Prove the alternating sum of a decreasing sequence converging to 0 is Cauchy. Unicorn Meta Zoo...
Multiple fireplaces in an apartment building?
What's parked in Mil Moscow helicopter plant?
Why did C use the -> operator instead of reusing the . operator?
Why didn't the Space Shuttle bounce back into space as many times as possible so as to lose a lot of kinetic energy up there?
Trumpet valves, lengths, and pitch
Is a 5 watt UHF/VHF handheld considered QRP?
Can you stand up from being prone using Skirmisher outside of your turn?
Rolling Stones Sway guitar solo chord function
Why isn't everyone flabbergasted about Bran's "gift"?
What is the term for a person whose job is to place products on shelves in stores?
Second order approximation of the loss function (Deep learning book, 7.33)
Will I lose my paid in full property
Is Bran literally the world's memory?
How to avoid introduction cliches
Israeli soda type drink
What to do with someone that cheated their way through university and a PhD program?
Passing args from the bash script to the function in the script
My admission is revoked after accepting the admission offer
My bank got bought out, am I now going to have to start filing tax returns in a different state?
What’s with the clanks in Endgame?
What is the least dense liquid under normal conditions?
Did the Roman Empire have penal colonies?
Are there moral objections to a life motivated purely by money? How to sway a person from this lifestyle?
Can I criticise the more senior developers around me for not writing clean code?
Prove the alternating sum of a decreasing sequence converging to 0 is Cauchy.
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar ManaraSuppose for all positive integers $n$, $|x_n-y_n|< frac{1}{n}$ Prove that $(x_n)$ is also Cauchy.Proof check for completenessProve that $d_n$ is a Cauchy sequence in $mathbb{R}$Prove ${aX_n +bY_n}$ is a Cauchy Sequence.Prove a sequence is a Cauchy and thus convergentIf $(x_n)$ and $(y_n)$ are Cauchy sequences, then give a direct argument that $ (x_n + y_n)$ is a Cauchy sequenceIf ${x_n}$ and ${y_n}$ are Cauchy then $left{frac{2x_n}{y_n}right}$ is CauchyLet ${x_n}$ be a Cauchy sequence of rational numbers. Define a new sequence ${y_n}$ by $y_n = (x_n)(x_{n+1})$. Show that ${y_n}$ is a CS.Let ${x_n}$ be a Cauchy sequence of real numbers, prove that a new sequence ${y_n}$, with $y_n$=$x_n^frac{1}{3}$, is also a Cauchy sequence.$x_n rightarrow x$ iff the modified sequence is Cauchy
$begingroup$
Let $(x_n)$ be a decreasing sequence with $x_n > 0$ for all $n in mathbb{N}$, and $(x_n) to 0$. Let $(y_n)$ be defined for all $n in mathbb{N}$ by
$$y_n = x_0 - x_1 + x_2 - cdots + (-1)^n x_n .$$
I want to show, using the $varepsilon$ definition, that $(y_n)$ is Cauchy.
I am trying to find, given $varepsilon > 0$, a real number $N$ such that for all $m$ and $n$ with $m > n > N$, $|y_m - y_n| < varepsilon$.
I have been going backwards to try and find $N$, and have
begin{align*}
|y_m - y_n| & = left| (x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_m) - (x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_n) right| \
|y_m - y_n| & = left| x_{n + 1} - x_{n + 2} + cdots pm x_{m} right| \
|y_m - y_n| & leq | x_{n + 1} | + | x_{n + 2} | + cdots + | x_{m} | \
|y_m - y_n| & leq ?
end{align*}
I do not know how to get a solution from there, and am not sure about the process, particurlary the last step since I feel getting rid of the minuses might prevent me from finding a solution.
real-analysis cauchy-sequences
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $(x_n)$ be a decreasing sequence with $x_n > 0$ for all $n in mathbb{N}$, and $(x_n) to 0$. Let $(y_n)$ be defined for all $n in mathbb{N}$ by
$$y_n = x_0 - x_1 + x_2 - cdots + (-1)^n x_n .$$
I want to show, using the $varepsilon$ definition, that $(y_n)$ is Cauchy.
