Showing Convergence of Sequence from monotone subsequences
My questions is as follows:
Let $(u_n)$ be defined by $u_1=1$ and
$$u_{n+1} = u_n + frac{(-1)^n}{n} ;;;; forall n in mathbb{N}$$
Show that the subsequence $(u_{2k-1})_{kinmathbb{N}}$ is monotone decreasing and that the subsequence $(u_{2k})_{kinmathbb{N}}$ is monotonic increasing. Conclude from this that the sequence $(u_{n})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is convergent.
So far I have:
$$begin{aligned}
u_{2k-1} &= u_{2k-2} + frac{(-1)^{2k-2}}{2k-2} \
&=u_{2k-2} + frac{1}{2k-2} \
&=u_{2k-3} + frac{(-1)^{2k-3}}{2k-3}+frac{1}{2k-2} \
&=u_{2(k-1)-1} -frac{1}{(2k-3)(2k-2)} \
u_{2k-1} - u_{2(k-1)-1} &= -frac{1}{(2k-3)(2k-2)} <0
end{aligned}$$
Hence $u_{2k-1} < u_{2(k-1)-1}$ and so $(u_{2k-1})$ is decreasing. I used a similar argument to show that $(u_{2k})$ is increasing. I have thought for a while on how to conclude convergence, and one way to go about it would be to show $(u_{n})$ is Cauchy, but I am not sure how to go about doing this.
Any help would be much appreciated. Also please bear in mind I am quite new to analysis, so may have overlooked something obvious.
real-analysis sequences-and-series
add a comment |
My questions is as follows:
Let $(u_n)$ be defined by $u_1=1$ and
$$u_{n+1} = u_n + frac{(-1)^n}{n} ;;;; forall n in mathbb{N}$$
Show that the subsequence $(u_{2k-1})_{kinmathbb{N}}$ is monotone decreasing and that the subsequence $(u_{2k})_{kinmathbb{N}}$ is monotonic increasing. Conclude from this that the sequence $(u_{n})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is convergent.
So far I have:
$$begin{aligned}
u_{2k-1} &= u_{2k-2} + frac{(-1)^{2k-2}}{2k-2} \
&=u_{2k-2} + frac{1}{2k-2} \
&=u_{2k-3} + frac{(-1)^{2k-3}}{2k-3}+frac{1}{2k-2} \
&=u_{2(k-1)-1} -frac{1}{(2k-3)(2k-2)} \
u_{2k-1} - u_{2(k-1)-1} &= -frac{1}{(2k-3)(2k-2)} <0
end{aligned}$$
Hence $u_{2k-1} < u_{2(k-1)-1}$ and so $(u_{2k-1})$ is decreasing. I used a similar argument to show that $(u_{2k})$ is increasing. I have thought for a while on how to conclude convergence, and one way to go about it would be to show $(u_{n})$ is Cauchy, but I am not sure how to go about doing this.
Any help would be much appreciated. Also please bear in mind I am quite new to analysis, so may have overlooked something obvious.
real-analysis sequences-and-series
add a comment |
My questions is as follows:
Let $(u_n)$ be defined by $u_1=1$ and
$$u_{n+1} = u_n + frac{(-1)^n}{n} ;;;; forall n in mathbb{N}$$
Show that the subsequence $(u_{2k-1})_{kinmathbb{N}}$ is monotone decreasing and that the subsequence $(u_{2k})_{kinmathbb{N}}$ is monotonic increasing. Conclude from this that the sequence $(u_{n})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is convergent.
So far I have:
$$begin{aligned}
u_{2k-1} &= u_{2k-2} + frac{(-1)^{2k-2}}{2k-2} \
&=u_{2k-2} + frac{1}{2k-2} \
&=u_{2k-3} + frac{(-1)^{2k-3}}{2k-3}+frac{1}{2k-2} \
&=u_{2(k-1)-1} -frac{1}{(2k-3)(2k-2)} \
u_{2k-1} - u_{2(k-1)-1} &= -frac{1}{(2k-3)(2k-2)} <0
end{aligned}$$
Hence $u_{2k-1} < u_{2(k-1)-1}$ and so $(u_{2k-1})$ is decreasing. I used a similar argument to show that $(u_{2k})$ is increasing. I have thought for a while on how to conclude convergence, and one way to go about it would be to show $(u_{n})$ is Cauchy, but I am not sure how to go about doing this.
