Making sure if it is Cauchy
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
In my real analysis exam I had a problem in which I proved that $|x_{n+1} - x_n|lt {a^n}$ for all natural numbers $n$ and for all positive number $alt 1$ then $(x_n)$ is a Cauchy sequence.
This was solved successfully but the question is if $|x_{n+1} - x_n|lt frac 1n$ does that mean $(x_n)$ is Cauchy? Well my answer was yes because I could write this in the form of the first one, but now I am somehow confused with what I have answered since $1/n$ is a sequence of $n$ so maybe the answer is not necessarily true... Can you please provide me with the correct answer for this question?
real-analysis cauchy-sequences
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
In my real analysis exam I had a problem in which I proved that $|x_{n+1} - x_n|lt {a^n}$ for all natural numbers $n$ and for all positive number $alt 1$ then $(x_n)$ is a Cauchy sequence.
This was solved successfully but the question is if $|x_{n+1} - x_n|lt frac 1n$ does that mean $(x_n)$ is Cauchy? Well my answer was yes because I could write this in the form of the first one, but now I am somehow confused with what I have answered since $1/n$ is a sequence of $n$ so maybe the answer is not necessarily true... Can you please provide me with the correct answer for this question?
real-analysis cauchy-sequences
slow moving thread -_-
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 26 at 0:38
Are you about the first question? I am confused the the "for all a" and even more by the "a<1" (which makes the upper bound on the differences rather large).
– Dirk
Nov 26 at 5:31
Seems to be some sort of error. The proper correction should be either changing "$frac 1{a^n}$" to "$a^n$" or changing "$a<1$" to "$a>1$" (minding the radius of convergence for geometric series).
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 26 at 5:44
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
In my real analysis exam I had a problem in which I proved that $|x_{n+1} - x_n|lt {a^n}$ for all natural numbers $n$ and for all positive number $alt 1$ then $(x_n)$ is a Cauchy sequence.
This was solved successfully but the question is if $|x_{n+1} - x_n|lt frac 1n$ does that mean $(x_n)$ is Cauchy? Well my answer was yes because I could write this in the form of the first one, but now I am somehow confused with what I have answered since $1/n$ is a sequence of $n$ so maybe the answer is not necessarily true... Can you please provide me with the correct answer for this question?
real-analysis cauchy-sequences
In my real analysis exam I had a problem in which I proved that $|x_{n+1} - x_n|lt {a^n}$ for all natural numbers $n$ and for all positive number $alt 1$ then $(x_n)$ is a Cauchy sequence.
This was solved successfully but the question is if $|x_{n+1} - x_n|lt frac 1n$ does that mean $(x_n)$ is Cauchy? Well my answer was yes because I could write this in the form of the first one, but now I am somehow confused with what I have answered since $1/n$ is a sequence of $n$ so maybe the answer is not necessarily true... Can you please provide me with the correct answer for this question?
real-analysis cauchy-sequences
real-analysis cauchy-sequences
edited Nov 26 at 5:41
Matt A Pelto
2,298620
2,298620
asked Nov 26 at 0:29
user7857462
463
463
slow moving thread -_-
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 26 at 0:38
Are you about the first question? I am confused the the "for all a" and even more by the "a<1" (which makes the upper bound on the differences rather large).
– Dirk
Nov 26 at 5:31
Seems to be some sort of error. The proper correction should be either changing "$frac 1{a^n}$" to "$a^n$" or changing "$a<1$" to "$a>1$" (minding the radius of convergence for geometric series).
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 26 at 5:44
add a comment |
slow moving thread -_-
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 26 at 0:38
Are you about the first question? I am confused the the "for all a" and even more by the "a<1" (which makes the upper bound on the differences rather large).
– Dirk
Nov 26 at 5:31
Seems to be some sort of error. The proper correction should be either changing "$frac 1{a^n}$" to "$a^n$" or changing "$a<1$" to "$a>1$" (minding the radius of convergence for geometric series).
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 26 at 5:44
slow moving thread -_-
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 26 at 0:38
slow moving thread -_-
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 26 at 0:38
Are you about the first question? I am confused the the "for all a" and even more by the "a<1" (which makes the upper bound on the differences rather large).
– Dirk
Nov 26 at 5:31
Are you about the first question? I am confused the the "for all a" and even more by the "a<1" (which makes the upper bound on the differences rather large).