I am trying to find, given $varepsilon > 0$, a real number $N$ such that for all $m$ and $n$ with $m > n > N$, $|y_m - y_n| < varepsilon$.
I have been going backwards to try and find $N$, and have
begin{align*}
|y_m - y_n| & = left| (x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_m) - (x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_n) right| \
|y_m - y_n| & = left| x_{n + 1} - x_{n + 2} + cdots pm x_{m} right| \
|y_m - y_n| & leq | x_{n + 1} | + | x_{n + 2} | + cdots + | x_{m} | \
|y_m - y_n| & leq ?
end{align*}
I do not know how to get a solution from there, and am not sure about the process, particurlary the last step since I feel getting rid of the minuses might prevent me from finding a solution.
real-analysis cauchy-sequences
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Because the series is alternating and decreasing, I think you can prove by induction on $m$ that $|y_m-y_n| leq |y_n|$.
$endgroup$
– Robert Shore
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RobertShore is my answer okay?
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RobertShore yes I can definitely show that, but it brings me to the same issue with $|y_m| leq |x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_m|$, and I am unsure how to proceed from there.
$endgroup$
– oranji
41 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $(x_n)$ be a decreasing sequence with $x_n > 0$ for all $n in mathbb{N}$, and $(x_n) to 0$. Let $(y_n)$ be defined for all $n in mathbb{N}$ by
$$y_n = x_0 - x_1 + x_2 - cdots + (-1)^n x_n .$$
I want to show, using the $varepsilon$ definition, that $(y_n)$ is Cauchy.
I am trying to find, given $varepsilon > 0$, a real number $N$ such that for all $m$ and $n$ with $m > n > N$, $|y_m - y_n| < varepsilon$.
I have been going backwards to try and find $N$, and have
begin{align*}
|y_m - y_n| & = left| (x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_m) - (x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_n) right| \
|y_m - y_n| & = left| x_{n + 1} - x_{n + 2} + cdots pm x_{m} right| \
|y_m - y_n| & leq | x_{n + 1} | + | x_{n + 2} | + cdots + | x_{m} | \
|y_m - y_n| & leq ?
end{align*}
I do not know how to get a solution from there, and am not sure about the process, particurlary the last step since I feel getting rid of the minuses might prevent me from finding a solution.
real-analysis cauchy-sequences
$endgroup$
Let $(x_n)$ be a decreasing sequence with $x_n > 0$ for all $n in mathbb{N}$, and $(x_n) to 0$. Let $(y_n)$ be defined for all $n in mathbb{N}$ by
$$y_n = x_0 - x_1 + x_2 - cdots + (-1)^n x_n .$$
I want to show, using the $varepsilon$ definition, that $(y_n)$ is Cauchy.
I am trying to find, given $varepsilon > 0$, a real number $N$ such that for all $m$ and $n$ with $m > n > N$, $|y_m - y_n| < varepsilon$.
I have been going backwards to try and find $N$, and have
begin{align*}
|y_m - y_n| & = left| (x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_m) - (x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_n) right| \
|y_m - y_n| & = left| x_{n + 1} - x_{n + 2} + cdots pm x_{m} right| \
|y_m - y_n| & leq | x_{n + 1} | + | x_{n + 2} | + cdots + | x_{m} | \
|y_m - y_n| & leq ?
end{align*}
I do not know how to get a solution from there, and am not sure about the process, particurlary the last step since I feel getting rid of the minuses might prevent me from finding a solution.
real-analysis cauchy-sequences
real-analysis cauchy-sequences
asked 3 hours ago
oranjioranji
616
616
1
$begingroup$
Because the series is alternating and decreasing, I think you can prove by induction on $m$ that $|y_m-y_n| leq |y_n|$.
$endgroup$
– Robert Shore
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RobertShore is my answer okay?
