so that $$ forall m,n > N Rightarrow lvert a_m - a_nrvert < epsilon $$



What I gathered so far:
$ lvert a_m - a_nrvert = lvert sum_{k = n+1}^m (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2}rvert $



$b_k$ is a sequence of natural numbers ${1,2,3.....}$, so in absolute value, $(-1)^{b_k} $ is $1$.
Therefore:



$ lvert a_m - a_nrvert = lvert sum_{k = n+1}^m (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2}rvert leq sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}. $



From here on, its not so clear to me as to how to proceed.
What should be my next steps?






calculus sequences-and-series limits cauchy-sequences







share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    Note that (as suggested in one of the edits) the last equality in the last line should be an inequality $leq$.
    – Yanko
    Dec 9 at 10:50










  • Just saw it, fixed, thanks a lot :)
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 at 10:51















up vote
3
down vote

favorite












I have the following sequence:
$$a_n =sum_{k = 1}^n (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2} $$
And the hint is that I have to prove that:
$$ {1over k^2} < {1over k-1} - {1over k} $$



So assuming $m>n$, I have to prove that:
$$forall epsilon >0, exists N in mathbb{N},$$ so that $$ forall m,n > N Rightarrow lvert a_m - a_nrvert < epsilon $$



What I gathered so far:
$ lvert a_m - a_nrvert = lvert sum_{k = n+1}^m (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2}rvert $



$b_k$ is a sequence of natural numbers ${1,2,3.....}$, so in absolute value, $(-1)^{b_k} $ is $1$.
Therefore:



$ lvert a_m - a_nrvert = lvert sum_{k = n+1}^m (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2}rvert leq sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}. $



From here on, its not so clear to me as to how to proceed.
What should be my next steps?






calculus sequences-and-series limits cauchy-sequences







share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    Note that (as suggested in one of the edits) the last equality in the last line should be an inequality $leq$.
    – Yanko
    Dec 9 at 10:50










  • Just saw it, fixed, thanks a lot :)
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 at 10:51













up vote
3
down vote

favorite









up vote
3
down vote

favorite











I have the following sequence:
$$a_n =sum_{k = 1}^n (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2} $$
And the hint is that I have to prove that:
$$ {1over k^2} < {1over k-1} - {1over k} $$



So assuming $m>n$, I have to prove that:
$$forall epsilon >0, exists N in mathbb{N},$$ so that $$ forall m,n > N Rightarrow lvert a_m - a_nrvert < epsilon $$



What I gathered so far:
$ lvert a_m - a_nrvert = lvert sum_{k = n+1}^m (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2}rvert $



$b_k$ is a sequence of natural numbers ${1,2,3.....}$, so in absolute value, $(-1)^{b_k} $ is $1$.
Therefore:



$ lvert a_m - a_nrvert = lvert sum_{k = n+1}^m (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2}rvert leq sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}. $



From here on, its not so clear to me as to how to proceed.
What should be my next steps?






calculus sequences-and-series limits cauchy-sequences







share|cite|improve this question















I have the following sequence:
$$a_n =sum_{k = 1}^n (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2} $$
And the hint is that I have to prove that:
$$ {1over k^2} < {1over k-1} - {1over k} $$



So assuming $m>n$, I have to prove that:
$$forall epsilon >0, exists N in mathbb{N},$$ so that $$ forall m,n > N Rightarrow lvert a_m - a_nrvert < epsilon $$



What I gathered so far:
$ lvert a_m - a_nrvert = lvert sum_{k = n+1}^m (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2}rvert $



$b_k$ is a sequence of natural numbers ${1,2,3.....}$, so in absolute value, $(-1)^{b_k} $ is $1$.
Therefore:



$ lvert a_m - a_nrvert = lvert sum_{k = n+1}^m (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2}rvert leq sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}. $



From here on, its not so clear to me as to how to proceed.
What should be my next steps?






calculus sequences-and-series limits cauchy-sequences




calculus sequences-and-series limits cauchy-sequences






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 9 at 10:51









Jonas Lenz

505212




505212










asked Dec 9 at 10:28









Tegernako

554




554








  • 1




    Note that (as suggested in one of the edits) the last equality in the last line should be an inequality $leq$.
    – Yanko
    Dec 9 at 10:50










  • Just saw it, fixed, thanks a lot :)
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 at 10:51














  • 1




    Note that (as suggested in one of the edits) the last equality in the last line should be an inequality $leq$.
    – Yanko
    Dec 9 at 10:50










  • Just saw it, fixed, thanks a lot :)
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 at 10:51








1




1




Note that (as suggested in one of the edits) the last equality in the last line should be an inequality $leq$.
– Yanko
Dec 9 at 10:50




Note that (as suggested in one of the edits) the last equality in the last line should be an inequality $leq$.
– Yanko
Dec 9 at 10:50












Just saw it, fixed, thanks a lot :)
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:51




Just saw it, fixed, thanks a lot :)
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:51










