Convergent sequence rigorous definition











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I know what a convergent sequence is and how it works and everything but whenever I look at the definition my mind cant suddenly make the link with my intuition part of the brain so I realise that I am actually going over the same thing in my brain and still get no good answer for my questions about the definition. A sequence $x_n$ of real numbers converge to a point $L$ if given $epsilon>0$, $exists$ $n_0=n_0(epsilon)$ such that $$ |x_n-L| < epsilon quad for everyquad n > n_0. $$
My first question is why do we use this definition? My second question is what does each term exactly mean and in general how did you come to digest this thing in your brain. I do seem to have general idea of it but i want to be precise and would like some directions and explanations. THANKS.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • You want the difference between all values in the tail of the sequence and the limit $L$ to be smaller than any given positive real number, i.e. the tail of the sequence should be arbitrarily close to the limit.
    – Henry
    Jul 17 '15 at 20:12








  • 1




    The definition you wrote is almost correct except that this need to be true for any $epsilon > 0$. That is: $$(forallepsilon > 0)(exists n_0inmathbb N) ngeq n_0implies | x_n - L | < epsilon $$ point being that $n_0$ depends on $epsilon$ and can change when $epsilon$ changes.
    – Ennar
    Jul 17 '15 at 20:22












  • Already corrected!
    – Chuks
    Jul 17 '15 at 20:23










  • Cant $n_0$ be any real number?
    – Elliti123
    Jul 17 '15 at 20:24










  • @ Elliti123, no, it can't (by definition). Since it depends on $epsilon$, if $epsilon$ changes, then you can change your $n_0$ to the nearest natural number that will still make the stated condition to be satisfied.
    – Chuks
    Jul 17 '15 at 21:38

















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I know what a convergent sequence is and how it works and everything but whenever I look at the definition my mind cant suddenly make the link with my intuition part of the brain so I realise that I am actually going over the same thing in my brain and still get no good answer for my questions about the definition. A sequence $x_n$ of real numbers converge to a point $L$ if given $epsilon>0$, $exists$ $n_0=n_0(epsilon)$ such that $$ |x_n-L| < epsilon quad for everyquad n > n_0. $$
My first question is why do we use this definition? My second question is what does each term exactly mean and in general how did you come to digest this thing in your brain. I do seem to have general idea of it but i want to be precise and would like some directions and explanations. THANKS.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • You want the difference between all values in the tail of the sequence and the limit $L$ to be smaller than any given positive real number, i.e. the tail of the sequence should be arbitrarily close to the limit.
    – Henry
    Jul 17 '15 at 20:12








  • 1




    The definition you wrote is almost correct except that this need to be true for any $epsilon > 0$. That is: $$(forallepsilon > 0)(exists n_0inmathbb N) ngeq n_0implies | x_n - L | < epsilon $$ point being that $n_0$ depends on $epsilon$ and can change when $epsilon$ changes.
    – Ennar
    Jul 17 '15 at 20:22












  • Already corrected!
    – Chuks
    Jul 17 '15 at 20:23










  • Cant $n_0$ be any real number?
    – Elliti123
    Jul 17 '15 at 20:24










  • @ Elliti123, no, it can't (by definition). Since it depends on $epsilon$, if $epsilon$ changes, then you can change your $n_0$ to the nearest natural number that will still make the stated condition to be satisfied.
    – Chuks
    Jul 17 '15 at 21:38















up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











I know what a convergent sequence is and how it works and everything but whenever I look at the definition my mind cant suddenly make the link with my intuition part of the brain so I realise that I am actually going over the same thing in my brain and still get no good answer for my questions about the definition. A sequence $x_n$ of real numbers converge to a point $L$ if given $epsilon>0$, $exists$ $n_0=n_0(epsilon)$ such that $$ |x_n-L| < epsilon quad for everyquad n > n_0. $$
My first question is why do we use this definition? My second question is what does each term exactly mean and in general how did you come to digest this thing in your brain. I do seem to have general idea of it but i want to be precise and would like some directions and explanations. THANKS.










