A sequence in $mathbb{R}$ that has no Cauchy subsequence











up vote
0
down vote

favorite













Give an example of a sequence in $mathbb{R}$ which has no subsequence which is a Cauchy sequence.




I can find out a sequence that is not a Cauchy sequence such as ${ln(n)}$ once $|ln(n)-ln(n+1)|=0$ but $|ln(n)-ln(2n)|=|ln(frac{1}{2})|>epsilon$
$forall epsilon<ln(frac{1}{2})$



I can still find a subsequence of the type ${ln(2n)}_{2ninmathbb{N}}$ such that $|ln(2n)-ln(2n+1)|=0$



Question:



What should I do to get a sequence that has no Cauchy subsequence?



Thanks in advance!










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 2




    In the first place, you should only be looking at sequences which are not convergent, right?
    – MPW
    Nov 22 at 22:57






  • 4




    I do not understand your question. What do you mean by $|ln(2n)-ln(2n+1)|=0$?
    – Carsten S
    Nov 23 at 10:29















up vote
0
down vote

favorite













Give an example of a sequence in $mathbb{R}$ which has no subsequence which is a Cauchy sequence.




I can find out a sequence that is not a Cauchy sequence such as ${ln(n)}$ once $|ln(n)-ln(n+1)|=0$ but $|ln(n)-ln(2n)|=|ln(frac{1}{2})|>epsilon$
$forall epsilon<ln(frac{1}{2})$



I can still find a subsequence of the type ${ln(2n)}_{2ninmathbb{N}}$ such that $|ln(2n)-ln(2n+1)|=0$



Question:



What should I do to get a sequence that has no Cauchy subsequence?



Thanks in advance!










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 2




    In the first place, you should only be looking at sequences which are not convergent, right?
    – MPW
    Nov 22 at 22:57






  • 4




    I do not understand your question. What do you mean by $|ln(2n)-ln(2n+1)|=0$?
    – Carsten S
    Nov 23 at 10:29













up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Give an example of a sequence in $mathbb{R}$ which has no subsequence which is a Cauchy sequence.




I can find out a sequence that is not a Cauchy sequence such as ${ln(n)}$ once $|ln(n)-ln(n+1)|=0$ but $|ln(n)-ln(2n)|=|ln(frac{1}{2})|>epsilon$
$forall epsilon<ln(frac{1}{2})$



I can still find a subsequence of the type ${ln(2n)}_{2ninmathbb{N}}$ such that $|ln(2n)-ln(2n+1)|=0$



Question:



What should I do to get a sequence that has no Cauchy subsequence?



Thanks in advance!










share|cite|improve this question
















Give an example of a sequence in $mathbb{R}$ which has no subsequence which is a Cauchy sequence.




I can find out a sequence that is not a Cauchy sequence such as ${ln(n)}$ once $|ln(n)-ln(n+1)|=0$ but $|ln(n)-ln(2n)|=|ln(frac{1}{2})|>epsilon$
$forall epsilon<ln(frac{1}{2})$



I can still find a subsequence of the type ${ln(2n)}_{2ninmathbb{N}}$ such that $|ln(2n)-ln(2n+1)|=0$



Question:



What should I do to get a sequence that has no Cauchy subsequence?



Thanks in advance!







real-analysis sequences-and-series general-topology metric-spaces cauchy-sequences






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 24 at 7:17









user21820

38.1k541150




38.1k541150










asked Nov 22 at 22:36









Pedro Gomes

1,5952620




1,5952620








  • 2




    In the first place, you should only be looking at sequences which are not convergent, right?
    – MPW
    Nov 22 at 22:57






  • 4




    I do not understand your question. What do you mean by $|ln(2n)-ln(2n+1)|=0$?
    – Carsten S
    Nov 23 at 10:29














  • 2




    In the first place, you should only be looking at sequences which are not convergent, right?
    – MPW
    Nov 22 at 22:57






  • 4




    I do not understand your question. What do you mean by $|ln(2n)-ln(2n+1)|=0$?
    – Carsten S
    Nov 23 at 10:29








2




2




In the first place, you should only be looking at sequences which are not convergent, right?
– MPW
Nov 22 at 22:57




In the first place, you should only be looking at sequences which are not convergent, right?
– MPW
Nov 22 at 22:57