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RobertShore yes I can definitely show that, but it brings me to the same issue with $|y_m| leq |x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_m|$, and I am unsure how to proceed from there.
$endgroup$
– oranji
41 mins ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Because the series is alternating and decreasing, I think you can prove by induction on $m$ that $|y_m-y_n| leq |y_n|$.
$endgroup$
– Robert Shore
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RobertShore is my answer okay?
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RobertShore yes I can definitely show that, but it brings me to the same issue with $|y_m| leq |x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_m|$, and I am unsure how to proceed from there.
$endgroup$
– oranji
41 mins ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Because the series is alternating and decreasing, I think you can prove by induction on $m$ that $|y_m-y_n| leq |y_n|$.
$endgroup$
– Robert Shore
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Because the series is alternating and decreasing, I think you can prove by induction on $m$ that $|y_m-y_n| leq |y_n|$.
$endgroup$
– Robert Shore
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RobertShore is my answer okay?
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RobertShore is my answer okay?
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RobertShore yes I can definitely show that, but it brings me to the same issue with $|y_m| leq |x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_m|$, and I am unsure how to proceed from there.
$endgroup$
– oranji
41 mins ago
$begingroup$
@RobertShore yes I can definitely show that, but it brings me to the same issue with $|y_m| leq |x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_m|$, and I am unsure how to proceed from there.
$endgroup$
– oranji
41 mins ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
To see that the sequence of partial sums is Cauchy, you cannot use the triangle inequality directly as you did. A famous counter example here is $sum_{k=1}^{infty}frac{(-1)^k}{k}$.
What you can do is grouping the terms of the partial sums $s_n= sum_{j=1}^n(-1)^jx_j$ as follows:
- Let $m = n+k, k,n in mathbb{N}$
Now, you can write $|s_{m} - s_n|$ in two different ways:
$$|s_{n+k} - s_n| = begin{cases}
|x_{n+1} - (x_{n+2}-x_{n+3}) - cdots - (x_{n+2i}-x_{n+2i+1})| & k = 2i+1 \
|x_{n+1} - (x_{n+2}-x_{n+3}) - cdots - (x_{n+2i-2}-x_{n+2i-1}) - x_{2i}| & k = 2i \
end{cases}
$$
$$|s_{n+k} - s_n| = begin{cases}
|(x_{n+1} - x_{n+2}) + cdots + (x_{n+2i-1}-x_{n+2i}) + x_{n+2i+1}| & k = 2i+1 \
|(x_{n+1} - x_{n+2}) + cdots + (x_{n+2i-1}-x_{n+2i}) | & k = 2i \
end{cases}
$$
Using the fact that $x_n searrow 0$, it follows immediately that for all $k in mathbb{N}$ holds
$$|s_{n+k} - s_n| leq x_{n+1}$$
Hence, for $epsilon > 0$ choose $N_{epsilon}$ such that $x_{N_{epsilon}} < epsilon$. Then, for all $m> n > N_{epsilon}$ you have
$$|s_{m} - s_n| leq x_{n+1} leq x_{N_{epsilon}} < epsilon$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This is exactly what I was about to do.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
40 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@SubhasisBiswas So, I did it for you :-D
$endgroup$
– trancelocation
39 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is also known as the "Leibnitz's Test".
We write $s_n = x_1-x_2+x_3-...+(-1)^{n+1}x_n$
$s_{2n+2}-s_{2n}=u_{2n+1}-u_{2n+2} geq0$ for all $n$.
$s_{2n+1}-s_{2n-1}=-u_{2n}+u_{2n+1} leq 0$
$s_{2n} =u_1 -(u_2-u_3)-(u_4-u_5)...-u_{2n} leq u_1$, i.e. a monotone increasing sequence bounded above.
$s_{2n+1} =(u_1 -u_2)+(u_3-u_4)+...+u_{2n+1} geq u_1-u_2$, i.e. a monotone decreasing sequence bounded below.