share|cite|improve this question















I know what a convergent sequence is and how it works and everything but whenever I look at the definition my mind cant suddenly make the link with my intuition part of the brain so I realise that I am actually going over the same thing in my brain and still get no good answer for my questions about the definition. A sequence $x_n$ of real numbers converge to a point $L$ if given $epsilon>0$, $exists$ $n_0=n_0(epsilon)$ such that $$ |x_n-L| < epsilon quad for everyquad n > n_0. $$
My first question is why do we use this definition? My second question is what does each term exactly mean and in general how did you come to digest this thing in your brain. I do seem to have general idea of it but i want to be precise and would like some directions and explanations. THANKS.







calculus






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jul 17 '15 at 20:20









Chuks

825417




825417










asked Jul 17 '15 at 20:06









Elliti123

497




497












  • You want the difference between all values in the tail of the sequence and the limit $L$ to be smaller than any given positive real number, i.e. the tail of the sequence should be arbitrarily close to the limit.
    – Henry
    Jul 17 '15 at 20:12








  • 1




    The definition you wrote is almost correct except that this need to be true for any $epsilon > 0$. That is: $$(forallepsilon > 0)(exists n_0inmathbb N) ngeq n_0implies | x_n - L | < epsilon $$ point being that $n_0$ depends on $epsilon$ and can change when $epsilon$ changes.
    – Ennar
    Jul 17 '15 at 20:22












  • Already corrected!
    – Chuks
    Jul 17 '15 at 20:23










  • Cant $n_0$ be any real number?
    – Elliti123
    Jul 17 '15 at 20:24










  • @ Elliti123, no, it can't (by definition). Since it depends on $epsilon$, if $epsilon$ changes, then you can change your $n_0$ to the nearest natural number that will still make the stated condition to be satisfied.
    – Chuks
    Jul 17 '15 at 21:38




















  • You want the difference between all values in the tail of the sequence and the limit $L$ to be smaller than any given positive real number, i.e. the tail of the sequence should be arbitrarily close to the limit.
    – Henry
    Jul 17 '15 at 20:12








  • 1




    The definition you wrote is almost correct except that this need to be true for any $epsilon > 0$. That is: $$(forallepsilon > 0)(exists n_0inmathbb N) ngeq n_0implies | x_n - L | < epsilon $$ point being that $n_0$ depends on $epsilon$ and can change when $epsilon$ changes.
    – Ennar
    Jul 17 '15 at 20:22












  • Already corrected!
    – Chuks
    Jul 17 '15 at 20:23










  • Cant $n_0$ be any real number?
    – Elliti123
    Jul 17 '15 at 20:24










  • @ Elliti123, no, it can't (by definition). Since it depends on $epsilon$, if $epsilon$ changes, then you can change your $n_0$ to the nearest natural number that will still make the stated condition to be satisfied.
    – Chuks
    Jul 17 '15 at 21:38


















You want the difference between all values in the tail of the sequence and the limit $L$ to be smaller than any given positive real number, i.e. the tail of the sequence should be arbitrarily close to the limit.
– Henry
Jul 17 '15 at 20:12






You want the difference between all values in the tail of the sequence and the limit $L$ to be smaller than any given positive real number, i.e. the tail of the sequence should be arbitrarily close to the limit.
– Henry
Jul 17 '15 at 20:12






1




1




The definition you wrote is almost correct except that this need to be true for any $epsilon > 0$. That is: $$(forallepsilon > 0)(exists n_0inmathbb N) ngeq n_0implies | x_n - L | < epsilon $$ point being that $n_0$ depends on $epsilon$ and can change when $epsilon$ changes.
– Ennar
Jul 17 '15 at 20:22






The definition you wrote is almost correct except that this need to be true for any $epsilon > 0$. That is: $$(forallepsilon > 0)(exists n_0inmathbb N) ngeq n_0implies | x_n - L | < epsilon $$ point being that $n_0$ depends on $epsilon$ and can change when $epsilon$ changes.
– Ennar
Jul 17 '15 at 20:22