4




4




I do not understand your question. What do you mean by $|ln(2n)-ln(2n+1)|=0$?
– Carsten S
Nov 23 at 10:29




I do not understand your question. What do you mean by $|ln(2n)-ln(2n+1)|=0$?
– Carsten S
Nov 23 at 10:29










6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
26
down vote



accepted










Take $a_n=n$. Then for any subsequence $n_k$, $|n_k-n_{k-1}|geq 1$. So, it has no Cauchy sub-sequence.






share|cite|improve this answer




























    up vote
    12
    down vote













    Take a sequence $(a_n)$ such that $a_nto infty$. Then each subsequence $(a_{n_k})$ is such that $a_{n_k}to infty$ and thus can't be Cauchy since necessarily Cauchy sequences are bounded.






    share|cite|improve this answer




























      up vote
      10
      down vote













      Take the sequence $1,2,3,4,ldots$ It has no Cauchy subsequence since the distance between any two distinct terms is at least $1$.






      share|cite|improve this answer




























        up vote
        7
        down vote













        I didn't understand your analysis but sequence $a_n = ln n$ doesn't have Cauchy subsequence since its limit is $infty$






        share|cite|improve this answer





















        • I guess this one uses the theorem that every Cauchy sequence converges
          – Robert Frost
          Nov 23 at 21:15


















        up vote
        7
        down vote













        As Foobaz John says, any sequence with $a_ntoinfty$ works, and it's easy to see that $|a_n|toinfty$ is also sufficient. In fact this latter condition is necessary and sufficient. If $|a_n|nottoinfty$, then by definition there is some $c>0$ for which there are infinitely many values $n_i$ such that $|a_{n_i}|<c$ for each $i$. Now by Bolzano-Weierstrass the subsequence $a_{n_i}$ has an infinite subsequence $a_{n_{i_j}}$ which is convergent, and therefore Cauchy.






        share|cite|improve this answer





















        • Ah, Bolzano-Weierstrass, also known as the theorem about subsubsubscripts.
          – Misha Lavrov
          Nov 23 at 18:32


















        up vote
        1
        down vote













        Bolzano-Weierstrass: Every bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence.



        Fact: Every convergent sequence is bounded.



        Strategy: Try an unbounded sequence.



        Guess: $a_n=n$



        Conclusion: (I leave it to you)






        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%2f3009766%2fa-sequence-in-mathbbr-that-has-no-cauchy-subsequence%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
          26
          down vote



          accepted










          Take $a_n=n$. Then for any subsequence $n_k$, $|n_k-n_{k-1}|geq 1$. So, it has no Cauchy sub-sequence.






          share|cite|improve this answer

























            up vote
            26
            down vote



            accepted










            Take $a_n=n$. Then for any subsequence $n_k$, $|n_k-n_{k-1}|geq 1$. So, it has no Cauchy sub-sequence.






            share|cite|improve this answer























              up vote
              26
              down vote



              accepted







              up vote
              26
              down vote



              accepted






              Take $a_n=n$. Then for any subsequence $n_k$, $|n_k-n_{k-1}|geq 1$. So, it has no Cauchy sub-sequence.






              share|cite|improve this answer












              Take $a_n=n$. Then for any subsequence $n_k$, $|n_k-n_{k-1}|geq 1$. So, it has no Cauchy sub-sequence.







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Nov 22 at 22:40









              John_Wick

              84919




              84919






















                  up vote
                  12
                  down vote













                  Take a sequence $(a_n)$ such that $a_nto infty$. Then each subsequence $(a_{n_k})$ is such that $a_{n_k}to infty$ and thus can't be Cauchy since necessarily Cauchy sequences are bounded.






                  share|cite|improve this answer

























                    up vote
                    12
                    down vote













                    Take a sequence $(a_n)$ such that $a_nto infty$. Then each subsequence $(a_{n_k})$ is such that $a_{n_k}to infty$ and thus can't be Cauchy since necessarily Cauchy sequences are bounded.






                    share|cite|improve this answer























                      up vote
                      12
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      12
                      down vote









                      Take a sequence $(a_n)$ such that $a_nto infty$. Then each subsequence $(a_{n_k})$ is such that $a_{n_k}to infty$ and thus can't be Cauchy since necessarily Cauchy sequences are bounded.