Hence, both are convergent subsequences of $(s_n)$. But, we have $lim (s_{2n+1}-s_{2n})=u_{2n+1}=0$, therefore, they converge to the same limit.
Hence, $(s_n)$ converges, i.e. it is Cauchy.
Note: We conclude that $(s_n)$ converges because the indices of the two subsequences $(s_{2n})$ and $(s_{2n+1})$ i.e. $U ={ 2n+1 : n in mathbb{N}}$ and $V ={ 2n : n in mathbb{N}}$ form a partition of $mathbb{N}$ and they both converge to the same limit.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I want to use the $varepsilon$ definition of a Cauchy sequence, and not the fact that all convergent sequences are Cauchy, which is why I cannot use this solution.
$endgroup$
– oranji
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
I'll edit this answer.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
41 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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
});
}
});
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%2f3201256%2fprove-the-alternating-sum-of-a-decreasing-sequence-converging-to-0-is-cauchy%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
$begingroup$
To see that the sequence of partial sums is Cauchy, you cannot use the triangle inequality directly as you did. A famous counter example here is $sum_{k=1}^{infty}frac{(-1)^k}{k}$.
What you can do is grouping the terms of the partial sums $s_n= sum_{j=1}^n(-1)^jx_j$ as follows:
- Let $m = n+k, k,n in mathbb{N}$
Now, you can write $|s_{m} - s_n|$ in two different ways:
$$|s_{n+k} - s_n| = begin{cases}
|x_{n+1} - (x_{n+2}-x_{n+3}) - cdots - (x_{n+2i}-x_{n+2i+1})| & k = 2i+1 \
|x_{n+1} - (x_{n+2}-x_{n+3}) - cdots - (x_{n+2i-2}-x_{n+2i-1}) - x_{2i}| & k = 2i \
end{cases}
$$
$$|s_{n+k} - s_n| = begin{cases}
|(x_{n+1} - x_{n+2}) + cdots + (x_{n+2i-1}-x_{n+2i}) + x_{n+2i+1}| & k = 2i+1 \
|(x_{n+1} - x_{n+2}) + cdots + (x_{n+2i-1}-x_{n+2i}) | & k = 2i \
end{cases}
$$
Using the fact that $x_n searrow 0$, it follows immediately that for all $k in mathbb{N}$ holds
$$|s_{n+k} - s_n| leq x_{n+1}$$
Hence, for $epsilon > 0$ choose $N_{epsilon}$ such that $x_{N_{epsilon}} < epsilon$. Then, for all $m> n > N_{epsilon}$ you have
$$|s_{m} - s_n| leq x_{n+1} leq x_{N_{epsilon}} < epsilon$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This is exactly what I was about to do.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
40 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@SubhasisBiswas So, I did it for you :-D
$endgroup$
– trancelocation
39 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
To see that the sequence of partial sums is Cauchy, you cannot use the triangle inequality directly as you did. A famous counter example here is $sum_{k=1}^{infty}frac{(-1)^k}{k}$.
What you can do is grouping the terms of the partial sums $s_n= sum_{j=1}^n(-1)^jx_j$ as follows:
- Let $m = n+k, k,n in mathbb{N}$
Now, you can write $|s_{m} - s_n|$ in two different ways:
$$|s_{n+k} - s_n| = begin{cases}
|x_{n+1} - (x_{n+2}-x_{n+3}) - cdots - (x_{n+2i}-x_{n+2i+1})| & k = 2i+1 \
|x_{n+1} - (x_{n+2}-x_{n+3}) - cdots - (x_{n+2i-2}-x_{n+2i-1}) - x_{2i}| & k = 2i \
end{cases}
$$
$$|s_{n+k} - s_n| = begin{cases}
|(x_{n+1} - x_{n+2}) + cdots + (x_{n+2i-1}-x_{n+2i}) + x_{n+2i+1}| & k = 2i+1 \
|(x_{n+1} - x_{n+2}) + cdots + (x_{n+2i-1}-x_{n+2i}) | & k = 2i \
end{cases}
$$
Using the fact that $x_n searrow 0$, it follows immediately that for all $k in mathbb{N}$ holds
$$|s_{n+k} - s_n| leq x_{n+1}$$
Hence, for $epsilon > 0$ choose $N_{epsilon}$ such that $x_{N_{epsilon}} < epsilon$. Then, for all $m> n > N_{epsilon}$ you have
$$|s_{m} - s_n| leq x_{n+1} leq x_{N_{epsilon}} < epsilon$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This is exactly what I was about to do.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
40 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@SubhasisBiswas So, I did it for you :-D
$endgroup$
– trancelocation
39 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
To see that the sequence of partial sums is Cauchy, you cannot use the triangle inequality directly as you did. A famous counter example here is $sum_{k=1}^{infty}frac{(-1)^k}{k}$.