Already corrected!
– Chuks
Jul 17 '15 at 20:23




Already corrected!
– Chuks
Jul 17 '15 at 20:23












Cant $n_0$ be any real number?
– Elliti123
Jul 17 '15 at 20:24




Cant $n_0$ be any real number?
– Elliti123
Jul 17 '15 at 20:24












@ Elliti123, no, it can't (by definition). Since it depends on $epsilon$, if $epsilon$ changes, then you can change your $n_0$ to the nearest natural number that will still make the stated condition to be satisfied.
– Chuks
Jul 17 '15 at 21:38






@ Elliti123, no, it can't (by definition). Since it depends on $epsilon$, if $epsilon$ changes, then you can change your $n_0$ to the nearest natural number that will still make the stated condition to be satisfied.
– Chuks
Jul 17 '15 at 21:38












5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










M: Here is a good sequence $(x_n)_{ngeq1}$ for you. It converges to $pi$. For $10$ dollars it's yours.



E: I looked at your $x_5$. It's $=4$. That's far away from $pi$.



M: What precision do you have in mind?



E: The error should be at most $0.01$, say.



M: Look here at this $x_{53}$ for example. It's $=3.14367$.



E: Maybe I should lower my tolerance to $0.0001$.



M: No problem. Let me check. Here it is: $x_{1538}=3.141512$.



E: I'm not convinced. These could be numerical coincidences.



M: There is a warranty booklet coming with the sequence. It contains a proof that the error is less than $0.0001$ for all $n>1600$.



E: How about even higher precision?



M: For only five more dollars you get the guarantee extended to $0.000001$. If I remember correctly the corresponding paperback contains a proof that the error is less than $10^{-6}$ for all $n>600,000$.



And on, and on.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 1




    I thought you were going to give a wrong analogy until you mentioned "for all $n > 1600$. But off-topic, your sequence is hardly worth ten cents, as it converges so slowly. What a scam! =P
    – user21820
    Jul 23 '15 at 12:11


















up vote
2
down vote













I think about the $epsilon$ as sort of an "allowable error" term. You specify how much error you are willing to allow: I want all the points to be within $epsilon$ of $L$. Then we say the limit of the sequence is $L$ if you can find a point after which all the terms are "acceptable" in the sense that they are not too far away. The important thing is that you have to be able to find the point at which they are all acceptable regardless of what the "allowable error" is, as long as you allow some wiggle room (i.e. $epsilon$ cannot be $0$).






share|cite|improve this answer




























    up vote
    1
    down vote













    As to why, there must be a precise definition since otherwise it would not be possible to prove much about convergent sequences---they would fail to be a useful mathematical tool.



    As for the meaning, you can visualize this somewhat simply. Plot a point on a number line and then start plotting a sequence of points that converges to the original point.



    Now put an interval centered at the original point. The definition says that from some term onward, every point you plot lies in the interval.



    That is, from some term ($n_0$) onward ($n ge n_0$), every point ($x_n$) lies in the interval ($|x_n - L| < epsilon$).






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • Oh ok so i would like to ask if what i made from the definition is right or no. If a sequence is convergent then it is possible to make the distance from the point of convergence less than any positive real number we like after taking n large enough this would happen since if it is a converging to a point then the distance has to become smaller.So that's why we have to prove that the distance can be made less than any other number if n is large enough.
      – Elliti123
      Jul 17 '15 at 20:17




















    up vote
    1
    down vote













    The OP asks




    My second question is what does each term exactly mean and in general
    how did you come to digest this thing in your brain.




    Each term on its own means nothing. The sequence $(x_n)_{,n ge 0}$ is 'carving out a story' and the value of any term $x_k$, for a fixed $k$, says nothing. It is how the sequence 'continues, and keeps acting' at each subsequent term that imparts the 'message'.



    If $w$ is any real number and the sequence $(x_n)_{,n ge 0}$ 'never stops showing up' with values $x_m$ that can get arbitrarily close $w$, then $w$ is said to be a cluster point. If the sequence is bounded it must have one cluster point, and if there is only one 'it keep approaching', that number is called the limit point.