                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      Take a sequence $(a_n)$ such that $a_nto infty$. Then each subsequence $(a_{n_k})$ is such that $a_{n_k}to infty$ and thus can't be Cauchy since necessarily Cauchy sequences are bounded.







                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer










                      answered Nov 22 at 22:56









                      Foobaz John

                      19.9k41250




                      19.9k41250






















                          up vote
                          10
                          down vote













                          Take the sequence $1,2,3,4,ldots$ It has no Cauchy subsequence since the distance between any two distinct terms is at least $1$.






                          share|cite|improve this answer

























                            up vote
                            10
                            down vote













                            Take the sequence $1,2,3,4,ldots$ It has no Cauchy subsequence since the distance between any two distinct terms is at least $1$.






                            share|cite|improve this answer























                              up vote
                              10
                              down vote










                              up vote
                              10
                              down vote









                              Take the sequence $1,2,3,4,ldots$ It has no Cauchy subsequence since the distance between any two distinct terms is at least $1$.






                              share|cite|improve this answer












                              Take the sequence $1,2,3,4,ldots$ It has no Cauchy subsequence since the distance between any two distinct terms is at least $1$.







                              share|cite|improve this answer












                              share|cite|improve this answer



                              share|cite|improve this answer










                              answered Nov 22 at 22:39









                              José Carlos Santos

                              142k20112208




                              142k20112208






















                                  up vote
                                  7
                                  down vote













                                  I didn't understand your analysis but sequence $a_n = ln n$ doesn't have Cauchy subsequence since its limit is $infty$






                                  share|cite|improve this answer





















                                  • I guess this one uses the theorem that every Cauchy sequence converges
                                    – Robert Frost
                                    Nov 23 at 21:15















                                  up vote
                                  7
                                  down vote













                                  I didn't understand your analysis but sequence $a_n = ln n$ doesn't have Cauchy subsequence since its limit is $infty$






                                  share|cite|improve this answer





















                                  • I guess this one uses the theorem that every Cauchy sequence converges
                                    – Robert Frost
                                    Nov 23 at 21:15













                                  up vote
                                  7
                                  down vote










                                  up vote
                                  7
                                  down vote









                                  I didn't understand your analysis but sequence $a_n = ln n$ doesn't have Cauchy subsequence since its limit is $infty$






                                  share|cite|improve this answer












                                  I didn't understand your analysis but sequence $a_n = ln n$ doesn't have Cauchy subsequence since its limit is $infty$







                                  share|cite|improve this answer












                                  share|cite|improve this answer



                                  share|cite|improve this answer










                                  answered Nov 23 at 8:09









                                  RiaD

                                  720717




                                  720717












                                  • I guess this one uses the theorem that every Cauchy sequence converges
                                    – Robert Frost
                                    Nov 23 at 21:15


















                                  • I guess this one uses the theorem that every Cauchy sequence converges
                                    – Robert Frost
                                    Nov 23 at 21:15
















                                  I guess this one uses the theorem that every Cauchy sequence converges
                                  – Robert Frost
                                  Nov 23 at 21:15




                                  I guess this one uses the theorem that every Cauchy sequence converges
                                  – Robert Frost
                                  Nov 23 at 21:15










                                  up vote
                                  7
                                  down vote













                                  As Foobaz John says, any sequence with $a_ntoinfty$ works, and it's easy to see that $|a_n|toinfty$ is also sufficient. In fact this latter condition is necessary and sufficient. If $|a_n|nottoinfty$, then by definition there is some $c>0$ for which there are infinitely many values $n_i$ such that $|a_{n_i}|<c$ for each $i$. Now by Bolzano-Weierstrass the subsequence $a_{n_i}$ has an infinite subsequence $a_{n_{i_j}}$ which is convergent, and therefore Cauchy.






                                  share|cite|improve this answer





















                                  • Ah, Bolzano-Weierstrass, also known as the theorem about subsubsubscripts.
                                    – Misha Lavrov
                                    Nov 23 at 18:32















                                  up vote
                                  7
                                  down vote













                                  As Foobaz John says, any sequence with $a_ntoinfty$ works, and it's easy to see that $|a_n|toinfty$ is also sufficient. In fact this latter condition is necessary and sufficient. If $|a_n|nottoinfty$, then by definition there is some $c>0$ for which there are infinitely many values $n_i$ such that $|a_{n_i}|<c$ for each $i$. Now by Bolzano-Weierstrass the subsequence $a_{n_i}$ has an infinite subsequence $a_{n_{i_j}}$ which is convergent, and therefore Cauchy.






