Each sequence that is unbounded above / below has a subsequence that converges (improperly) to $+ infty /...
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
To Prove: Each sequence that is unbounded above / below has a subsequence
that converges (improperly) to $+ infty / −infty$. Conclude that each sequence
of real numbers has a properly or improperly convergent subsequence.
Whenever a sequence is unbounded, we have that it has an increasing/decreasing subsequence. Why is this the case? For any number $M$ you give me, there exists an $min mathbb{N}$ such that $a_m$>M. We choose the subsequence ${a_i, a_j, a_k dots }$ such that the index set is strictly increasing/decreasing and also the terms are strictly increasing/decreasing. Does this argument work? how can I formalise this better?
An example of my method applied would be the following sequence: ${0,1,2,1,0,3,4,5,4,3,6 dots dots }$ My method would pick the following subsequence ${0, 1,2,3,4,5,6 dots}$. This is the sequence $a_l=l$ where $l$ is now a new index.
Whenever a sequence is bounded it has a convergent subsequence by Bolzano Weierstrass (it has an accumulation point, hence the subsequence converges to this accumulation point.)
real-analysis sequences-and-series
asked Nov 25 at 6:06
WesleyGroupshaveFeelingsToo
1,168322
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
To Prove: Each sequence that is unbounded above / below has a subsequence
that converges (improperly) to $+ infty / −infty$. Conclude that each sequence
of real numbers has a properly or improperly convergent subsequence.
Whenever a sequence is unbounded, we have that it has an increasing/decreasing subsequence. Why is this the case? For any number $M$ you give me, there exists an $min mathbb{N}$ such that $a_m$>M. We choose the subsequence ${a_i, a_j, a_k dots }$ such that the index set is strictly increasing/decreasing and also the terms are strictly increasing/decreasing. Does this argument work? how can I formalise this better?
An example of my method applied would be the following sequence: ${0,1,2,1,0,3,4,5,4,3,6 dots dots }$ My method would pick the following subsequence ${0, 1,2,3,4,5,6 dots}$. This is the sequence $a_l=l$ where $l$ is now a new index.
Whenever a sequence is bounded it has a convergent subsequence by Bolzano Weierstrass (it has an accumulation point, hence the subsequence converges to this accumulation point.)
real-analysis sequences-and-series
asked Nov 25 at 6:06
WesleyGroupshaveFeelingsToo
1,168322
1
Simply build recursively a subsequence $(a_{n_j})$ such that $a_{n_0}=a_0$, say, and, for every $j$, $$a_{n_{j+1}}geqslant a_{n_j}+1$$
– Did
Nov 25 at 6:15
That's a nice way to put it.
– WesleyGroupshaveFeelingsToo
Nov 25 at 6:18
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
To Prove: Each sequence that is unbounded above / below has a subsequence
that converges (improperly) to $+ infty / −infty$. Conclude that each sequence
of real numbers has a properly or improperly convergent subsequence.
Whenever a sequence is unbounded, we have that it has an increasing/decreasing subsequence. Why is this the case? For any number $M$ you give me, there exists an $min mathbb{N}$ such that $a_m$>M. We choose the subsequence ${a_i, a_j, a_k dots }$ such that the index set is strictly increasing/decreasing and also the terms are strictly increasing/decreasing. Does this argument work? how can I formalise this better?
An example of my method applied would be the following sequence: ${0,1,2,1,0,3,4,5,4,3,6 dots dots }$ My method would pick the following subsequence ${0, 1,2,3,4,5,6 dots}$. This is the sequence $a_l=l$ where $l$ is now a new index.
Whenever a sequence is bounded it has a convergent subsequence by Bolzano Weierstrass (it has an accumulation point, hence the subsequence converges to this accumulation point.)
real-analysis sequences-and-series
asked Nov 25 at 6:06
WesleyGroupshaveFeelingsToo
1,168322
To Prove: Each sequence that is unbounded above / below has a subsequence
that converges (improperly) to $+ infty / −infty$. Conclude that each sequence
of real numbers has a properly or improperly convergent subsequence.
Whenever a sequence is unbounded, we have that it has an increasing/decreasing subsequence. Why is this the case? For any number $M$ you give me, there exists an $min mathbb{N}$ such that $a_m$>M. We choose the subsequence ${a_i, a_j, a_k dots }$ such that the index set is strictly increasing/decreasing and also the terms are strictly increasing/decreasing. Does this argument work? how can I formalise this better?