Any help would be much appreciated. Also please bear in mind I am quite new to analysis, so may have overlooked something obvious.
real-analysis sequences-and-series
My questions is as follows:
Let $(u_n)$ be defined by $u_1=1$ and
$$u_{n+1} = u_n + frac{(-1)^n}{n} ;;;; forall n in mathbb{N}$$
Show that the subsequence $(u_{2k-1})_{kinmathbb{N}}$ is monotone decreasing and that the subsequence $(u_{2k})_{kinmathbb{N}}$ is monotonic increasing. Conclude from this that the sequence $(u_{n})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is convergent.
So far I have:
$$begin{aligned}
u_{2k-1} &= u_{2k-2} + frac{(-1)^{2k-2}}{2k-2} \
&=u_{2k-2} + frac{1}{2k-2} \
&=u_{2k-3} + frac{(-1)^{2k-3}}{2k-3}+frac{1}{2k-2} \
&=u_{2(k-1)-1} -frac{1}{(2k-3)(2k-2)} \
u_{2k-1} - u_{2(k-1)-1} &= -frac{1}{(2k-3)(2k-2)} <0
end{aligned}$$
Hence $u_{2k-1} < u_{2(k-1)-1}$ and so $(u_{2k-1})$ is decreasing. I used a similar argument to show that $(u_{2k})$ is increasing. I have thought for a while on how to conclude convergence, and one way to go about it would be to show $(u_{n})$ is Cauchy, but I am not sure how to go about doing this.
Any help would be much appreciated. Also please bear in mind I am quite new to analysis, so may have overlooked something obvious.
real-analysis sequences-and-series
real-analysis sequences-and-series
asked Nov 29 '18 at 21:08
Gentleman_NarwhalGentleman_Narwhal
10211
10211
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
For any $k$ we have $u_1geq u_{2k-1}>u_{2k}$ so the increasing sequence $(u_{2k})_k$ is bounded above by $u_1$ so it has a limit $A.$
For any $k$ we have $u_2leq u_{2k}<u_{2k+1}$ so the decreasing sequence $(u_{2k+1})_k$ is bounded below by $u_2$ so it has a limit $B.$
We have $A-B=(lim_{kto infty}u_{2k})-(lim_{kto infty}u_{2k+1})=lim_{kto infty}(u_{2k}-u_{2k+1})=0$. Therefore $A=B.$
Given $e>0,$ take $k_1in Bbb N$ such that $kgeq k_1implies |u_{2k}-A|<e$ and take $k_2inBbb N$ such that $kgeq k_2implies |u_{2k+1}-A|<e.$ Then $ngeq 1+2max (k_1,k_2)implies |u_n-A|<e.$
Considering how the question is asked, this is likely the desired answer. But because of Gentleman_Narwhal's apparent intuition, both approaches seemed worth mentioning.
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 30 '18 at 2:53
@MattAPelto . I'm fine with that.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 30 '18 at 2:55
Regarding the last part: For any $e>0$ there are only finitely many even $n$ such that $|u_n-A|geq e$ and only finitely many odd $n$ such that $|u_n-A|geq e,$ so altogether there are only finitely many $n$ such that $|u_n-A|geq e.$ Since this holds for every $e>0$, therefore $u_nto A.$
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 30 '18 at 17:28
add a comment |
There are technically two ways to go about proving that the sequence ${u_n}_{n=1}^infty$ converges. Since you say that you are new to analysis, I will note that either argument is perfectly valid as far as you should be concerned. Though it might be to your benefit to notice that the classical argument explicitly invokes a limit which in a more general context we won't be able to know. I say more general context as clearly,
begin{aligned} lim_{n to infty} u_n &=1 - sum_{n=1}^infty frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n} \&=1-log(2). end{aligned}
Classical: Show that the subsequence ${u_{2n-1}}_{n=1}^infty$ is bounded below and decreasing. Show that the subsequence ${u_{2n}}_{n=1}^infty$ is bounded above and increasing. Conclude both subsequences are convergent sequences by the monotone convergence theorem for sequences which implies the nonconstructive proposition known as the limited principle of omniscience. Conclude both subsequences converge to a common limit.