    I offered the above intuitive verbiage to describe how one might be able to 'digest this thing' into the brain. But to do it formally, you need to be able to understand logical quantifiers and be comfortable with real numbers.



    Of course the reason investigating sequences is so rewarding is that the real line has no gaps (it is a 'complete' system of numbers).






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • +1 for the special mention of completeness and the fact it is rewarding to study such stuff.
      – Paramanand Singh
      Nov 27 at 5:17


















    up vote
    0
    down vote













    The notion of a limit a sequence $(x_n)$, in simple terms, is a point $L$ such that all of the later terms $x_n$ in the sequence are arbitrarily close to $L$. Geometrically, this means that, given any small $varepsilon>0$, we can find a large integer $N$ such that, whenever $ngeq N$, we have $x_nin[L-varepsilon,L+varepsilon]$.






    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%2f1364938%2fconvergent-sequence-rigorous-definition%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes








      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      1
      down vote



      accepted










      M: Here is a good sequence $(x_n)_{ngeq1}$ for you. It converges to $pi$. For $10$ dollars it's yours.



      E: I looked at your $x_5$. It's $=4$. That's far away from $pi$.



      M: What precision do you have in mind?



      E: The error should be at most $0.01$, say.



      M: Look here at this $x_{53}$ for example. It's $=3.14367$.



      E: Maybe I should lower my tolerance to $0.0001$.



      M: No problem. Let me check. Here it is: $x_{1538}=3.141512$.



      E: I'm not convinced. These could be numerical coincidences.



      M: There is a warranty booklet coming with the sequence. It contains a proof that the error is less than $0.0001$ for all $n>1600$.



      E: How about even higher precision?



      M: For only five more dollars you get the guarantee extended to $0.000001$. If I remember correctly the corresponding paperback contains a proof that the error is less than $10^{-6}$ for all $n>600,000$.



      And on, and on.






      share|cite|improve this answer

















      • 1




        I thought you were going to give a wrong analogy until you mentioned "for all $n > 1600$. But off-topic, your sequence is hardly worth ten cents, as it converges so slowly. What a scam! =P
        – user21820
        Jul 23 '15 at 12:11















      up vote
      1
      down vote



      accepted










      M: Here is a good sequence $(x_n)_{ngeq1}$ for you. It converges to $pi$. For $10$ dollars it's yours.



      E: I looked at your $x_5$. It's $=4$. That's far away from $pi$.



      M: What precision do you have in mind?



      E: The error should be at most $0.01$, say.



      M: Look here at this $x_{53}$ for example. It's $=3.14367$.



      E: Maybe I should lower my tolerance to $0.0001$.



      M: No problem. Let me check. Here it is: $x_{1538}=3.141512$.



      E: I'm not convinced. These could be numerical coincidences.



      M: There is a warranty booklet coming with the sequence. It contains a proof that the error is less than $0.0001$ for all $n>1600$.



      E: How about even higher precision?



      M: For only five more dollars you get the guarantee extended to $0.000001$. If I remember correctly the corresponding paperback contains a proof that the error is less than $10^{-6}$ for all $n>600,000$.



      And on, and on.






      share|cite|improve this answer

















      • 1




        I thought you were going to give a wrong analogy until you mentioned "for all $n > 1600$. But off-topic, your sequence is hardly worth ten cents, as it converges so slowly. What a scam! =P
        – user21820
        Jul 23 '15 at 12:11













      up vote
      1
      down vote



      accepted







      up vote
      1
      down vote



      accepted






      M: Here is a good sequence $(x_n)_{ngeq1}$ for you. It converges to $pi$. For $10$ dollars it's yours.



      E: I looked at your $x_5$. It's $=4$. That's far away from $pi$.



      M: What precision do you have in mind?



      E: The error should be at most $0.01$, say.



      M: Look here at this $x_{53}$ for example. It's $=3.14367$.



      E: Maybe I should lower my tolerance to $0.0001$.