– Dirk
Nov 26 at 5:31
Seems to be some sort of error. The proper correction should be either changing "$frac 1{a^n}$" to "$a^n$" or changing "$a<1$" to "$a>1$" (minding the radius of convergence for geometric series).
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 26 at 5:44
Seems to be some sort of error. The proper correction should be either changing "$frac 1{a^n}$" to "$a^n$" or changing "$a<1$" to "$a>1$" (minding the radius of convergence for geometric series).
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 26 at 5:44
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
up vote
11
down vote
Consider the harmonic series: $sum_{n=1}^{infty}frac 1n$.
$mid a_{n+1}-a_nmid=frac1{n+1}ltfrac1n$.
But it diverges.
This is the difference between $1/n$ and $1/(n+1)$, not between two terms of the sequence of partial sums. The sequence $(1/n)_{nin mathbb{N}}$ is indeed Cauchy.
– Michael Lee
Nov 26 at 0:55
Yes. I'm referring to the sequence of partial sums of the series. It's not Cauchy because it doesn't converge. I was addressing the OP's example. This shows that $mid a_{n+1}-a_nmid$ can be less than $frac1n$, but the sequence can still not be Cauchy.
– Chris Custer
Nov 26 at 1:08
The difference between partial sums is $1/(n+1)$, not $1/n(n+1)$. You add $1/(n+1)$ to get from the $n$th partial sum to the $(n+1)$th.
– Michael Lee
Nov 26 at 1:08
Oh yeah. My mistake.
– Chris Custer
Nov 26 at 1:10
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
No, $lvert x_{n+1}-x_nrvert < 1/n$ does not imply that $(x_n)_{nin mathbb{N}}$ is Cauchy. Consider $x_n = sum_{k=1}^n 1/2k$, which does not converge.
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
Take $x_n=1+frac 1 2+cdots+frac 1 n$. This is not Cauchy because the harmonic series $1+frac 1 2+cdots$ is divergent.
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
This kind of thing works only if you can show $|x_{n + 1} - x_{n}| < a_n$ where $sum_{k = 0}^infty a_k < infty$ because, if this condition holds,
begin{align}
|x_{n} - x_{n + m}| &= |x_{n} - x_{n + 1} + x_{n + 1} - x_{n + 2} + x_{n + 2} - cdots + x_{n + m - 1} - x_{n + m}| \
&le |x_{n} - x_{n + 1}| + cdots + |x_{n + m - 1} - x_{n + m}| \
&le a_n + a_{n + 1} + dots + a_{n + m - 1} \
&le sum_{k = n}^infty a_k
end{align}
Now convergence of $sum a_k$ to $A$ means that for any $varepsilon > 0$ there exists $N$ such that for all $n ge N$,
$$ left| A - sum_{k = 0}^{n - 1} a_k right| = sum_{k = n}^infty a_k < varepsilon $$
Comparing this with the above, we have for every $n ge N$ and every $m ge 0$,
$$ |x_n - x_{n + m}| < varepsilon $$
Which means the sequence $(x_n)$ is Cauchy.
If the bound on $|x_{n + 1} - x_n|$ does not converge as a series, you need to use a different trick.
1
+1 for the most informative response and using varepsilon...no effort has been spared here. I will however nitpick at the last sentence by noting that a different trick may or may not still work, depending on whether the sequence is indeed Cauchy which I presume you know but just add as clarification for people such as the question asker. An example where a different trick might apply is the sequence of partial sums of the alternating series $sum_{n=1}^infty frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n}$.
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 26 at 1:28
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
For each $n in mathbb{N}$, define $x_n:=1^{-1}+2^{-1}+cdots+n^{-1}$. Notice $|x_{n+1}-x_n|=frac{1}{n+1}$ but the sequence ${x_n}_{n=1}^infty$ is not Cauchy as its terms are just the partial sums of the harmonic series which is known to not converge and $mathbb{R}$ is complete.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
This would imply that any series with a general term which tends to $0$ is convergent. This is false (except for $p$-adic numbers…).
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
11
down vote
Consider the harmonic series: $sum_{n=1}^{infty}frac 1n$.
$mid a_{n+1}-a_nmid=frac1{n+1}ltfrac1n$.
But it diverges.
This is the difference between $1/n$ and $1/(n+1)$, not between two terms of the sequence of partial sums. The sequence $(1/n)_{nin mathbb{N}}$ is indeed Cauchy.