Constructive: Without loss of generality, suppose $n>m$. You may prove (an exercise left for the reader) via strong induction $(*)$ that for every $n in mathbb N$, we have
$$0 leq frac1{m+1}-frac1{m+2}+frac1{m+3}-cdots pm frac1{n}leq frac1{m+1},.
$$
Let $varepsilon>0$ be given. By the Archimedean Principle, we may find a positive integer $N$ so that $N>frac1{varepsilon}$. So for all $n>mgeq N$, we have
begin{aligned} left|u_n - u_m right| &= left|frac1{m+1}-frac1{m+2}+frac1{m+3}-cdots pm frac1{n}right| \& leq frac1{m+1} \& < varepsilon. end{aligned}Therefore, the sequence ${u_n}_{n=1}^infty$ is a Cauchy sequence.
$(*)$ Hint: There are two cases to consider for the induction step, even and odd.
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
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%2f3019222%2fshowing-convergence-of-sequence-from-monotone-subsequences%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
For any $k$ we have $u_1geq u_{2k-1}>u_{2k}$ so the increasing sequence $(u_{2k})_k$ is bounded above by $u_1$ so it has a limit $A.$
For any $k$ we have $u_2leq u_{2k}<u_{2k+1}$ so the decreasing sequence $(u_{2k+1})_k$ is bounded below by $u_2$ so it has a limit $B.$
We have $A-B=(lim_{kto infty}u_{2k})-(lim_{kto infty}u_{2k+1})=lim_{kto infty}(u_{2k}-u_{2k+1})=0$. Therefore $A=B.$
Given $e>0,$ take $k_1in Bbb N$ such that $kgeq k_1implies |u_{2k}-A|<e$ and take $k_2inBbb N$ such that $kgeq k_2implies |u_{2k+1}-A|<e.$ Then $ngeq 1+2max (k_1,k_2)implies |u_n-A|<e.$
Considering how the question is asked, this is likely the desired answer. But because of Gentleman_Narwhal's apparent intuition, both approaches seemed worth mentioning.
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 30 '18 at 2:53
@MattAPelto . I'm fine with that.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 30 '18 at 2:55
Regarding the last part: For any $e>0$ there are only finitely many even $n$ such that $|u_n-A|geq e$ and only finitely many odd $n$ such that $|u_n-A|geq e,$ so altogether there are only finitely many $n$ such that $|u_n-A|geq e.$ Since this holds for every $e>0$, therefore $u_nto A.$
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 30 '18 at 17:28
add a comment |
For any $k$ we have $u_1geq u_{2k-1}>u_{2k}$ so the increasing sequence $(u_{2k})_k$ is bounded above by $u_1$ so it has a limit $A.$
For any $k$ we have $u_2leq u_{2k}<u_{2k+1}$ so the decreasing sequence $(u_{2k+1})_k$ is bounded below by $u_2$ so it has a limit $B.$
We have $A-B=(lim_{kto infty}u_{2k})-(lim_{kto infty}u_{2k+1})=lim_{kto infty}(u_{2k}-u_{2k+1})=0$. Therefore $A=B.$
Given $e>0,$ take $k_1in Bbb N$ such that $kgeq k_1implies |u_{2k}-A|<e$ and take $k_2inBbb N$ such that $kgeq k_2implies |u_{2k+1}-A|<e.$ Then $ngeq 1+2max (k_1,k_2)implies |u_n-A|<e.$
Considering how the question is asked, this is likely the desired answer. But because of Gentleman_Narwhal's apparent intuition, both approaches seemed worth mentioning.