                                  share|cite|improve this answer





















                                  • Ah, Bolzano-Weierstrass, also known as the theorem about subsubsubscripts.
                                    – Misha Lavrov
                                    Nov 23 at 18:32













                                  up vote
                                  7
                                  down vote










                                  up vote
                                  7
                                  down vote









                                  As Foobaz John says, any sequence with $a_ntoinfty$ works, and it's easy to see that $|a_n|toinfty$ is also sufficient. In fact this latter condition is necessary and sufficient. If $|a_n|nottoinfty$, then by definition there is some $c>0$ for which there are infinitely many values $n_i$ such that $|a_{n_i}|<c$ for each $i$. Now by Bolzano-Weierstrass the subsequence $a_{n_i}$ has an infinite subsequence $a_{n_{i_j}}$ which is convergent, and therefore Cauchy.






                                  share|cite|improve this answer












                                  As Foobaz John says, any sequence with $a_ntoinfty$ works, and it's easy to see that $|a_n|toinfty$ is also sufficient. In fact this latter condition is necessary and sufficient. If $|a_n|nottoinfty$, then by definition there is some $c>0$ for which there are infinitely many values $n_i$ such that $|a_{n_i}|<c$ for each $i$. Now by Bolzano-Weierstrass the subsequence $a_{n_i}$ has an infinite subsequence $a_{n_{i_j}}$ which is convergent, and therefore Cauchy.







                                  share|cite|improve this answer












                                  share|cite|improve this answer



                                  share|cite|improve this answer










                                  answered Nov 23 at 13:02









                                  Especially Lime

                                  21.1k22655




                                  21.1k22655












                                  • Ah, Bolzano-Weierstrass, also known as the theorem about subsubsubscripts.
                                    – Misha Lavrov
                                    Nov 23 at 18:32


















                                  • Ah, Bolzano-Weierstrass, also known as the theorem about subsubsubscripts.
                                    – Misha Lavrov
                                    Nov 23 at 18:32
















                                  Ah, Bolzano-Weierstrass, also known as the theorem about subsubsubscripts.
                                  – Misha Lavrov
                                  Nov 23 at 18:32




                                  Ah, Bolzano-Weierstrass, also known as the theorem about subsubsubscripts.
                                  – Misha Lavrov
                                  Nov 23 at 18:32










                                  up vote
                                  1
                                  down vote













                                  Bolzano-Weierstrass: Every bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence.



                                  Fact: Every convergent sequence is bounded.



                                  Strategy: Try an unbounded sequence.



                                  Guess: $a_n=n$



                                  Conclusion: (I leave it to you)






                                  share|cite|improve this answer

























                                    up vote
                                    1
                                    down vote













                                    Bolzano-Weierstrass: Every bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence.



                                    Fact: Every convergent sequence is bounded.



                                    Strategy: Try an unbounded sequence.



                                    Guess: $a_n=n$



                                    Conclusion: (I leave it to you)






                                    share|cite|improve this answer























                                      up vote
                                      1
                                      down vote










                                      up vote
                                      1
                                      down vote









                                      Bolzano-Weierstrass: Every bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence.



                                      Fact: Every convergent sequence is bounded.



                                      Strategy: Try an unbounded sequence.



                                      Guess: $a_n=n$



                                      Conclusion: (I leave it to you)






                                      share|cite|improve this answer












                                      Bolzano-Weierstrass: Every bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence.



                                      Fact: Every convergent sequence is bounded.



                                      Strategy: Try an unbounded sequence.



                                      Guess: $a_n=n$



                                      Conclusion: (I leave it to you)







                                      share|cite|improve this answer












                                      share|cite|improve this answer



                                      share|cite|improve this answer










                                      answered Nov 24 at 3:26









                                      Jack Bauer

                                      1,2531531




                                      1,2531531






























                                          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%2f3009766%2fa-sequence-in-mathbbr-that-has-no-cauchy-subsequence%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

                                          Ellipse (mathématiques)

                                          Quarter-circle Tiles

                                          Mont Emei