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
5
down vote



accepted










You're almost done. Since $frac{1}{k^2} leq frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}$ you have that



$$sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}leqsum_{k=n+1}^m left[frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}right]$$ This is a telescoping series which is equal to $frac{1}{n}-frac{1}{m}$. It converges to zero as $n,mrightarrow 0$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Exactly! Thanks.
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 at 10:41


















up vote
5
down vote













Now, use the fact that$$sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1k-frac1{k-1}=frac1n-frac1m.$$






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 1




    I've edited my answer. Thank you.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Dec 9 at 10:39










  • Seems like I went into paralysis by analysis trying to over-express the sum I had. Thanks!
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 at 10:40






  • 1




    Why do we need the hint? Can't we simply say that as $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ is convergent, we know that that $sum_{k=n}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ converges to $0$ as $n to infty$ which shows the claim, too.
    – Jonas Lenz
    Dec 9 at 10:44








  • 1




    In order to prove that, for each $varepsilon>0$, $sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<varepsilon$, if $m$ and $n$ are large enough.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Dec 9 at 10:46








  • 1




    @JonasLenz I guess that is how one shows that $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ convergent.
    – Yanko
    Dec 9 at 10:49











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',
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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3032238%2fdetermine-if-this-specific-sequence-is-a-cauchy-sequence%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








up vote
5
down vote



accepted










You're almost done. Since $frac{1}{k^2} leq frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}$ you have that



$$sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}leqsum_{k=n+1}^m left[frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}right]$$ This is a telescoping series which is equal to $frac{1}{n}-frac{1}{m}$. It converges to zero as $n,mrightarrow 0$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Exactly! Thanks.
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 at 10:41















up vote
5
down vote



accepted










You're almost done. Since $frac{1}{k^2} leq frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}$ you have that



$$sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}leqsum_{k=n+1}^m left[frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}right]$$ This is a telescoping series which is equal to $frac{1}{n}-frac{1}{m}$. It converges to zero as $n,mrightarrow 0$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Exactly! Thanks.
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 at 10:41













up vote
5
down vote



accepted







up vote
5
down vote



accepted






You're almost done. Since $frac{1}{k^2} leq frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}$ you have that



$$sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}leqsum_{k=n+1}^m left[frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}right]$$ This is a telescoping series which is equal to $frac{1}{n}-frac{1}{m}$. It converges to zero as $n,mrightarrow 0$.






share|cite|improve this answer














You're almost done. Since $frac{1}{k^2} leq frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}$ you have that



$$sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}leqsum_{k=n+1}^m left[frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}right]$$ This is a telescoping series which is equal to $frac{1}{n}-frac{1}{m}$. It converges to zero as $n,mrightarrow 0$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 9 at 10:51

























answered Dec 9 at 10:35









Yanko

5,330722




5,330722












  • Exactly! Thanks.
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 at 10:41


















  • Exactly! Thanks.
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 at 10:41
















Exactly! Thanks.
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:41




Exactly! Thanks.
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:41










up vote
5
down vote













Now, use the fact that$$sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1k-frac1{k-1}=frac1n-frac1m.$$






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 1




    I've edited my answer. Thank you.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Dec 9 at 10:39










  • Seems like I went into paralysis by analysis trying to over-express the sum I had. Thanks!
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 at 10:40






  • 1




    Why do we need the hint? Can't we simply say that as $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ is convergent, we know that that $sum_{k=n}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ converges to $0$ as $n to infty$ which shows the claim, too.
    – Jonas Lenz
    Dec 9 at 10:44








  • 1




    In order to prove that, for each $varepsilon>0$, $sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<varepsilon$, if $m$ and $n$ are large enough.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Dec 9 at 10:46








  • 1




    @JonasLenz I guess that is how one shows that $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ convergent.
    – Yanko
    Dec 9 at 10:49















up vote
5
down vote













Now, use the fact that$$sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1k-frac1{k-1}=frac1n-frac1m.$$






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 1




    I've edited my answer. Thank you.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Dec 9 at 10:39










  • Seems like I went into paralysis by analysis trying to over-express the sum I had. Thanks!
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 at 10:40






  • 1




    Why do we need the hint? Can't we simply say that as $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ is convergent, we know that that $sum_{k=n}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ converges to $0$ as $n to infty$ which shows the claim, too.
    – Jonas Lenz
    Dec 9 at 10:44








  • 1




    In order to prove that, for each $varepsilon>0$, $sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<varepsilon$, if $m$ and $n$ are large enough.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Dec 9 at 10:46








  • 1




    @JonasLenz I guess that is how one shows that $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ convergent.
    – Yanko
    Dec 9 at 10:49













up vote
5
down vote










up vote
5
down vote









Now, use the fact that$$sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1k-frac1{k-1}=frac1n-frac1m.$$






share|cite|improve this answer














Now, use the fact that$$sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1k-frac1{k-1}=frac1n-frac1m.$$







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 9 at 10:39

























answered Dec 9 at 10:36









José Carlos Santos

146k22116215




146k22116215








  • 1




    I've edited my answer. Thank you.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Dec 9 at 10:39