– Michael Lee
Nov 26 at 0:55
Yes. I'm referring to the sequence of partial sums of the series. It's not Cauchy because it doesn't converge. I was addressing the OP's example. This shows that $mid a_{n+1}-a_nmid$ can be less than $frac1n$, but the sequence can still not be Cauchy.
– Chris Custer
Nov 26 at 1:08
The difference between partial sums is $1/(n+1)$, not $1/n(n+1)$. You add $1/(n+1)$ to get from the $n$th partial sum to the $(n+1)$th.
– Michael Lee
Nov 26 at 1:08
Oh yeah. My mistake.
– Chris Custer
Nov 26 at 1:10
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
Consider the harmonic series: $sum_{n=1}^{infty}frac 1n$.
$mid a_{n+1}-a_nmid=frac1{n+1}ltfrac1n$.
But it diverges.
This is the difference between $1/n$ and $1/(n+1)$, not between two terms of the sequence of partial sums. The sequence $(1/n)_{nin mathbb{N}}$ is indeed Cauchy.
– Michael Lee
Nov 26 at 0:55
Yes. I'm referring to the sequence of partial sums of the series. It's not Cauchy because it doesn't converge. I was addressing the OP's example. This shows that $mid a_{n+1}-a_nmid$ can be less than $frac1n$, but the sequence can still not be Cauchy.
– Chris Custer
Nov 26 at 1:08
The difference between partial sums is $1/(n+1)$, not $1/n(n+1)$. You add $1/(n+1)$ to get from the $n$th partial sum to the $(n+1)$th.
– Michael Lee
Nov 26 at 1:08
Oh yeah. My mistake.
– Chris Custer
Nov 26 at 1:10
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
up vote
11
down vote
Consider the harmonic series: $sum_{n=1}^{infty}frac 1n$.
$mid a_{n+1}-a_nmid=frac1{n+1}ltfrac1n$.
But it diverges.
Consider the harmonic series: $sum_{n=1}^{infty}frac 1n$.
$mid a_{n+1}-a_nmid=frac1{n+1}ltfrac1n$.
But it diverges.
edited Nov 26 at 1:17
answered Nov 26 at 0:37
Chris Custer
9,4133624
9,4133624
This is the difference between $1/n$ and $1/(n+1)$, not between two terms of the sequence of partial sums. The sequence $(1/n)_{nin mathbb{N}}$ is indeed Cauchy.
– Michael Lee
Nov 26 at 0:55
Yes. I'm referring to the sequence of partial sums of the series. It's not Cauchy because it doesn't converge. I was addressing the OP's example. This shows that $mid a_{n+1}-a_nmid$ can be less than $frac1n$, but the sequence can still not be Cauchy.
– Chris Custer
Nov 26 at 1:08
The difference between partial sums is $1/(n+1)$, not $1/n(n+1)$. You add $1/(n+1)$ to get from the $n$th partial sum to the $(n+1)$th.
– Michael Lee
Nov 26 at 1:08
Oh yeah. My mistake.
– Chris Custer
Nov 26 at 1:10
add a comment |
This is the difference between $1/n$ and $1/(n+1)$, not between two terms of the sequence of partial sums. The sequence $(1/n)_{nin mathbb{N}}$ is indeed Cauchy.
– Michael Lee
Nov 26 at 0:55
Yes. I'm referring to the sequence of partial sums of the series. It's not Cauchy because it doesn't converge. I was addressing the OP's example. This shows that $mid a_{n+1}-a_nmid$ can be less than $frac1n$, but the sequence can still not be Cauchy.
– Chris Custer
Nov 26 at 1:08
The difference between partial sums is $1/(n+1)$, not $1/n(n+1)$. You add $1/(n+1)$ to get from the $n$th partial sum to the $(n+1)$th.
– Michael Lee
Nov 26 at 1:08
Oh yeah. My mistake.
– Chris Custer
Nov 26 at 1:10
This is the difference between $1/n$ and $1/(n+1)$, not between two terms of the sequence of partial sums. The sequence $(1/n)_{nin mathbb{N}}$ is indeed Cauchy.
– Michael Lee
Nov 26 at 0:55
This is the difference between $1/n$ and $1/(n+1)$, not between two terms of the sequence of partial sums. The sequence $(1/n)_{nin mathbb{N}}$ is indeed Cauchy.