An example of my method applied would be the following sequence: ${0,1,2,1,0,3,4,5,4,3,6 dots dots }$ My method would pick the following subsequence ${0, 1,2,3,4,5,6 dots}$. This is the sequence $a_l=l$ where $l$ is now a new index.
Whenever a sequence is bounded it has a convergent subsequence by Bolzano Weierstrass (it has an accumulation point, hence the subsequence converges to this accumulation point.)
real-analysis sequences-and-series
real-analysis sequences-and-series
asked Nov 25 at 6:06
WesleyGroupshaveFeelingsToo
1,168322
asked Nov 25 at 6:06
WesleyGroupshaveFeelingsToo
1,168322
asked Nov 25 at 6:06
WesleyGroupshaveFeelingsToo
1,168322
asked Nov 25 at 6:06
WesleyGroupshaveFeelingsToo
1,168322
asked Nov 25 at 6:06
WesleyGroupshaveFeelingsToo
1,168322
1,168322
1
Simply build recursively a subsequence $(a_{n_j})$ such that $a_{n_0}=a_0$, say, and, for every $j$, $$a_{n_{j+1}}geqslant a_{n_j}+1$$
– Did
Nov 25 at 6:15
That's a nice way to put it.
– WesleyGroupshaveFeelingsToo
Nov 25 at 6:18
add a comment |
1
Simply build recursively a subsequence $(a_{n_j})$ such that $a_{n_0}=a_0$, say, and, for every $j$, $$a_{n_{j+1}}geqslant a_{n_j}+1$$
– Did
Nov 25 at 6:15
That's a nice way to put it.
– WesleyGroupshaveFeelingsToo
Nov 25 at 6:18
1
1
Simply build recursively a subsequence $(a_{n_j})$ such that $a_{n_0}=a_0$, say, and, for every $j$, $$a_{n_{j+1}}geqslant a_{n_j}+1$$
– Did
Nov 25 at 6:15
Simply build recursively a subsequence $(a_{n_j})$ such that $a_{n_0}=a_0$, say, and, for every $j$, $$a_{n_{j+1}}geqslant a_{n_j}+1$$
– Did
Nov 25 at 6:15
That's a nice way to put it.
– WesleyGroupshaveFeelingsToo
Nov 25 at 6:18
That's a nice way to put it.
– WesleyGroupshaveFeelingsToo
Nov 25 at 6:18
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
We build a recursive subsequence defined by:
$$a_{n_0}=a_0 land n_{j+1} > n_j land a_{n_{j+1}} geq a_{n_j}+1 $$
We can do so because the set is unbounded, so we can always handpick the next term that is greater than our previous one, because there should never exist a bound. Suppose we would not be able to pick a greater term, we would get a contradiction since $a_{n_j}+1$ would be a bound for the entire sequence, which was supposed to be unbounded.
We also notice that the index set is strictly increasing and that the subsequence itself is increasing, the question is, is it increasing fast enough?
Notice that we take some arbitrary term for the sequence and handpick the next one that is at least greater than the current one plus $1$. This looks very familiar:
$$ a_{n+1} = a_{n} + 1$$
Is equivalent to linear growth, or also in a direct formula:
$$ a_n = n + a_0$$
We have thus desired that our sequence grows at least as fast as this sequence. However, we know that this sequence diverges. Because or minorant diverges, our original subsequence must also diverge. $square$
answered Nov 27 at 0:21
WesleyGroupshaveFeelingsToo
1,168322
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
We build a recursive subsequence defined by:
$$a_{n_0}=a_0 land n_{j+1} > n_j land a_{n_{j+1}} geq a_{n_j}+1 $$
We can do so because the set is unbounded, so we can always handpick the next term that is greater than our previous one, because there should never exist a bound. Suppose we would not be able to pick a greater term, we would get a contradiction since $a_{n_j}+1$ would be a bound for the entire sequence, which was supposed to be unbounded.
We also notice that the index set is strictly increasing and that the subsequence itself is increasing, the question is, is it increasing fast enough?