  • Seems like I went into paralysis by analysis trying to over-express the sum I had. Thanks!
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 at 10:40






  • 1




    Why do we need the hint? Can't we simply say that as $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ is convergent, we know that that $sum_{k=n}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ converges to $0$ as $n to infty$ which shows the claim, too.
    – Jonas Lenz
    Dec 9 at 10:44








  • 1




    In order to prove that, for each $varepsilon>0$, $sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<varepsilon$, if $m$ and $n$ are large enough.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Dec 9 at 10:46








  • 1




    @JonasLenz I guess that is how one shows that $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ convergent.
    – Yanko
    Dec 9 at 10:49














  • 1




    I've edited my answer. Thank you.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Dec 9 at 10:39










  • Seems like I went into paralysis by analysis trying to over-express the sum I had. Thanks!
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 at 10:40






  • 1




    Why do we need the hint? Can't we simply say that as $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ is convergent, we know that that $sum_{k=n}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ converges to $0$ as $n to infty$ which shows the claim, too.
    – Jonas Lenz
    Dec 9 at 10:44








  • 1




    In order to prove that, for each $varepsilon>0$, $sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<varepsilon$, if $m$ and $n$ are large enough.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Dec 9 at 10:46








  • 1




    @JonasLenz I guess that is how one shows that $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ convergent.
    – Yanko
    Dec 9 at 10:49








1




1




I've edited my answer. Thank you.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 at 10:39




I've edited my answer. Thank you.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 at 10:39












Seems like I went into paralysis by analysis trying to over-express the sum I had. Thanks!
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:40




Seems like I went into paralysis by analysis trying to over-express the sum I had. Thanks!
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:40




1




1




Why do we need the hint? Can't we simply say that as $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ is convergent, we know that that $sum_{k=n}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ converges to $0$ as $n to infty$ which shows the claim, too.
– Jonas Lenz
Dec 9 at 10:44






Why do we need the hint? Can't we simply say that as $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ is convergent, we know that that $sum_{k=n}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ converges to $0$ as $n to infty$ which shows the claim, too.
– Jonas Lenz
Dec 9 at 10:44






1




1




In order to prove that, for each $varepsilon>0$, $sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<varepsilon$, if $m$ and $n$ are large enough.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 at 10:46






In order to prove that, for each $varepsilon>0$, $sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<varepsilon$, if $m$ and $n$ are large enough.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 at 10:46






1




1




@JonasLenz I guess that is how one shows that $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ convergent.
– Yanko
Dec 9 at 10:49




@JonasLenz I guess that is how one shows that $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ convergent.
– Yanko
Dec 9 at 10:49


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • 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.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3032238%2fdetermine-if-this-specific-sequence-is-a-cauchy-sequence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







-

Popular posts from this blog

"Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'. (on update cascade, on delete cascade,)

Image
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box; } 2 total noob sorry any help greatly appreciated. I keep getting this "Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'." heres my codes code one CREATE TABLE supplier ( supplierID INT PRIMARY KEY, ISBN INT FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES book(ISBN), price DECIMAL (5,2), ON UPDATE CASCADE, ON DELETE CASCADE, ); code two CREATE TABLE orders ( orderID INT PRIMARY KEY, customerID INT FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES customer(customerID), ISBN INT FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES book(ISBN), orderDate date, ON UPDATE CASCADE, ON DELETE CASCADE, ); Ive run out of stuff to try other than dumbing it down to uselessness. ...
Read more

Alcedinidae

Image
Alcedinidae Martin-pêcheur à dos bleu ( Alcedo azurea ) Classification (COI) Règne Animalia Embranchement Chordata Sous-embr. Vertebrata Classe Aves Ordre Coraciiformes Famille Alcedinidae Rafinesque, 1815 Les Alcédinidés ou Alcedinidae forment une famille d'oiseaux plus connus sous les noms de martins-pêcheurs et martins-chasseurs. Sommaire 1 Description 2 Répartition et habitat 3 Systématique 3.1 Liste alphabétique des genres 3.2 Liste des espèces 4 Chez les Anciens : l'alcyon 4.1 Étymologie (Littré) 4.2 Oiseau « fabuleux » ? 5 Notes 6 Articles connexes 7 Liens externes 7.1 Bibliographie Description | Ce sont des oiseaux compacts de taille petite à moyenne (10 à 46 cm), au bec droit et long, en forme de poignard. Leurs pattes sont courtes, et ils portent un plumage aux couleurs vives. Répartition et habitat | Cosmopolites, ils fréquentent surtout ...
Read more

Origin of the phrase “under your belt”?

Image
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 17 1 Today, I found myself discussing what students should have "under their belts" during a lecture, and I wondered to myself if there was some inappropriate undertone here that I might be unaware of. Question : What is the origin of the phrase "under your belt"? A google search revealed some webpages (e.g. [1]) that assert its origin is related to consumption of food -- once a meal has been eaten, it's under your belt (which is a relief). However, with such websites, I have no way to determine fact from "random guy on the internet making stuff up". etymology idioms ...
Read more