– Michael Lee
Nov 26 at 0:55
Yes. I'm referring to the sequence of partial sums of the series. It's not Cauchy because it doesn't converge. I was addressing the OP's example. This shows that $mid a_{n+1}-a_nmid$ can be less than $frac1n$, but the sequence can still not be Cauchy.
– Chris Custer
Nov 26 at 1:08
Yes. I'm referring to the sequence of partial sums of the series. It's not Cauchy because it doesn't converge. I was addressing the OP's example. This shows that $mid a_{n+1}-a_nmid$ can be less than $frac1n$, but the sequence can still not be Cauchy.
– Chris Custer
Nov 26 at 1:08
The difference between partial sums is $1/(n+1)$, not $1/n(n+1)$. You add $1/(n+1)$ to get from the $n$th partial sum to the $(n+1)$th.
– Michael Lee
Nov 26 at 1:08
The difference between partial sums is $1/(n+1)$, not $1/n(n+1)$. You add $1/(n+1)$ to get from the $n$th partial sum to the $(n+1)$th.
– Michael Lee
Nov 26 at 1:08
Oh yeah. My mistake.
– Chris Custer
Nov 26 at 1:10
Oh yeah. My mistake.
– Chris Custer
Nov 26 at 1:10
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
No, $lvert x_{n+1}-x_nrvert < 1/n$ does not imply that $(x_n)_{nin mathbb{N}}$ is Cauchy. Consider $x_n = sum_{k=1}^n 1/2k$, which does not converge.
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
No, $lvert x_{n+1}-x_nrvert < 1/n$ does not imply that $(x_n)_{nin mathbb{N}}$ is Cauchy. Consider $x_n = sum_{k=1}^n 1/2k$, which does not converge.
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
up vote
8
down vote
No, $lvert x_{n+1}-x_nrvert < 1/n$ does not imply that $(x_n)_{nin mathbb{N}}$ is Cauchy. Consider $x_n = sum_{k=1}^n 1/2k$, which does not converge.
No, $lvert x_{n+1}-x_nrvert < 1/n$ does not imply that $(x_n)_{nin mathbb{N}}$ is Cauchy. Consider $x_n = sum_{k=1}^n 1/2k$, which does not converge.
answered Nov 26 at 0:34
Michael Lee
4,7401929
4,7401929
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
Take $x_n=1+frac 1 2+cdots+frac 1 n$. This is not Cauchy because the harmonic series $1+frac 1 2+cdots$ is divergent.
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
Take $x_n=1+frac 1 2+cdots+frac 1 n$. This is not Cauchy because the harmonic series $1+frac 1 2+cdots$ is divergent.
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
Take $x_n=1+frac 1 2+cdots+frac 1 n$. This is not Cauchy because the harmonic series $1+frac 1 2+cdots$ is divergent.
Take $x_n=1+frac 1 2+cdots+frac 1 n$. This is not Cauchy because the harmonic series $1+frac 1 2+cdots$ is divergent.
answered Nov 26 at 0:34
Kavi Rama Murthy
43.9k31852
43.9k31852
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
This kind of thing works only if you can show $|x_{n + 1} - x_{n}| < a_n$ where $sum_{k = 0}^infty a_k < infty$ because, if this condition holds,
begin{align}
|x_{n} - x_{n + m}| &= |x_{n} - x_{n + 1} + x_{n + 1} - x_{n + 2} + x_{n + 2} - cdots + x_{n + m - 1} - x_{n + m}| \
&le |x_{n} - x_{n + 1}| + cdots + |x_{n + m - 1} - x_{n + m}| \
&le a_n + a_{n + 1} + dots + a_{n + m - 1} \
&le sum_{k = n}^infty a_k
end{align}
Now convergence of $sum a_k$ to $A$ means that for any $varepsilon > 0$ there exists $N$ such that for all $n ge N$,
$$ left| A - sum_{k = 0}^{n - 1} a_k right| = sum_{k = n}^infty a_k < varepsilon $$
Comparing this with the above, we have for every $n ge N$ and every $m ge 0$,
$$ |x_n - x_{n + m}| < varepsilon $$
Which means the sequence $(x_n)$ is Cauchy.
If the bound on $|x_{n + 1} - x_n|$ does not converge as a series, you need to use a different trick.
