Basic Real Analysis - Two sub sequences converging to different limits












0














Going through some real analysis questions and have hit a boundary, the question is



Consider the sequence:



$$a_n := (-1)^nbiggl( 1 + frac{1}{n^2}biggl) , n in mathbb{N}$$



(a) Find a subsequence $a_{n_k}$ which satifies $a_{n_k}$ $rightarrow$ 1 as n $rightarrow$ $infty$



(b) Find a subequence $a_{m_k}$ which satifies $a_{m_k}$ $rightarrow$ -1 as n $rightarrow$ $infty$



(c) Using results from (a) and (b) prove that the entire sequence cannot converge to a real number



My answer for (a) was $$a_{n_k} := biggl( 1 + frac{1}{n^2}biggl)$$
and (b) was $$a_{m_k} := biggl( -1 - frac{1}{n^2}biggl)$$
However, I am unsure of the proper way to go about proving (c) (other than just saying, two sub-sequences converge to different limits hence the series must be divergent). Any help would be greatly appreciated






real-analysis







share|cite|improve this question






















  • I don't see a particular reason you can't use that argument. Since the limit of $a_{n_k}$ is not equal to the limit of $a_{m_k}$, it must be divergent. This is because of a known result that if a sequence converges, then all its subsequences converge to the same limit. The contrapositive of this, and thus equivalent, is that if two subsequences converge to different limits, then the sequence itself cannot be convergent.
    – Eevee Trainer
    Nov 29 '18 at 2:42












  • Thanks, i guess i was overthinking a little. a conclusive sentence like that is pretty much what i was looking for
    – hellothere1
    Nov 29 '18 at 2:48






  • 1




    The use of k in your answer makes no sense.
    – William Elliot
    Nov 29 '18 at 2:52
















0














Going through some real analysis questions and have hit a boundary, the question is



Consider the sequence:



$$a_n := (-1)^nbiggl( 1 + frac{1}{n^2}biggl) , n in mathbb{N}$$



(a) Find a subsequence $a_{n_k}$ which satifies $a_{n_k}$ $rightarrow$ 1 as n $rightarrow$ $infty$



(b) Find a subequence $a_{m_k}$ which satifies $a_{m_k}$ $rightarrow$ -1 as n $rightarrow$ $infty$



(c) Using results from (a) and (b) prove that the entire sequence cannot converge to a real number



My answer for (a) was $$a_{n_k} := biggl( 1 + frac{1}{n^2}biggl)$$
and (b) was $$a_{m_k} := biggl( -1 - frac{1}{n^2}biggl)$$
However, I am unsure of the proper way to go about proving (c) (other than just saying, two sub-sequences converge to different limits hence the series must be divergent). Any help would be greatly appreciated






real-analysis







share|cite|improve this question






















  • I don't see a particular reason you can't use that argument. Since the limit of $a_{n_k}$ is not equal to the limit of $a_{m_k}$, it must be divergent. This is because of a known result that if a sequence converges, then all its subsequences converge to the same limit. The contrapositive of this, and thus equivalent, is that if two subsequences converge to different limits, then the sequence itself cannot be convergent.
    – Eevee Trainer
    Nov 29 '18 at 2:42












  • Thanks, i guess i was overthinking a little. a conclusive sentence like that is pretty much what i was looking for
    – hellothere1
    Nov 29 '18 at 2:48






  • 1




    The use of k in your answer makes no sense.
    – William Elliot
    Nov 29 '18 at 2:52














0












0








0







Going through some real analysis questions and have hit a boundary, the question is



Consider the sequence:



$$a_n := (-1)^nbiggl( 1 + frac{1}{n^2}biggl) , n in mathbb{N}$$



(a) Find a subsequence $a_{n_k}$ which satifies $a_{n_k}$ $rightarrow$ 1 as n $rightarrow$ $infty$



(b) Find a subequence $a_{m_k}$ which satifies $a_{m_k}$ $rightarrow$ -1 as n $rightarrow$ $infty$



(c) Using results from (a) and (b) prove that the entire sequence cannot converge to a real number



My answer for (a) was $$a_{n_k} := biggl( 1 + frac{1}{n^2}biggl)$$
and (b) was $$a_{m_k} := biggl( -1 - frac{1}{n^2}biggl)$$
However, I am unsure of the proper way to go about proving (c) (other than just saying, two sub-sequences converge to different limits hence the series must be divergent). Any help would be greatly appreciated






real-analysis







share|cite|improve this question













Going through some real analysis questions and have hit a boundary, the question is