What you can do is grouping the terms of the partial sums $s_n= sum_{j=1}^n(-1)^jx_j$ as follows:
- Let $m = n+k, k,n in mathbb{N}$
Now, you can write $|s_{m} - s_n|$ in two different ways:
$$|s_{n+k} - s_n| = begin{cases}
|x_{n+1} - (x_{n+2}-x_{n+3}) - cdots - (x_{n+2i}-x_{n+2i+1})| & k = 2i+1 \
|x_{n+1} - (x_{n+2}-x_{n+3}) - cdots - (x_{n+2i-2}-x_{n+2i-1}) - x_{2i}| & k = 2i \
end{cases}
$$
$$|s_{n+k} - s_n| = begin{cases}
|(x_{n+1} - x_{n+2}) + cdots + (x_{n+2i-1}-x_{n+2i}) + x_{n+2i+1}| & k = 2i+1 \
|(x_{n+1} - x_{n+2}) + cdots + (x_{n+2i-1}-x_{n+2i}) | & k = 2i \
end{cases}
$$
Using the fact that $x_n searrow 0$, it follows immediately that for all $k in mathbb{N}$ holds
$$|s_{n+k} - s_n| leq x_{n+1}$$
Hence, for $epsilon > 0$ choose $N_{epsilon}$ such that $x_{N_{epsilon}} < epsilon$. Then, for all $m> n > N_{epsilon}$ you have
$$|s_{m} - s_n| leq x_{n+1} leq x_{N_{epsilon}} < epsilon$$
$endgroup$
To see that the sequence of partial sums is Cauchy, you cannot use the triangle inequality directly as you did. A famous counter example here is $sum_{k=1}^{infty}frac{(-1)^k}{k}$.
What you can do is grouping the terms of the partial sums $s_n= sum_{j=1}^n(-1)^jx_j$ as follows:
- Let $m = n+k, k,n in mathbb{N}$
Now, you can write $|s_{m} - s_n|$ in two different ways:
$$|s_{n+k} - s_n| = begin{cases}
|x_{n+1} - (x_{n+2}-x_{n+3}) - cdots - (x_{n+2i}-x_{n+2i+1})| & k = 2i+1 \
|x_{n+1} - (x_{n+2}-x_{n+3}) - cdots - (x_{n+2i-2}-x_{n+2i-1}) - x_{2i}| & k = 2i \
end{cases}
$$
$$|s_{n+k} - s_n| = begin{cases}
|(x_{n+1} - x_{n+2}) + cdots + (x_{n+2i-1}-x_{n+2i}) + x_{n+2i+1}| & k = 2i+1 \
|(x_{n+1} - x_{n+2}) + cdots + (x_{n+2i-1}-x_{n+2i}) | & k = 2i \
end{cases}
$$
Using the fact that $x_n searrow 0$, it follows immediately that for all $k in mathbb{N}$ holds
$$|s_{n+k} - s_n| leq x_{n+1}$$
Hence, for $epsilon > 0$ choose $N_{epsilon}$ such that $x_{N_{epsilon}} < epsilon$. Then, for all $m> n > N_{epsilon}$ you have
$$|s_{m} - s_n| leq x_{n+1} leq x_{N_{epsilon}} < epsilon$$
edited 24 mins ago
answered 41 mins ago
trancelocationtrancelocation
14.6k1929
14.6k1929
$begingroup$
This is exactly what I was about to do.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
40 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@SubhasisBiswas So, I did it for you :-D
$endgroup$
– trancelocation
39 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is exactly what I was about to do.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
40 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@SubhasisBiswas So, I did it for you :-D
$endgroup$
– trancelocation
39 mins ago
$begingroup$
This is exactly what I was about to do.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
40 mins ago
$begingroup$
This is exactly what I was about to do.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
40 mins ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@SubhasisBiswas So, I did it for you :-D
$endgroup$
– trancelocation
39 mins ago
$begingroup$
@SubhasisBiswas So, I did it for you :-D
$endgroup$
– trancelocation
39 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is also known as the "Leibnitz's Test".