1
+1 for the most informative response and using varepsilon...no effort has been spared here. I will however nitpick at the last sentence by noting that a different trick may or may not still work, depending on whether the sequence is indeed Cauchy which I presume you know but just add as clarification for people such as the question asker. An example where a different trick might apply is the sequence of partial sums of the alternating series $sum_{n=1}^infty frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n}$.
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 26 at 1:28
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
This kind of thing works only if you can show $|x_{n + 1} - x_{n}| < a_n$ where $sum_{k = 0}^infty a_k < infty$ because, if this condition holds,
begin{align}
|x_{n} - x_{n + m}| &= |x_{n} - x_{n + 1} + x_{n + 1} - x_{n + 2} + x_{n + 2} - cdots + x_{n + m - 1} - x_{n + m}| \
&le |x_{n} - x_{n + 1}| + cdots + |x_{n + m - 1} - x_{n + m}| \
&le a_n + a_{n + 1} + dots + a_{n + m - 1} \
&le sum_{k = n}^infty a_k
end{align}
Now convergence of $sum a_k$ to $A$ means that for any $varepsilon > 0$ there exists $N$ such that for all $n ge N$,
$$ left| A - sum_{k = 0}^{n - 1} a_k right| = sum_{k = n}^infty a_k < varepsilon $$
Comparing this with the above, we have for every $n ge N$ and every $m ge 0$,
$$ |x_n - x_{n + m}| < varepsilon $$
Which means the sequence $(x_n)$ is Cauchy.
If the bound on $|x_{n + 1} - x_n|$ does not converge as a series, you need to use a different trick.
1
+1 for the most informative response and using varepsilon...no effort has been spared here. I will however nitpick at the last sentence by noting that a different trick may or may not still work, depending on whether the sequence is indeed Cauchy which I presume you know but just add as clarification for people such as the question asker. An example where a different trick might apply is the sequence of partial sums of the alternating series $sum_{n=1}^infty frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n}$.
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 26 at 1:28
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
This kind of thing works only if you can show $|x_{n + 1} - x_{n}| < a_n$ where $sum_{k = 0}^infty a_k < infty$ because, if this condition holds,
begin{align}
|x_{n} - x_{n + m}| &= |x_{n} - x_{n + 1} + x_{n + 1} - x_{n + 2} + x_{n + 2} - cdots + x_{n + m - 1} - x_{n + m}| \
&le |x_{n} - x_{n + 1}| + cdots + |x_{n + m - 1} - x_{n + m}| \
&le a_n + a_{n + 1} + dots + a_{n + m - 1} \
&le sum_{k = n}^infty a_k
end{align}
Now convergence of $sum a_k$ to $A$ means that for any $varepsilon > 0$ there exists $N$ such that for all $n ge N$,
$$ left| A - sum_{k = 0}^{n - 1} a_k right| = sum_{k = n}^infty a_k < varepsilon $$
Comparing this with the above, we have for every $n ge N$ and every $m ge 0$,
$$ |x_n - x_{n + m}| < varepsilon $$
Which means the sequence $(x_n)$ is Cauchy.
If the bound on $|x_{n + 1} - x_n|$ does not converge as a series, you need to use a different trick.
This kind of thing works only if you can show $|x_{n + 1} - x_{n}| < a_n$ where $sum_{k = 0}^infty a_k < infty$ because, if this condition holds,
begin{align}
|x_{n} - x_{n + m}| &= |x_{n} - x_{n + 1} + x_{n + 1} - x_{n + 2} + x_{n + 2} - cdots + x_{n + m - 1} - x_{n + m}| \
&le |x_{n} - x_{n + 1}| + cdots + |x_{n + m - 1} - x_{n + m}| \
&le a_n + a_{n + 1} + dots + a_{n + m - 1} \
&le sum_{k = n}^infty a_k
end{align}
Now convergence of $sum a_k$ to $A$ means that for any $varepsilon > 0$ there exists $N$ such that for all $n ge N$,
$$ left| A - sum_{k = 0}^{n - 1} a_k right| = sum_{k = n}^infty a_k < varepsilon $$
Comparing this with the above, we have for every $n ge N$ and every $m ge 0$,
$$ |x_n - x_{n + m}| < varepsilon $$
Which means the sequence $(x_n)$ is Cauchy.