Consider the sequence:



$$a_n := (-1)^nbiggl( 1 + frac{1}{n^2}biggl) , n in mathbb{N}$$



(a) Find a subsequence $a_{n_k}$ which satifies $a_{n_k}$ $rightarrow$ 1 as n $rightarrow$ $infty$



(b) Find a subequence $a_{m_k}$ which satifies $a_{m_k}$ $rightarrow$ -1 as n $rightarrow$ $infty$



(c) Using results from (a) and (b) prove that the entire sequence cannot converge to a real number



My answer for (a) was $$a_{n_k} := biggl( 1 + frac{1}{n^2}biggl)$$
and (b) was $$a_{m_k} := biggl( -1 - frac{1}{n^2}biggl)$$
However, I am unsure of the proper way to go about proving (c) (other than just saying, two sub-sequences converge to different limits hence the series must be divergent). Any help would be greatly appreciated






real-analysis




real-analysis






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Nov 29 '18 at 2:37









hellothere1hellothere1

101




101












  • I don't see a particular reason you can't use that argument. Since the limit of $a_{n_k}$ is not equal to the limit of $a_{m_k}$, it must be divergent. This is because of a known result that if a sequence converges, then all its subsequences converge to the same limit. The contrapositive of this, and thus equivalent, is that if two subsequences converge to different limits, then the sequence itself cannot be convergent.
    – Eevee Trainer
    Nov 29 '18 at 2:42












  • Thanks, i guess i was overthinking a little. a conclusive sentence like that is pretty much what i was looking for
    – hellothere1
    Nov 29 '18 at 2:48






  • 1




    The use of k in your answer makes no sense.
    – William Elliot
    Nov 29 '18 at 2:52


















  • I don't see a particular reason you can't use that argument. Since the limit of $a_{n_k}$ is not equal to the limit of $a_{m_k}$, it must be divergent. This is because of a known result that if a sequence converges, then all its subsequences converge to the same limit. The contrapositive of this, and thus equivalent, is that if two subsequences converge to different limits, then the sequence itself cannot be convergent.
    – Eevee Trainer
    Nov 29 '18 at 2:42












  • Thanks, i guess i was overthinking a little. a conclusive sentence like that is pretty much what i was looking for
    – hellothere1
    Nov 29 '18 at 2:48






  • 1




    The use of k in your answer makes no sense.
    – William Elliot
    Nov 29 '18 at 2:52
















I don't see a particular reason you can't use that argument. Since the limit of $a_{n_k}$ is not equal to the limit of $a_{m_k}$, it must be divergent. This is because of a known result that if a sequence converges, then all its subsequences converge to the same limit. The contrapositive of this, and thus equivalent, is that if two subsequences converge to different limits, then the sequence itself cannot be convergent.
– Eevee Trainer
Nov 29 '18 at 2:42






I don't see a particular reason you can't use that argument. Since the limit of $a_{n_k}$ is not equal to the limit of $a_{m_k}$, it must be divergent. This is because of a known result that if a sequence converges, then all its subsequences converge to the same limit. The contrapositive of this, and thus equivalent, is that if two subsequences converge to different limits, then the sequence itself cannot be convergent.
– Eevee Trainer
Nov 29 '18 at 2:42














Thanks, i guess i was overthinking a little. a conclusive sentence like that is pretty much what i was looking for
– hellothere1
Nov 29 '18 at 2:48




Thanks, i guess i was overthinking a little. a conclusive sentence like that is pretty much what i was looking for
– hellothere1
Nov 29 '18 at 2:48




1




1




The use of k in your answer makes no sense.
– William Elliot
Nov 29 '18 at 2:52




The use of k in your answer makes no sense.
– William Elliot
Nov 29 '18 at 2:52










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0














I think you're on the right track. An approach to this is to make use of the fact that any limit that a sequence converges to must be unique.



Since you have shown in the previous two parts that there are two subsequences that converge to two different limits, I do think that you can automatically conclude that this immediately voids the possibility of the sequence converging.



However, I do think that it may be possible to come up with a 'proof' of sorts (by contradiction):



Assume that the sequence $a_n := (-1)^n (1+frac{1}{n^2})$ converges to a limit, say $a$. This implies that the sequence is a Cauchy sequence. By the definition of a Cauchy sequence, we can set $epsilon = 1$, and make the claim that there exists some $kin mathbb{N}$ such that $forall m,n > k$, that $|a_m - a_n| < epsilon = 1$



So all that is left, is to show that the claim above is false. It is straightforward to do so and we will do this by construction - select $m = 2k, n = 2k+1$, then $a_m$ belongs to the first subsequence that converges to 1, and $a_n$ belongs to the second subsequence that converges to -1.