      M: No problem. Let me check. Here it is: $x_{1538}=3.141512$.



      E: I'm not convinced. These could be numerical coincidences.



      M: There is a warranty booklet coming with the sequence. It contains a proof that the error is less than $0.0001$ for all $n>1600$.



      E: How about even higher precision?



      M: For only five more dollars you get the guarantee extended to $0.000001$. If I remember correctly the corresponding paperback contains a proof that the error is less than $10^{-6}$ for all $n>600,000$.



      And on, and on.






      share|cite|improve this answer












      M: Here is a good sequence $(x_n)_{ngeq1}$ for you. It converges to $pi$. For $10$ dollars it's yours.



      E: I looked at your $x_5$. It's $=4$. That's far away from $pi$.



      M: What precision do you have in mind?



      E: The error should be at most $0.01$, say.



      M: Look here at this $x_{53}$ for example. It's $=3.14367$.



      E: Maybe I should lower my tolerance to $0.0001$.



      M: No problem. Let me check. Here it is: $x_{1538}=3.141512$.



      E: I'm not convinced. These could be numerical coincidences.



      M: There is a warranty booklet coming with the sequence. It contains a proof that the error is less than $0.0001$ for all $n>1600$.



      E: How about even higher precision?



      M: For only five more dollars you get the guarantee extended to $0.000001$. If I remember correctly the corresponding paperback contains a proof that the error is less than $10^{-6}$ for all $n>600,000$.



      And on, and on.







      share|cite|improve this answer












      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer










      answered Jul 18 '15 at 10:05









      Christian Blatter

      171k7111325




      171k7111325








      • 1




        I thought you were going to give a wrong analogy until you mentioned "for all $n > 1600$. But off-topic, your sequence is hardly worth ten cents, as it converges so slowly. What a scam! =P
        – user21820
        Jul 23 '15 at 12:11














      • 1




        I thought you were going to give a wrong analogy until you mentioned "for all $n > 1600$. But off-topic, your sequence is hardly worth ten cents, as it converges so slowly. What a scam! =P
        – user21820
        Jul 23 '15 at 12:11








      1




      1




      I thought you were going to give a wrong analogy until you mentioned "for all $n > 1600$. But off-topic, your sequence is hardly worth ten cents, as it converges so slowly. What a scam! =P
      – user21820
      Jul 23 '15 at 12:11




      I thought you were going to give a wrong analogy until you mentioned "for all $n > 1600$. But off-topic, your sequence is hardly worth ten cents, as it converges so slowly. What a scam! =P
      – user21820
      Jul 23 '15 at 12:11










      up vote
      2
      down vote













      I think about the $epsilon$ as sort of an "allowable error" term. You specify how much error you are willing to allow: I want all the points to be within $epsilon$ of $L$. Then we say the limit of the sequence is $L$ if you can find a point after which all the terms are "acceptable" in the sense that they are not too far away. The important thing is that you have to be able to find the point at which they are all acceptable regardless of what the "allowable error" is, as long as you allow some wiggle room (i.e. $epsilon$ cannot be $0$).






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        2
        down vote













        I think about the $epsilon$ as sort of an "allowable error" term. You specify how much error you are willing to allow: I want all the points to be within $epsilon$ of $L$. Then we say the limit of the sequence is $L$ if you can find a point after which all the terms are "acceptable" in the sense that they are not too far away. The important thing is that you have to be able to find the point at which they are all acceptable regardless of what the "allowable error" is, as long as you allow some wiggle room (i.e. $epsilon$ cannot be $0$).






        share|cite|improve this answer























          up vote
          2
          down vote










          up vote
          2
          down vote









          I think about the $epsilon$ as sort of an "allowable error" term. You specify how much error you are willing to allow: I want all the points to be within $epsilon$ of $L$. Then we say the limit of the sequence is $L$ if you can find a point after which all the terms are "acceptable" in the sense that they are not too far away. The important thing is that you have to be able to find the point at which they are all acceptable regardless of what the "allowable error" is, as long as you allow some wiggle room (i.e. $epsilon$ cannot be $0$).






          share|cite|improve this answer












          I think about the $epsilon$ as sort of an "allowable error" term. You specify how much error you are willing to allow: I want all the points to be within $epsilon$ of $L$. Then we say the limit of the sequence is $L$ if you can find a point after which all the terms are "acceptable" in the sense that they are not too far away. The important thing is that you have to be able to find the point at which they are all acceptable regardless of what the "allowable error" is, as long as you allow some wiggle room (i.e. $epsilon$ cannot be $0$).