If the bound on $|x_{n + 1} - x_n|$ does not converge as a series, you need to use a different trick.
answered Nov 26 at 0:46
Trevor Gunn
13.9k32045
13.9k32045
1
+1 for the most informative response and using varepsilon...no effort has been spared here. I will however nitpick at the last sentence by noting that a different trick may or may not still work, depending on whether the sequence is indeed Cauchy which I presume you know but just add as clarification for people such as the question asker. An example where a different trick might apply is the sequence of partial sums of the alternating series $sum_{n=1}^infty frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n}$.
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 26 at 1:28
add a comment |
1
+1 for the most informative response and using varepsilon...no effort has been spared here. I will however nitpick at the last sentence by noting that a different trick may or may not still work, depending on whether the sequence is indeed Cauchy which I presume you know but just add as clarification for people such as the question asker. An example where a different trick might apply is the sequence of partial sums of the alternating series $sum_{n=1}^infty frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n}$.
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 26 at 1:28
1
1
+1 for the most informative response and using varepsilon...no effort has been spared here. I will however nitpick at the last sentence by noting that a different trick may or may not still work, depending on whether the sequence is indeed Cauchy which I presume you know but just add as clarification for people such as the question asker. An example where a different trick might apply is the sequence of partial sums of the alternating series $sum_{n=1}^infty frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n}$.
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 26 at 1:28
+1 for the most informative response and using varepsilon...no effort has been spared here. I will however nitpick at the last sentence by noting that a different trick may or may not still work, depending on whether the sequence is indeed Cauchy which I presume you know but just add as clarification for people such as the question asker. An example where a different trick might apply is the sequence of partial sums of the alternating series $sum_{n=1}^infty frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n}$.
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 26 at 1:28
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
For each $n in mathbb{N}$, define $x_n:=1^{-1}+2^{-1}+cdots+n^{-1}$. Notice $|x_{n+1}-x_n|=frac{1}{n+1}$ but the sequence ${x_n}_{n=1}^infty$ is not Cauchy as its terms are just the partial sums of the harmonic series which is known to not converge and $mathbb{R}$ is complete.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
For each $n in mathbb{N}$, define $x_n:=1^{-1}+2^{-1}+cdots+n^{-1}$. Notice $|x_{n+1}-x_n|=frac{1}{n+1}$ but the sequence ${x_n}_{n=1}^infty$ is not Cauchy as its terms are just the partial sums of the harmonic series which is known to not converge and $mathbb{R}$ is complete.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
For each $n in mathbb{N}$, define $x_n:=1^{-1}+2^{-1}+cdots+n^{-1}$. Notice $|x_{n+1}-x_n|=frac{1}{n+1}$ but the sequence ${x_n}_{n=1}^infty$ is not Cauchy as its terms are just the partial sums of the harmonic series which is known to not converge and $mathbb{R}$ is complete.
For each $n in mathbb{N}$, define $x_n:=1^{-1}+2^{-1}+cdots+n^{-1}$. Notice $|x_{n+1}-x_n|=frac{1}{n+1}$ but the sequence ${x_n}_{n=1}^infty$ is not Cauchy as its terms are just the partial sums of the harmonic series which is known to not converge and $mathbb{R}$ is complete.
edited Nov 30 at 3:28
answered Nov 26 at 0:38
Matt A Pelto
2,298620
2,298620
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
This would imply that any series with a general term which tends to $0$ is convergent. This is false (except for $p$-adic numbers…).
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
This would imply that any series with a general term which tends to $0$ is convergent. This is false (except for $p$-adic numbers…).
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
This would imply that any series with a general term which tends to $0$ is convergent. This is false (except for $p$-adic numbers…).
This would imply that any series with a general term which tends to $0$ is convergent. This is false (except for $p$-adic numbers…).
answered Nov 26 at 0:37
Bernard
116k637108
116k637108
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3013628%2fmaking-sure-if-it-is-cauchy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
slow moving thread -_-
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 26 at 0:38
Are you about the first question? I am confused the the "for all a" and even more by the "a<1" (which makes the upper bound on the differences rather large).
– Dirk
Nov 26 at 5:31
Seems to be some sort of error. The proper correction should be either changing "$frac 1{a^n}$" to "$a^n$" or changing "$a<1$" to "$a>1$" (minding the radius of convergence for geometric series).
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 26 at 5:44