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 30 '18 at 2:53
@MattAPelto . I'm fine with that.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 30 '18 at 2:55
Regarding the last part: For any $e>0$ there are only finitely many even $n$ such that $|u_n-A|geq e$ and only finitely many odd $n$ such that $|u_n-A|geq e,$ so altogether there are only finitely many $n$ such that $|u_n-A|geq e.$ Since this holds for every $e>0$, therefore $u_nto A.$
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 30 '18 at 17:28
add a comment |
For any $k$ we have $u_1geq u_{2k-1}>u_{2k}$ so the increasing sequence $(u_{2k})_k$ is bounded above by $u_1$ so it has a limit $A.$
For any $k$ we have $u_2leq u_{2k}<u_{2k+1}$ so the decreasing sequence $(u_{2k+1})_k$ is bounded below by $u_2$ so it has a limit $B.$
We have $A-B=(lim_{kto infty}u_{2k})-(lim_{kto infty}u_{2k+1})=lim_{kto infty}(u_{2k}-u_{2k+1})=0$. Therefore $A=B.$
Given $e>0,$ take $k_1in Bbb N$ such that $kgeq k_1implies |u_{2k}-A|<e$ and take $k_2inBbb N$ such that $kgeq k_2implies |u_{2k+1}-A|<e.$ Then $ngeq 1+2max (k_1,k_2)implies |u_n-A|<e.$
For any $k$ we have $u_1geq u_{2k-1}>u_{2k}$ so the increasing sequence $(u_{2k})_k$ is bounded above by $u_1$ so it has a limit $A.$
For any $k$ we have $u_2leq u_{2k}<u_{2k+1}$ so the decreasing sequence $(u_{2k+1})_k$ is bounded below by $u_2$ so it has a limit $B.$
We have $A-B=(lim_{kto infty}u_{2k})-(lim_{kto infty}u_{2k+1})=lim_{kto infty}(u_{2k}-u_{2k+1})=0$. Therefore $A=B.$
Given $e>0,$ take $k_1in Bbb N$ such that $kgeq k_1implies |u_{2k}-A|<e$ and take $k_2inBbb N$ such that $kgeq k_2implies |u_{2k+1}-A|<e.$ Then $ngeq 1+2max (k_1,k_2)implies |u_n-A|<e.$
answered Nov 30 '18 at 2:20
DanielWainfleetDanielWainfleet
34.6k31648
34.6k31648
Considering how the question is asked, this is likely the desired answer. But because of Gentleman_Narwhal's apparent intuition, both approaches seemed worth mentioning.
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 30 '18 at 2:53
@MattAPelto . I'm fine with that.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 30 '18 at 2:55
Regarding the last part: For any $e>0$ there are only finitely many even $n$ such that $|u_n-A|geq e$ and only finitely many odd $n$ such that $|u_n-A|geq e,$ so altogether there are only finitely many $n$ such that $|u_n-A|geq e.$ Since this holds for every $e>0$, therefore $u_nto A.$
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 30 '18 at 17:28
add a comment |
Considering how the question is asked, this is likely the desired answer. But because of Gentleman_Narwhal's apparent intuition, both approaches seemed worth mentioning.
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 30 '18 at 2:53
@MattAPelto . I'm fine with that.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 30 '18 at 2:55
Regarding the last part: For any $e>0$ there are only finitely many even $n$ such that $|u_n-A|geq e$ and only finitely many odd $n$ such that $|u_n-A|geq e,$ so altogether there are only finitely many $n$ such that $|u_n-A|geq e.$ Since this holds for every $e>0$, therefore $u_nto A.$
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 30 '18 at 17:28
Considering how the question is asked, this is likely the desired answer. But because of Gentleman_Narwhal's apparent intuition, both approaches seemed worth mentioning.
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 30 '18 at 2:53
Considering how the question is asked, this is likely the desired answer. But because of Gentleman_Narwhal's apparent intuition, both approaches seemed worth mentioning.