Notice that we take some arbitrary term for the sequence and handpick the next one that is at least greater than the current one plus $1$. This looks very familiar:
$$ a_{n+1} = a_{n} + 1$$
Is equivalent to linear growth, or also in a direct formula:
$$ a_n = n + a_0$$
We have thus desired that our sequence grows at least as fast as this sequence. However, we know that this sequence diverges. Because or minorant diverges, our original subsequence must also diverge. $square$
answered Nov 27 at 0:21
WesleyGroupshaveFeelingsToo
1,168322
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
We build a recursive subsequence defined by:
$$a_{n_0}=a_0 land n_{j+1} > n_j land a_{n_{j+1}} geq a_{n_j}+1 $$
We can do so because the set is unbounded, so we can always handpick the next term that is greater than our previous one, because there should never exist a bound. Suppose we would not be able to pick a greater term, we would get a contradiction since $a_{n_j}+1$ would be a bound for the entire sequence, which was supposed to be unbounded.
We also notice that the index set is strictly increasing and that the subsequence itself is increasing, the question is, is it increasing fast enough?
Notice that we take some arbitrary term for the sequence and handpick the next one that is at least greater than the current one plus $1$. This looks very familiar:
$$ a_{n+1} = a_{n} + 1$$
Is equivalent to linear growth, or also in a direct formula:
$$ a_n = n + a_0$$
We have thus desired that our sequence grows at least as fast as this sequence. However, we know that this sequence diverges. Because or minorant diverges, our original subsequence must also diverge. $square$
answered Nov 27 at 0:21
WesleyGroupshaveFeelingsToo
1,168322
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
We build a recursive subsequence defined by:
$$a_{n_0}=a_0 land n_{j+1} > n_j land a_{n_{j+1}} geq a_{n_j}+1 $$
We can do so because the set is unbounded, so we can always handpick the next term that is greater than our previous one, because there should never exist a bound. Suppose we would not be able to pick a greater term, we would get a contradiction since $a_{n_j}+1$ would be a bound for the entire sequence, which was supposed to be unbounded.
We also notice that the index set is strictly increasing and that the subsequence itself is increasing, the question is, is it increasing fast enough?
Notice that we take some arbitrary term for the sequence and handpick the next one that is at least greater than the current one plus $1$. This looks very familiar:
$$ a_{n+1} = a_{n} + 1$$
Is equivalent to linear growth, or also in a direct formula:
$$ a_n = n + a_0$$
We have thus desired that our sequence grows at least as fast as this sequence. However, we know that this sequence diverges. Because or minorant diverges, our original subsequence must also diverge. $square$
answered Nov 27 at 0:21
WesleyGroupshaveFeelingsToo
1,168322
We build a recursive subsequence defined by:
$$a_{n_0}=a_0 land n_{j+1} > n_j land a_{n_{j+1}} geq a_{n_j}+1 $$
We can do so because the set is unbounded, so we can always handpick the next term that is greater than our previous one, because there should never exist a bound. Suppose we would not be able to pick a greater term, we would get a contradiction since $a_{n_j}+1$ would be a bound for the entire sequence, which was supposed to be unbounded.
We also notice that the index set is strictly increasing and that the subsequence itself is increasing, the question is, is it increasing fast enough?
Notice that we take some arbitrary term for the sequence and handpick the next one that is at least greater than the current one plus $1$. This looks very familiar:
$$ a_{n+1} = a_{n} + 1$$
Is equivalent to linear growth, or also in a direct formula:
$$ a_n = n + a_0$$
We have thus desired that our sequence grows at least as fast as this sequence. However, we know that this sequence diverges. Because or minorant diverges, our original subsequence must also diverge. $square$
answered Nov 27 at 0:21
WesleyGroupshaveFeelingsToo
1,168322
answered Nov 27 at 0:21
WesleyGroupshaveFeelingsToo
1,168322
answered Nov 27 at 0:21
WesleyGroupshaveFeelingsToo
1,168322
answered Nov 27 at 0:21
WesleyGroupshaveFeelingsToo
1,168322
1,168322
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3012485%2feach-sequence-that-is-unbounded-above-below-has-a-subsequence-that-converges%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
Simply build recursively a subsequence $(a_{n_j})$ such that $a_{n_0}=a_0$, say, and, for every $j$, $$a_{n_{j+1}}geqslant a_{n_j}+1$$
– Did
Nov 25 at 6:15
That's a nice way to put it.
– WesleyGroupshaveFeelingsToo
Nov 25 at 6:18