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Jul 17 '15 at 20:51









          TravisJ

          6,34831730




          6,34831730






















              up vote
              1
              down vote













              As to why, there must be a precise definition since otherwise it would not be possible to prove much about convergent sequences---they would fail to be a useful mathematical tool.



              As for the meaning, you can visualize this somewhat simply. Plot a point on a number line and then start plotting a sequence of points that converges to the original point.



              Now put an interval centered at the original point. The definition says that from some term onward, every point you plot lies in the interval.



              That is, from some term ($n_0$) onward ($n ge n_0$), every point ($x_n$) lies in the interval ($|x_n - L| < epsilon$).






              share|cite|improve this answer





















              • Oh ok so i would like to ask if what i made from the definition is right or no. If a sequence is convergent then it is possible to make the distance from the point of convergence less than any positive real number we like after taking n large enough this would happen since if it is a converging to a point then the distance has to become smaller.So that's why we have to prove that the distance can be made less than any other number if n is large enough.
                – Elliti123
                Jul 17 '15 at 20:17

















              up vote
              1
              down vote













              As to why, there must be a precise definition since otherwise it would not be possible to prove much about convergent sequences---they would fail to be a useful mathematical tool.



              As for the meaning, you can visualize this somewhat simply. Plot a point on a number line and then start plotting a sequence of points that converges to the original point.



              Now put an interval centered at the original point. The definition says that from some term onward, every point you plot lies in the interval.



              That is, from some term ($n_0$) onward ($n ge n_0$), every point ($x_n$) lies in the interval ($|x_n - L| < epsilon$).






              share|cite|improve this answer





















              • Oh ok so i would like to ask if what i made from the definition is right or no. If a sequence is convergent then it is possible to make the distance from the point of convergence less than any positive real number we like after taking n large enough this would happen since if it is a converging to a point then the distance has to become smaller.So that's why we have to prove that the distance can be made less than any other number if n is large enough.
                – Elliti123
                Jul 17 '15 at 20:17















              up vote
              1
              down vote










              up vote
              1
              down vote









              As to why, there must be a precise definition since otherwise it would not be possible to prove much about convergent sequences---they would fail to be a useful mathematical tool.



              As for the meaning, you can visualize this somewhat simply. Plot a point on a number line and then start plotting a sequence of points that converges to the original point.



              Now put an interval centered at the original point. The definition says that from some term onward, every point you plot lies in the interval.



              That is, from some term ($n_0$) onward ($n ge n_0$), every point ($x_n$) lies in the interval ($|x_n - L| < epsilon$).






              share|cite|improve this answer












              As to why, there must be a precise definition since otherwise it would not be possible to prove much about convergent sequences---they would fail to be a useful mathematical tool.



              As for the meaning, you can visualize this somewhat simply. Plot a point on a number line and then start plotting a sequence of points that converges to the original point.



              Now put an interval centered at the original point. The definition says that from some term onward, every point you plot lies in the interval.



              That is, from some term ($n_0$) onward ($n ge n_0$), every point ($x_n$) lies in the interval ($|x_n - L| < epsilon$).







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Jul 17 '15 at 20:13









              Umberto P.

