Given $lim_{ntoinfty}x_n = infty$ show that $y_n = left{ sum_{k=1}^n x_kright}$ is an unbounded sequence.












0












$begingroup$



Given:
$$
lim_{ntoinfty}x_n = infty
$$
show that
$$
y_n = left{ sum_{k=1}^n x_kright}
$$
is an unbounded sequence.




Intuitively this is obvious, however I'm having a hard time proving that formally.



Start with definition of a divergent sequence we have that for any $varepsilon > 0$ there exists some $N$ such that $x_n > varepsilon$:
$$
forall varepsilon >0 exists NinBbb N: forall n > N implies x_n > varepsilon
$$



With that in mind there must be some index starting from which the sequence becomes a monotonically increasing sequence. Now if we consider the difference between sums we may obtain:
$$
y_{n} - y_{n-1} = x_n \
y_{n+1} - y_n = x_{n+1}
$$



So from this we (hopefully) may conclude that the difference between the terms of $y_n$ is also increasing which means that the whole sum is also monotonically increasing which means it has no upper bound.



The problem with the above is that it doesn't feel like a formal proof and I have strong doubts about the validity of my reasoning.



Eventually the question is how to prove what's in the problem section in valid formal way?






calculus sequences-and-series limits proof-verification







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    $lim_{ntoinfty}x_n = infty$ specifically means $+infty$, not $pminfty$.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    Dec 9 '18 at 19:59










  • $begingroup$
    @Arthur I've made an edit, thank you for the notice
    $endgroup$
    – roman
    Dec 9 '18 at 20:02










  • $begingroup$
    In the first case $sum_{k=N+1}^n x_k > epsilon(n -N) to +infty$ as $n to infty$ and the sum for $1 leqslant k leqslant N$ is fixed.
    $endgroup$
    – RRL
    Dec 9 '18 at 20:03


















0












$begingroup$



Given:
$$
lim_{ntoinfty}x_n = infty
$$
show that
$$
y_n = left{ sum_{k=1}^n x_kright}
$$
is an unbounded sequence.




Intuitively this is obvious, however I'm having a hard time proving that formally.



Start with definition of a divergent sequence we have that for any $varepsilon > 0$ there exists some $N$ such that $x_n > varepsilon$:
$$
forall varepsilon >0 exists NinBbb N: forall n > N implies x_n > varepsilon
$$



With that in mind there must be some index starting from which the sequence becomes a monotonically increasing sequence. Now if we consider the difference between sums we may obtain:
$$
y_{n} - y_{n-1} = x_n \
y_{n+1} - y_n = x_{n+1}
$$



So from this we (hopefully) may conclude that the difference between the terms of $y_n$ is also increasing which means that the whole sum is also monotonically increasing which means it has no upper bound.



The problem with the above is that it doesn't feel like a formal proof and I have strong doubts about the validity of my reasoning.



Eventually the question is how to prove what's in the problem section in valid formal way?






calculus sequences-and-series limits proof-verification







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    $lim_{ntoinfty}x_n = infty$ specifically means $+infty$, not $pminfty$.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    Dec 9 '18 at 19:59










  • $begingroup$
    @Arthur I've made an edit, thank you for the notice
    $endgroup$
    – roman
    Dec 9 '18 at 20:02










  • $begingroup$
    In the first case $sum_{k=N+1}^n x_k > epsilon(n -N) to +infty$ as $n to infty$ and the sum for $1 leqslant k leqslant N$ is fixed.
    $endgroup$
    – RRL
    Dec 9 '18 at 20:03
















0












0








0





$begingroup$



Given:
$$
lim_{ntoinfty}x_n = infty
$$
show that
$$
y_n = left{ sum_{k=1}^n x_kright}
$$
is an unbounded sequence.




Intuitively this is obvious, however I'm having a hard time proving that formally.