For completeness:
$$
begin{align}
|a_m - a_n| &= Big|(1 + frac{1}{4k^2}) - (- 1 - frac{1}{(2k+1)^2})Big| \
&= Big|2 + frac{1}{4k^2} + frac{1}{(2k+1)^2}Big| \
&> 2 \
&> 1 = epsilon quad text{(contradiction)}
end{align}
$$
Thus, what we have shown is that the sequence cannot converge, since it is not a Cauchy sequence.






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',
    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
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3018079%2fbasic-real-analysis-two-sub-sequences-converging-to-different-limits%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    0














    I think you're on the right track. An approach to this is to make use of the fact that any limit that a sequence converges to must be unique.



    Since you have shown in the previous two parts that there are two subsequences that converge to two different limits, I do think that you can automatically conclude that this immediately voids the possibility of the sequence converging.



    However, I do think that it may be possible to come up with a 'proof' of sorts (by contradiction):



    Assume that the sequence $a_n := (-1)^n (1+frac{1}{n^2})$ converges to a limit, say $a$. This implies that the sequence is a Cauchy sequence. By the definition of a Cauchy sequence, we can set $epsilon = 1$, and make the claim that there exists some $kin mathbb{N}$ such that $forall m,n > k$, that $|a_m - a_n| < epsilon = 1$



    So all that is left, is to show that the claim above is false. It is straightforward to do so and we will do this by construction - select $m = 2k, n = 2k+1$, then $a_m$ belongs to the first subsequence that converges to 1, and $a_n$ belongs to the second subsequence that converges to -1.



    For completeness:
    $$
    begin{align}
    |a_m - a_n| &= Big|(1 + frac{1}{4k^2}) - (- 1 - frac{1}{(2k+1)^2})Big| \
    &= Big|2 + frac{1}{4k^2} + frac{1}{(2k+1)^2}Big| \
    &> 2 \
    &> 1 = epsilon quad text{(contradiction)}
    end{align}
    $$
    Thus, what we have shown is that the sequence cannot converge, since it is not a Cauchy sequence.






    share|cite|improve this answer


























      0














      I think you're on the right track. An approach to this is to make use of the fact that any limit that a sequence converges to must be unique.



      Since you have shown in the previous two parts that there are two subsequences that converge to two different limits, I do think that you can automatically conclude that this immediately voids the possibility of the sequence converging.



      However, I do think that it may be possible to come up with a 'proof' of sorts (by contradiction):



      Assume that the sequence $a_n := (-1)^n (1+frac{1}{n^2})$ converges to a limit, say $a$. This implies that the sequence is a Cauchy sequence. By the definition of a Cauchy sequence, we can set $epsilon = 1$, and make the claim that there exists some $kin mathbb{N}$ such that $forall m,n > k$, that $|a_m - a_n| < epsilon = 1$



      So all that is left, is to show that the claim above is false. It is straightforward to do so and we will do this by construction - select $m = 2k, n = 2k+1$, then $a_m$ belongs to the first subsequence that converges to 1, and $a_n$ belongs to the second subsequence that converges to -1.



      For completeness:
      $$
      begin{align}
      |a_m - a_n| &= Big|(1 + frac{1}{4k^2}) - (- 1 - frac{1}{(2k+1)^2})Big| \
      &= Big|2 + frac{1}{4k^2} + frac{1}{(2k+1)^2}Big| \
      &> 2 \
      &> 1 = epsilon quad text{(contradiction)}
      end{align}
      $$
      Thus, what we have shown is that the sequence cannot converge, since it is not a Cauchy sequence.






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        0












        0








        0






        I think you're on the right track. An approach to this is to make use of the fact that any limit that a sequence converges to must be unique.



        Since you have shown in the previous two parts that there are two subsequences that converge to two different limits, I do think that you can automatically conclude that this immediately voids the possibility of the sequence converging.



        However, I do think that it may be possible to come up with a 'proof' of sorts (by contradiction):



        Assume that the sequence $a_n := (-1)^n (1+frac{1}{n^2})$ converges to a limit, say $a$. This implies that the sequence is a Cauchy sequence. By the definition of a Cauchy sequence, we can set $epsilon = 1$, and make the claim that there exists some $kin mathbb{N}$ such that $forall m,n > k$, that $|a_m - a_n| < epsilon = 1$



        So all that is left, is to show that the claim above is false. It is straightforward to do so and we will do this by construction - select $m = 2k, n = 2k+1$, then $a_m$ belongs to the first subsequence that converges to 1, and $a_n$ belongs to the second subsequence that converges to -1.