              38.3k13063




              38.3k13063












              • Oh ok so i would like to ask if what i made from the definition is right or no. If a sequence is convergent then it is possible to make the distance from the point of convergence less than any positive real number we like after taking n large enough this would happen since if it is a converging to a point then the distance has to become smaller.So that's why we have to prove that the distance can be made less than any other number if n is large enough.
                – Elliti123
                Jul 17 '15 at 20:17




















              • Oh ok so i would like to ask if what i made from the definition is right or no. If a sequence is convergent then it is possible to make the distance from the point of convergence less than any positive real number we like after taking n large enough this would happen since if it is a converging to a point then the distance has to become smaller.So that's why we have to prove that the distance can be made less than any other number if n is large enough.
                – Elliti123
                Jul 17 '15 at 20:17


















              Oh ok so i would like to ask if what i made from the definition is right or no. If a sequence is convergent then it is possible to make the distance from the point of convergence less than any positive real number we like after taking n large enough this would happen since if it is a converging to a point then the distance has to become smaller.So that's why we have to prove that the distance can be made less than any other number if n is large enough.
              – Elliti123
              Jul 17 '15 at 20:17






              Oh ok so i would like to ask if what i made from the definition is right or no. If a sequence is convergent then it is possible to make the distance from the point of convergence less than any positive real number we like after taking n large enough this would happen since if it is a converging to a point then the distance has to become smaller.So that's why we have to prove that the distance can be made less than any other number if n is large enough.
              – Elliti123
              Jul 17 '15 at 20:17












              up vote
              1
              down vote













              The OP asks




              My second question is what does each term exactly mean and in general
              how did you come to digest this thing in your brain.




              Each term on its own means nothing. The sequence $(x_n)_{,n ge 0}$ is 'carving out a story' and the value of any term $x_k$, for a fixed $k$, says nothing. It is how the sequence 'continues, and keeps acting' at each subsequent term that imparts the 'message'.



              If $w$ is any real number and the sequence $(x_n)_{,n ge 0}$ 'never stops showing up' with values $x_m$ that can get arbitrarily close $w$, then $w$ is said to be a cluster point. If the sequence is bounded it must have one cluster point, and if there is only one 'it keep approaching', that number is called the limit point.



              I offered the above intuitive verbiage to describe how one might be able to 'digest this thing' into the brain. But to do it formally, you need to be able to understand logical quantifiers and be comfortable with real numbers.



              Of course the reason investigating sequences is so rewarding is that the real line has no gaps (it is a 'complete' system of numbers).






              share|cite|improve this answer





















              • +1 for the special mention of completeness and the fact it is rewarding to study such stuff.
                – Paramanand Singh
                Nov 27 at 5:17















              up vote
              1
              down vote













              The OP asks




              My second question is what does each term exactly mean and in general
              how did you come to digest this thing in your brain.




              Each term on its own means nothing. The sequence $(x_n)_{,n ge 0}$ is 'carving out a story' and the value of any term $x_k$, for a fixed $k$, says nothing. It is how the sequence 'continues, and keeps acting' at each subsequent term that imparts the 'message'.



              If $w$ is any real number and the sequence $(x_n)_{,n ge 0}$ 'never stops showing up' with values $x_m$ that can get arbitrarily close $w$, then $w$ is said to be a cluster point. If the sequence is bounded it must have one cluster point, and if there is only one 'it keep approaching', that number is called the limit point.



              I offered the above intuitive verbiage to describe how one might be able to 'digest this thing' into the brain. But to do it formally, you need to be able to understand logical quantifiers and be comfortable with real numbers.



              Of course the reason investigating sequences is so rewarding is that the real line has no gaps (it is a 'complete' system of numbers).






              share|cite|improve this answer





















              • +1 for the special mention of completeness and the fact it is rewarding to study such stuff.
                – Paramanand Singh
                Nov 27 at 5:17













              up vote
              1
              down vote










              up vote
              1
              down vote









              The OP asks




              My second question is what does each term exactly mean and in general
              how did you come to digest this thing in your brain.




              Each term on its own means nothing. The sequence $(x_n)_{,n ge 0}$ is 'carving out a story' and the value of any term $x_k$, for a fixed $k$, says nothing. It is how the sequence 'continues, and keeps acting' at each subsequent term that imparts the 'message'.