– Matt A Pelto
Nov 30 '18 at 2:53
@MattAPelto . I'm fine with that.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 30 '18 at 2:55
@MattAPelto . I'm fine with that.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 30 '18 at 2:55
Regarding the last part: For any $e>0$ there are only finitely many even $n$ such that $|u_n-A|geq e$ and only finitely many odd $n$ such that $|u_n-A|geq e,$ so altogether there are only finitely many $n$ such that $|u_n-A|geq e.$ Since this holds for every $e>0$, therefore $u_nto A.$
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 30 '18 at 17:28
Regarding the last part: For any $e>0$ there are only finitely many even $n$ such that $|u_n-A|geq e$ and only finitely many odd $n$ such that $|u_n-A|geq e,$ so altogether there are only finitely many $n$ such that $|u_n-A|geq e.$ Since this holds for every $e>0$, therefore $u_nto A.$
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 30 '18 at 17:28
add a comment |
There are technically two ways to go about proving that the sequence ${u_n}_{n=1}^infty$ converges. Since you say that you are new to analysis, I will note that either argument is perfectly valid as far as you should be concerned. Though it might be to your benefit to notice that the classical argument explicitly invokes a limit which in a more general context we won't be able to know. I say more general context as clearly,
begin{aligned} lim_{n to infty} u_n &=1 - sum_{n=1}^infty frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n} \&=1-log(2). end{aligned}
Classical: Show that the subsequence ${u_{2n-1}}_{n=1}^infty$ is bounded below and decreasing. Show that the subsequence ${u_{2n}}_{n=1}^infty$ is bounded above and increasing. Conclude both subsequences are convergent sequences by the monotone convergence theorem for sequences which implies the nonconstructive proposition known as the limited principle of omniscience. Conclude both subsequences converge to a common limit.
Constructive: Without loss of generality, suppose $n>m$. You may prove (an exercise left for the reader) via strong induction $(*)$ that for every $n in mathbb N$, we have
$$0 leq frac1{m+1}-frac1{m+2}+frac1{m+3}-cdots pm frac1{n}leq frac1{m+1},.
$$
Let $varepsilon>0$ be given. By the Archimedean Principle, we may find a positive integer $N$ so that $N>frac1{varepsilon}$. So for all $n>mgeq N$, we have
begin{aligned} left|u_n - u_m right| &= left|frac1{m+1}-frac1{m+2}+frac1{m+3}-cdots pm frac1{n}right| \& leq frac1{m+1} \& < varepsilon. end{aligned}Therefore, the sequence ${u_n}_{n=1}^infty$ is a Cauchy sequence.
$(*)$ Hint: There are two cases to consider for the induction step, even and odd.
add a comment |
There are technically two ways to go about proving that the sequence ${u_n}_{n=1}^infty$ converges. Since you say that you are new to analysis, I will note that either argument is perfectly valid as far as you should be concerned. Though it might be to your benefit to notice that the classical argument explicitly invokes a limit which in a more general context we won't be able to know. I say more general context as clearly,
begin{aligned} lim_{n to infty} u_n &=1 - sum_{n=1}^infty frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n} \&=1-log(2). end{aligned}
Classical: Show that the subsequence ${u_{2n-1}}_{n=1}^infty$ is bounded below and decreasing. Show that the subsequence ${u_{2n}}_{n=1}^infty$ is bounded above and increasing. Conclude both subsequences are convergent sequences by the monotone convergence theorem for sequences which implies the nonconstructive proposition known as the limited principle of omniscience. Conclude both subsequences converge to a common limit.
Constructive: Without loss of generality, suppose $n>m$. You may prove (an exercise left for the reader) via strong induction $(*)$ that for every $n in mathbb N$, we have
$$0 leq frac1{m+1}-frac1{m+2}+frac1{m+3}-cdots pm frac1{n}leq frac1{m+1},.
$$
Let $varepsilon>0$ be given. By the Archimedean Principle, we may find a positive integer $N$ so that $N>frac1{varepsilon}$. So for all $n>mgeq N$, we have
begin{aligned} left|u_n - u_m right| &= left|frac1{m+1}-frac1{m+2}+frac1{m+3}-cdots pm frac1{n}right| \& leq frac1{m+1} \& < varepsilon. end{aligned}Therefore, the sequence ${u_n}_{n=1}^infty$ is a Cauchy sequence.