Start with definition of a divergent sequence we have that for any $varepsilon > 0$ there exists some $N$ such that $x_n > varepsilon$:
$$
forall varepsilon >0 exists NinBbb N: forall n > N implies x_n > varepsilon
$$



With that in mind there must be some index starting from which the sequence becomes a monotonically increasing sequence. Now if we consider the difference between sums we may obtain:
$$
y_{n} - y_{n-1} = x_n \
y_{n+1} - y_n = x_{n+1}
$$



So from this we (hopefully) may conclude that the difference between the terms of $y_n$ is also increasing which means that the whole sum is also monotonically increasing which means it has no upper bound.



The problem with the above is that it doesn't feel like a formal proof and I have strong doubts about the validity of my reasoning.



Eventually the question is how to prove what's in the problem section in valid formal way?






calculus sequences-and-series limits proof-verification







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$





Given:
$$
lim_{ntoinfty}x_n = infty
$$
show that
$$
y_n = left{ sum_{k=1}^n x_kright}
$$
is an unbounded sequence.




Intuitively this is obvious, however I'm having a hard time proving that formally.



Start with definition of a divergent sequence we have that for any $varepsilon > 0$ there exists some $N$ such that $x_n > varepsilon$:
$$
forall varepsilon >0 exists NinBbb N: forall n > N implies x_n > varepsilon
$$



With that in mind there must be some index starting from which the sequence becomes a monotonically increasing sequence. Now if we consider the difference between sums we may obtain:
$$
y_{n} - y_{n-1} = x_n \
y_{n+1} - y_n = x_{n+1}
$$



So from this we (hopefully) may conclude that the difference between the terms of $y_n$ is also increasing which means that the whole sum is also monotonically increasing which means it has no upper bound.



The problem with the above is that it doesn't feel like a formal proof and I have strong doubts about the validity of my reasoning.



Eventually the question is how to prove what's in the problem section in valid formal way?






calculus sequences-and-series limits proof-verification




calculus sequences-and-series limits proof-verification






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 9 '18 at 20:02







roman

















asked Dec 9 '18 at 19:52









romanroman

2,16321223




2,16321223












  • $begingroup$
    $lim_{ntoinfty}x_n = infty$ specifically means $+infty$, not $pminfty$.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    Dec 9 '18 at 19:59










  • $begingroup$
    @Arthur I've made an edit, thank you for the notice
    $endgroup$
    – roman
    Dec 9 '18 at 20:02










  • $begingroup$
    In the first case $sum_{k=N+1}^n x_k > epsilon(n -N) to +infty$ as $n to infty$ and the sum for $1 leqslant k leqslant N$ is fixed.
    $endgroup$
    – RRL
    Dec 9 '18 at 20:03




















  • $begingroup$
    $lim_{ntoinfty}x_n = infty$ specifically means $+infty$, not $pminfty$.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    Dec 9 '18 at 19:59










  • $begingroup$
    @Arthur I've made an edit, thank you for the notice
    $endgroup$
    – roman
    Dec 9 '18 at 20:02










  • $begingroup$
    In the first case $sum_{k=N+1}^n x_k > epsilon(n -N) to +infty$ as $n to infty$ and the sum for $1 leqslant k leqslant N$ is fixed.
    $endgroup$
    – RRL
    Dec 9 '18 at 20:03


















$begingroup$
$lim_{ntoinfty}x_n = infty$ specifically means $+infty$, not $pminfty$.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Dec 9 '18 at 19:59




$begingroup$
$lim_{ntoinfty}x_n = infty$ specifically means $+infty$, not $pminfty$.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Dec 9 '18 at 19:59












$begingroup$
@Arthur I've made an edit, thank you for the notice
$endgroup$
– roman
Dec 9 '18 at 20:02




$begingroup$
@Arthur I've made an edit, thank you for the notice
$endgroup$
– roman
Dec 9 '18 at 20:02












$begingroup$
In the first case $sum_{k=N+1}^n x_k > epsilon(n -N) to +infty$ as $n to infty$ and the sum for $1 leqslant k leqslant N$ is fixed.
$endgroup$
– RRL
Dec 9 '18 at 20:03






