Showing Convergence of Sequence from monotone subsequences












1














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.










share|cite|improve this question



























    1














    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.










    share|cite|improve this question

























      1












      1








      1







      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.










      share|cite|improve this question













      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






      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 21:08









      Gentleman_NarwhalGentleman_Narwhal

      10211




      10211






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2














          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 $ngeq 1+2max (k_1,k_2)implies |u_n-A|<e.$






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • 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





















          2














          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.






          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%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









            2














            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 $ngeq 1+2max (k_1,k_2)implies |u_n-A|<e.$






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • 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


















            2














            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 $ngeq 1+2max (k_1,k_2)implies |u_n-A|<e.$






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • 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
















            2












            2








            2






            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 $ngeq 1+2max (k_1,k_2)implies |u_n-A|<e.$






            share|cite|improve this answer












            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 $ngeq 1+2max (k_1,k_2)implies |u_n-A|<e.$







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            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




















            • 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













            2














            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer




























              2














              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer


























                2












                2








                2






                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.






                share|cite|improve this answer














                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.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Dec 2 '18 at 2:48

























                answered Nov 29 '18 at 22:49









                Matt A PeltoMatt A Pelto

                2,397620




                2,397620






























                    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%2f3019222%2fshowing-convergence-of-sequence-from-monotone-subsequences%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

                    Mont Emei

                    Province de Neuquén

                    Journaliste