              If $w$ is any real number and the sequence $(x_n)_{,n ge 0}$ 'never stops showing up' with values $x_m$ that can get arbitrarily close $w$, then $w$ is said to be a cluster point. If the sequence is bounded it must have one cluster point, and if there is only one 'it keep approaching', that number is called the limit point.



              I offered the above intuitive verbiage to describe how one might be able to 'digest this thing' into the brain. But to do it formally, you need to be able to understand logical quantifiers and be comfortable with real numbers.



              Of course the reason investigating sequences is so rewarding is that the real line has no gaps (it is a 'complete' system of numbers).






              share|cite|improve this answer












              The OP asks




              My second question is what does each term exactly mean and in general
              how did you come to digest this thing in your brain.




              Each term on its own means nothing. The sequence $(x_n)_{,n ge 0}$ is 'carving out a story' and the value of any term $x_k$, for a fixed $k$, says nothing. It is how the sequence 'continues, and keeps acting' at each subsequent term that imparts the 'message'.



              If $w$ is any real number and the sequence $(x_n)_{,n ge 0}$ 'never stops showing up' with values $x_m$ that can get arbitrarily close $w$, then $w$ is said to be a cluster point. If the sequence is bounded it must have one cluster point, and if there is only one 'it keep approaching', that number is called the limit point.



              I offered the above intuitive verbiage to describe how one might be able to 'digest this thing' into the brain. But to do it formally, you need to be able to understand logical quantifiers and be comfortable with real numbers.



              Of course the reason investigating sequences is so rewarding is that the real line has no gaps (it is a 'complete' system of numbers).







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Nov 26 at 19:55









              CopyPasteIt

              3,8841627




              3,8841627












              • +1 for the special mention of completeness and the fact it is rewarding to study such stuff.
                – Paramanand Singh
                Nov 27 at 5:17


















              • +1 for the special mention of completeness and the fact it is rewarding to study such stuff.
                – Paramanand Singh
                Nov 27 at 5:17
















              +1 for the special mention of completeness and the fact it is rewarding to study such stuff.
              – Paramanand Singh
              Nov 27 at 5:17




              +1 for the special mention of completeness and the fact it is rewarding to study such stuff.
              – Paramanand Singh
              Nov 27 at 5:17










              up vote
              0
              down vote













              The notion of a limit a sequence $(x_n)$, in simple terms, is a point $L$ such that all of the later terms $x_n$ in the sequence are arbitrarily close to $L$. Geometrically, this means that, given any small $varepsilon>0$, we can find a large integer $N$ such that, whenever $ngeq N$, we have $x_nin[L-varepsilon,L+varepsilon]$.






              share|cite|improve this answer

























                up vote
                0
                down vote













                The notion of a limit a sequence $(x_n)$, in simple terms, is a point $L$ such that all of the later terms $x_n$ in the sequence are arbitrarily close to $L$. Geometrically, this means that, given any small $varepsilon>0$, we can find a large integer $N$ such that, whenever $ngeq N$, we have $x_nin[L-varepsilon,L+varepsilon]$.






                share|cite|improve this answer























                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote









                  The notion of a limit a sequence $(x_n)$, in simple terms, is a point $L$ such that all of the later terms $x_n$ in the sequence are arbitrarily close to $L$. Geometrically, this means that, given any small $varepsilon>0$, we can find a large integer $N$ such that, whenever $ngeq N$, we have $x_nin[L-varepsilon,L+varepsilon]$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  The notion of a limit a sequence $(x_n)$, in simple terms, is a point $L$ such that all of the later terms $x_n$ in the sequence are arbitrarily close to $L$. Geometrically, this means that, given any small $varepsilon>0$, we can find a large integer $N$ such that, whenever $ngeq N$, we have $x_nin[L-varepsilon,L+varepsilon]$.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Jul 17 '15 at 20:27









                  SamM

                  1,308510




                  1,308510






























                      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%2f1364938%2fconvergent-sequence-rigorous-definition%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

                      Berounka

                      Sphinx de Gizeh

                      Different font size/position of beamer's navigation symbols template's content depending on regular/plain...