$begingroup$
In the first case $sum_{k=N+1}^n x_k > epsilon(n -N) to +infty$ as $n to infty$ and the sum for $1 leqslant k leqslant N$ is fixed.
$endgroup$
– RRL
Dec 9 '18 at 20:03












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

So you have $x_n>epsilon>0$ for all $ngeq N.$ Now choose $Pinmathbb{R}$. By Archimedes choose $minmathbb{N}$ such that $mepsilon>P+|sum_{k=1}^Nx_n|$. Then we have
$$sum_{k=1}^{N+m}x_kgeq sum_{k=1}^{N}x_k+mepsilongeq-left|sum_{k=1}^{N}x_kright|+mepsilon>-left|sum_{k=1}^Nx_nright|+left(P+left|sum_{k=1}^Nx_nright|right)=P.$$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    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%2f3032884%2fgiven-lim-n-to-inftyx-n-infty-show-that-y-n-left-sum-k-1n-x-k%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









    1












    $begingroup$

    So you have $x_n>epsilon>0$ for all $ngeq N.$ Now choose $Pinmathbb{R}$. By Archimedes choose $minmathbb{N}$ such that $mepsilon>P+|sum_{k=1}^Nx_n|$. Then we have
    $$sum_{k=1}^{N+m}x_kgeq sum_{k=1}^{N}x_k+mepsilongeq-left|sum_{k=1}^{N}x_kright|+mepsilon>-left|sum_{k=1}^Nx_nright|+left(P+left|sum_{k=1}^Nx_nright|right)=P.$$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      1












      $begingroup$

      So you have $x_n>epsilon>0$ for all $ngeq N.$ Now choose $Pinmathbb{R}$. By Archimedes choose $minmathbb{N}$ such that $mepsilon>P+|sum_{k=1}^Nx_n|$. Then we have
      $$sum_{k=1}^{N+m}x_kgeq sum_{k=1}^{N}x_k+mepsilongeq-left|sum_{k=1}^{N}x_kright|+mepsilon>-left|sum_{k=1}^Nx_nright|+left(P+left|sum_{k=1}^Nx_nright|right)=P.$$






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        So you have $x_n>epsilon>0$ for all $ngeq N.$ Now choose $Pinmathbb{R}$. By Archimedes choose $minmathbb{N}$ such that $mepsilon>P+|sum_{k=1}^Nx_n|$. Then we have
        $$sum_{k=1}^{N+m}x_kgeq sum_{k=1}^{N}x_k+mepsilongeq-left|sum_{k=1}^{N}x_kright|+mepsilon>-left|sum_{k=1}^Nx_nright|+left(P+left|sum_{k=1}^Nx_nright|right)=P.$$






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        So you have $x_n>epsilon>0$ for all $ngeq N.$ Now choose $Pinmathbb{R}$. By Archimedes choose $minmathbb{N}$ such that $mepsilon>P+|sum_{k=1}^Nx_n|$. Then we have
        $$sum_{k=1}^{N+m}x_kgeq sum_{k=1}^{N}x_k+mepsilongeq-left|sum_{k=1}^{N}x_kright|+mepsilon>-left|sum_{k=1}^Nx_nright|+left(P+left|sum_{k=1}^Nx_nright|right)=P.$$







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Dec 9 '18 at 19:59









        MelodyMelody

        78812




        78812






























            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3032884%2fgiven-lim-n-to-inftyx-n-infty-show-that-y-n-left-sum-k-1n-x-k%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

            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

            build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

            Image
            0 I think it's similiar to NFAs. I replace the finite states of the given automaton for start-states for my new automaton. I do it with $epsilon$ -transition from the start state to the actual finite states of the given automaton. The start state of the given automaton will be my accepting(finite) state of my new one. All transitions will be reversed of course to recognize the reversed word. But how do I have to change the stack of the pushdown automaton? That's tricky. formal-languages automata context-free-grammar share | cite | improve this question edited Nov 29 '18 at 14:20 joee
            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