We write $s_n = x_1-x_2+x_3-...+(-1)^{n+1}x_n$
$s_{2n+2}-s_{2n}=u_{2n+1}-u_{2n+2} geq0$ for all $n$.
$s_{2n+1}-s_{2n-1}=-u_{2n}+u_{2n+1} leq 0$
$s_{2n} =u_1 -(u_2-u_3)-(u_4-u_5)...-u_{2n} leq u_1$, i.e. a monotone increasing sequence bounded above.
$s_{2n+1} =(u_1 -u_2)+(u_3-u_4)+...+u_{2n+1} geq u_1-u_2$, i.e. a monotone decreasing sequence bounded below.
Hence, both are convergent subsequences of $(s_n)$. But, we have $lim (s_{2n+1}-s_{2n})=u_{2n+1}=0$, therefore, they converge to the same limit.
Hence, $(s_n)$ converges, i.e. it is Cauchy.
Note: We conclude that $(s_n)$ converges because the indices of the two subsequences $(s_{2n})$ and $(s_{2n+1})$ i.e. $U ={ 2n+1 : n in mathbb{N}}$ and $V ={ 2n : n in mathbb{N}}$ form a partition of $mathbb{N}$ and they both converge to the same limit.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I want to use the $varepsilon$ definition of a Cauchy sequence, and not the fact that all convergent sequences are Cauchy, which is why I cannot use this solution.
$endgroup$
– oranji
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
I'll edit this answer.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
41 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is also known as the "Leibnitz's Test".
We write $s_n = x_1-x_2+x_3-...+(-1)^{n+1}x_n$
$s_{2n+2}-s_{2n}=u_{2n+1}-u_{2n+2} geq0$ for all $n$.
$s_{2n+1}-s_{2n-1}=-u_{2n}+u_{2n+1} leq 0$
$s_{2n} =u_1 -(u_2-u_3)-(u_4-u_5)...-u_{2n} leq u_1$, i.e. a monotone increasing sequence bounded above.
$s_{2n+1} =(u_1 -u_2)+(u_3-u_4)+...+u_{2n+1} geq u_1-u_2$, i.e. a monotone decreasing sequence bounded below.
Hence, both are convergent subsequences of $(s_n)$. But, we have $lim (s_{2n+1}-s_{2n})=u_{2n+1}=0$, therefore, they converge to the same limit.
Hence, $(s_n)$ converges, i.e. it is Cauchy.
Note: We conclude that $(s_n)$ converges because the indices of the two subsequences $(s_{2n})$ and $(s_{2n+1})$ i.e. $U ={ 2n+1 : n in mathbb{N}}$ and $V ={ 2n : n in mathbb{N}}$ form a partition of $mathbb{N}$ and they both converge to the same limit.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I want to use the $varepsilon$ definition of a Cauchy sequence, and not the fact that all convergent sequences are Cauchy, which is why I cannot use this solution.
$endgroup$
– oranji
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
I'll edit this answer.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
41 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is also known as the "Leibnitz's Test".
We write $s_n = x_1-x_2+x_3-...+(-1)^{n+1}x_n$
$s_{2n+2}-s_{2n}=u_{2n+1}-u_{2n+2} geq0$ for all $n$.
