Making sure if it is Cauchy











up vote
6
down vote

favorite
1












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?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • 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

















up vote
6
down vote

favorite
1












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?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • 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















up vote
6
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
6
down vote

favorite
1






1





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?










share|cite|improve this question















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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








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




















  • 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












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.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • 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


















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.






share|cite|improve this answer




























    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer




























      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer

















      • 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




















      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer






























        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…).






        share|cite|improve this answer





















          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%2f3013628%2fmaking-sure-if-it-is-cauchy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • 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















          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • 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













          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          Consider the harmonic series: $sum_{n=1}^{infty}frac 1n$.



          $mid a_{n+1}-a_nmid=frac1{n+1}ltfrac1n$.



          But it diverges.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          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


















          • 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










          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer

























            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer























              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer












              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.







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Nov 26 at 0:34









              Michael Lee

              4,7401929




              4,7401929






















                  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.






                  share|cite|improve this answer

























                    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.






                    share|cite|improve this answer























                      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.






                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      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.







                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer










                      answered Nov 26 at 0:34









                      Kavi Rama Murthy

                      43.9k31852




                      43.9k31852






















                          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.






                          share|cite|improve this answer

















                          • 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

















                          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.






                          share|cite|improve this answer

















                          • 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















                          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.






                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          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.







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          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
















                          • 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












                          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.






                          share|cite|improve this answer



























                            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.






                            share|cite|improve this answer

























                              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.






                              share|cite|improve this answer














                              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.







                              share|cite|improve this answer














                              share|cite|improve this answer



                              share|cite|improve this answer








                              edited Nov 30 at 3:28

























                              answered Nov 26 at 0:38









                              Matt A Pelto

                              2,298620




                              2,298620






















                                  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…).






                                  share|cite|improve this answer

























                                    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…).






                                    share|cite|improve this answer























                                      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…).






                                      share|cite|improve this answer












                                      This would imply that any series with a general term which tends to $0$ is convergent. This is false (except for $p$-adic numbers…).







                                      share|cite|improve this answer












                                      share|cite|improve this answer



                                      share|cite|improve this answer










                                      answered Nov 26 at 0:37









                                      Bernard

                                      116k637108




                                      116k637108






























                                          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%2f3013628%2fmaking-sure-if-it-is-cauchy%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,)

                                          Alcedinidae

                                          Origin of the phrase “under your belt”?