$(*)$ Hint: There are two cases to consider for the induction step, even and odd.
add a comment |
There are technically two ways to go about proving that the sequence ${u_n}_{n=1}^infty$ converges. Since you say that you are new to analysis, I will note that either argument is perfectly valid as far as you should be concerned. Though it might be to your benefit to notice that the classical argument explicitly invokes a limit which in a more general context we won't be able to know. I say more general context as clearly,
begin{aligned} lim_{n to infty} u_n &=1 - sum_{n=1}^infty frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n} \&=1-log(2). end{aligned}
Classical: Show that the subsequence ${u_{2n-1}}_{n=1}^infty$ is bounded below and decreasing. Show that the subsequence ${u_{2n}}_{n=1}^infty$ is bounded above and increasing. Conclude both subsequences are convergent sequences by the monotone convergence theorem for sequences which implies the nonconstructive proposition known as the limited principle of omniscience. Conclude both subsequences converge to a common limit.
Constructive: Without loss of generality, suppose $n>m$. You may prove (an exercise left for the reader) via strong induction $(*)$ that for every $n in mathbb N$, we have
$$0 leq frac1{m+1}-frac1{m+2}+frac1{m+3}-cdots pm frac1{n}leq frac1{m+1},.
$$
Let $varepsilon>0$ be given. By the Archimedean Principle, we may find a positive integer $N$ so that $N>frac1{varepsilon}$. So for all $n>mgeq N$, we have
begin{aligned} left|u_n - u_m right| &= left|frac1{m+1}-frac1{m+2}+frac1{m+3}-cdots pm frac1{n}right| \& leq frac1{m+1} \& < varepsilon. end{aligned}Therefore, the sequence ${u_n}_{n=1}^infty$ is a Cauchy sequence.
$(*)$ Hint: There are two cases to consider for the induction step, even and odd.
There are technically two ways to go about proving that the sequence ${u_n}_{n=1}^infty$ converges. Since you say that you are new to analysis, I will note that either argument is perfectly valid as far as you should be concerned. Though it might be to your benefit to notice that the classical argument explicitly invokes a limit which in a more general context we won't be able to know. I say more general context as clearly,
begin{aligned} lim_{n to infty} u_n &=1 - sum_{n=1}^infty frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n} \&=1-log(2). end{aligned}
Classical: Show that the subsequence ${u_{2n-1}}_{n=1}^infty$ is bounded below and decreasing. Show that the subsequence ${u_{2n}}_{n=1}^infty$ is bounded above and increasing. Conclude both subsequences are convergent sequences by the monotone convergence theorem for sequences which implies the nonconstructive proposition known as the limited principle of omniscience. Conclude both subsequences converge to a common limit.
Constructive: Without loss of generality, suppose $n>m$. You may prove (an exercise left for the reader) via strong induction $(*)$ that for every $n in mathbb N$, we have
$$0 leq frac1{m+1}-frac1{m+2}+frac1{m+3}-cdots pm frac1{n}leq frac1{m+1},.
$$
Let $varepsilon>0$ be given. By the Archimedean Principle, we may find a positive integer $N$ so that $N>frac1{varepsilon}$. So for all $n>mgeq N$, we have
begin{aligned} left|u_n - u_m right| &= left|frac1{m+1}-frac1{m+2}+frac1{m+3}-cdots pm frac1{n}right| \& leq frac1{m+1} \& < varepsilon. end{aligned}Therefore, the sequence ${u_n}_{n=1}^infty$ is a Cauchy sequence.
$(*)$ Hint: There are two cases to consider for the induction step, even and odd.
edited Dec 2 '18 at 2:48
answered Nov 29 '18 at 22:49
Matt A PeltoMatt A Pelto
2,397620
2,397620
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.
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%2f3019222%2fshowing-convergence-of-sequence-from-monotone-subsequences%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