$s_{2n+1}-s_{2n-1}=-u_{2n}+u_{2n+1} leq 0$
$s_{2n} =u_1 -(u_2-u_3)-(u_4-u_5)...-u_{2n} leq u_1$, i.e. a monotone increasing sequence bounded above.
$s_{2n+1} =(u_1 -u_2)+(u_3-u_4)+...+u_{2n+1} geq u_1-u_2$, i.e. a monotone decreasing sequence bounded below.
Hence, both are convergent subsequences of $(s_n)$. But, we have $lim (s_{2n+1}-s_{2n})=u_{2n+1}=0$, therefore, they converge to the same limit.
Hence, $(s_n)$ converges, i.e. it is Cauchy.
Note: We conclude that $(s_n)$ converges because the indices of the two subsequences $(s_{2n})$ and $(s_{2n+1})$ i.e. $U ={ 2n+1 : n in mathbb{N}}$ and $V ={ 2n : n in mathbb{N}}$ form a partition of $mathbb{N}$ and they both converge to the same limit.
$endgroup$
This is also known as the "Leibnitz's Test".
We write $s_n = x_1-x_2+x_3-...+(-1)^{n+1}x_n$
$s_{2n+2}-s_{2n}=u_{2n+1}-u_{2n+2} geq0$ for all $n$.
$s_{2n+1}-s_{2n-1}=-u_{2n}+u_{2n+1} leq 0$
$s_{2n} =u_1 -(u_2-u_3)-(u_4-u_5)...-u_{2n} leq u_1$, i.e. a monotone increasing sequence bounded above.
$s_{2n+1} =(u_1 -u_2)+(u_3-u_4)+...+u_{2n+1} geq u_1-u_2$, i.e. a monotone decreasing sequence bounded below.
Hence, both are convergent subsequences of $(s_n)$. But, we have $lim (s_{2n+1}-s_{2n})=u_{2n+1}=0$, therefore, they converge to the same limit.
Hence, $(s_n)$ converges, i.e. it is Cauchy.
Note: We conclude that $(s_n)$ converges because the indices of the two subsequences $(s_{2n})$ and $(s_{2n+1})$ i.e. $U ={ 2n+1 : n in mathbb{N}}$ and $V ={ 2n : n in mathbb{N}}$ form a partition of $mathbb{N}$ and they both converge to the same limit.
answered 3 hours ago
Subhasis BiswasSubhasis Biswas
608512
608512
$begingroup$
I want to use the $varepsilon$ definition of a Cauchy sequence, and not the fact that all convergent sequences are Cauchy, which is why I cannot use this solution.
$endgroup$
– oranji
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
I'll edit this answer.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
41 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I want to use the $varepsilon$ definition of a Cauchy sequence, and not the fact that all convergent sequences are Cauchy, which is why I cannot use this solution.
$endgroup$
– oranji
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
I'll edit this answer.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
41 mins ago
$begingroup$
I want to use the $varepsilon$ definition of a Cauchy sequence, and not the fact that all convergent sequences are Cauchy, which is why I cannot use this solution.
$endgroup$
– oranji
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
I want to use the $varepsilon$ definition of a Cauchy sequence, and not the fact that all convergent sequences are Cauchy, which is why I cannot use this solution.
$endgroup$
– oranji
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
I'll edit this answer.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
41 mins ago
$begingroup$
I'll edit this answer.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
41 mins ago
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.
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%2f3201256%2fprove-the-alternating-sum-of-a-decreasing-sequence-converging-to-0-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
1
$begingroup$
Because the series is alternating and decreasing, I think you can prove by induction on $m$ that $|y_m-y_n| leq |y_n|$.
$endgroup$
– Robert Shore
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RobertShore is my answer okay?
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RobertShore yes I can definitely show that, but it brings me to the same issue with $|y_m| leq |x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_m|$, and I am unsure how to proceed from there.
$endgroup$
– oranji
41 mins ago