        For completeness:
        $$
        begin{align}
        |a_m - a_n| &= Big|(1 + frac{1}{4k^2}) - (- 1 - frac{1}{(2k+1)^2})Big| \
        &= Big|2 + frac{1}{4k^2} + frac{1}{(2k+1)^2}Big| \
        &> 2 \
        &> 1 = epsilon quad text{(contradiction)}
        end{align}
        $$
        Thus, what we have shown is that the sequence cannot converge, since it is not a Cauchy sequence.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        I think you're on the right track. An approach to this is to make use of the fact that any limit that a sequence converges to must be unique.



        Since you have shown in the previous two parts that there are two subsequences that converge to two different limits, I do think that you can automatically conclude that this immediately voids the possibility of the sequence converging.



        However, I do think that it may be possible to come up with a 'proof' of sorts (by contradiction):



        Assume that the sequence $a_n := (-1)^n (1+frac{1}{n^2})$ converges to a limit, say $a$. This implies that the sequence is a Cauchy sequence. By the definition of a Cauchy sequence, we can set $epsilon = 1$, and make the claim that there exists some $kin mathbb{N}$ such that $forall m,n > k$, that $|a_m - a_n| < epsilon = 1$



        So all that is left, is to show that the claim above is false. It is straightforward to do so and we will do this by construction - select $m = 2k, n = 2k+1$, then $a_m$ belongs to the first subsequence that converges to 1, and $a_n$ belongs to the second subsequence that converges to -1.



        For completeness:
        $$
        begin{align}
        |a_m - a_n| &= Big|(1 + frac{1}{4k^2}) - (- 1 - frac{1}{(2k+1)^2})Big| \
        &= Big|2 + frac{1}{4k^2} + frac{1}{(2k+1)^2}Big| \
        &> 2 \
        &> 1 = epsilon quad text{(contradiction)}
        end{align}
        $$
        Thus, what we have shown is that the sequence cannot converge, since it is not a Cauchy sequence.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Nov 29 '18 at 2:58









        Sean LeeSean Lee

        1578




        1578






























            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%2f3018079%2fbasic-real-analysis-two-sub-sequences-converging-to-different-limits%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)

            Image
            Pour les articles homonymes, voir Ellipse. L'ellipse est le lieu des points dont la somme des distances à deux points fixes, dits foyers, est constante. Section du cône ou projection du cercle. En géométrie, une ellipse est une courbe plane fermée obtenue par l’intersection d’un cône de révolution avec un plan, à condition que celui-ci coupe l'axe de rotation du cône ou du cylindre : c'est une conique d'excentricité strictement comprise entre 0 et 1. On peut également la définir comme le lieu des points dont la somme des distances à deux points fixes, dits foyers, est constante (sa construction par la méthode du jardinier est très simple). Dans la vie courante, l’ellipse est la forme qu'on perçoit en regardant un cercle en perspective, ou la figure formée par l’ombre d'un disque sur une surface plane. On retrouve aussi, en première approximation [ 1 ] , des ellipses dans les trajectoires des corps célestes (planètes, comètes ou satellites arti...
            Read more

            Quarter-circle Tiles

            Image
            up vote 0 down vote favorite I have $99$ identical square tiles, each with a quarter-circle drawn on it like this: [asy] size(1.5cm); draw(Arc((2,0),1,90,180),red+1); draw((0,0)--(2,0)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,0)); [/asy] When I arrange the tiles in a $9times 11$ rectangular grid, each with a random orientation, what is the expected value of the number of full circles I form? I think this problem has to do with finding the chance any given 2x2 square has a circle, but I can't find it. expected-value share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 20 at 15:03 6minecraftninja 1 2 ...
            Read more

            Mont Emei

            Image
            Mont Emei.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Vue du sommet Wanfo du mont Emei Géographie Altitude 3 099  m , Wanfo Coordonnées 29° 31′ 11″ nord, 103° 19′ 57″ est Administration Pays   Chine Province Sichuan Ville-préfecture Leshan Géolocalisation sur la carte : Sichuan Mont Emei Géolocalisation sur la carte : Chine Mont Emei modifier   Paysage panoramique du mont Emei, incluant le paysage panoramique du grand Bouddha de Leshan *   Patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO Passerelle en bois sur le versant ouest Pays   Chine Subdivision Sichuan Type Mixte Critères (iv) (vi) (x) Superficie 15 400 ha Numéro d’identification 779 Zone géographique Asie et Pacifique  ** Année d’inscription 1996 (20 e session) * Descriptif officiel UNESCO ** Classification géog...
            Read more