Determine if this specific sequence is a Cauchy sequence












3














I have the following sequence:
$$a_n =sum_{k = 1}^n (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2} $$
And the hint is that I have to prove that:
$$ {1over k^2} < {1over k-1} - {1over k} $$



So assuming $m>n$, I have to prove that:
$$forall epsilon >0, exists N in mathbb{N},$$ so that $$ forall m,n > N Rightarrow lvert a_m - a_nrvert < epsilon $$



What I gathered so far:
$ lvert a_m - a_nrvert = lvert sum_{k = n+1}^m (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2}rvert $



$b_k$ is a sequence of natural numbers ${1,2,3.....}$, so in absolute value, $(-1)^{b_k} $ is $1$.
Therefore:



$ lvert a_m - a_nrvert = lvert sum_{k = n+1}^m (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2}rvert leq sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}. $



From here on, its not so clear to me as to how to proceed.
What should be my next steps?






calculus sequences-and-series limits cauchy-sequences







share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    Note that (as suggested in one of the edits) the last equality in the last line should be an inequality $leq$.
    – Yanko
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:50










  • Just saw it, fixed, thanks a lot :)
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:51
















3














I have the following sequence:
$$a_n =sum_{k = 1}^n (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2} $$
And the hint is that I have to prove that:
$$ {1over k^2} < {1over k-1} - {1over k} $$



So assuming $m>n$, I have to prove that:
$$forall epsilon >0, exists N in mathbb{N},$$ so that $$ forall m,n > N Rightarrow lvert a_m - a_nrvert < epsilon $$



What I gathered so far:
$ lvert a_m - a_nrvert = lvert sum_{k = n+1}^m (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2}rvert $



$b_k$ is a sequence of natural numbers ${1,2,3.....}$, so in absolute value, $(-1)^{b_k} $ is $1$.
Therefore:



$ lvert a_m - a_nrvert = lvert sum_{k = n+1}^m (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2}rvert leq sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}. $



From here on, its not so clear to me as to how to proceed.
What should be my next steps?






calculus sequences-and-series limits cauchy-sequences







share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    Note that (as suggested in one of the edits) the last equality in the last line should be an inequality $leq$.
    – Yanko
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:50










  • Just saw it, fixed, thanks a lot :)
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:51














3












3








3







I have the following sequence:
$$a_n =sum_{k = 1}^n (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2} $$
And the hint is that I have to prove that:
$$ {1over k^2} < {1over k-1} - {1over k} $$



So assuming $m>n$, I have to prove that:
$$forall epsilon >0, exists N in mathbb{N},$$ so that $$ forall m,n > N Rightarrow lvert a_m - a_nrvert < epsilon $$



What I gathered so far:
$ lvert a_m - a_nrvert = lvert sum_{k = n+1}^m (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2}rvert $



$b_k$ is a sequence of natural numbers ${1,2,3.....}$, so in absolute value, $(-1)^{b_k} $ is $1$.
Therefore:



$ lvert a_m - a_nrvert = lvert sum_{k = n+1}^m (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2}rvert leq sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}. $



From here on, its not so clear to me as to how to proceed.
What should be my next steps?






calculus sequences-and-series limits cauchy-sequences







share|cite|improve this question















I have the following sequence:
$$a_n =sum_{k = 1}^n (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2} $$
And the hint is that I have to prove that:
$$ {1over k^2} < {1over k-1} - {1over k} $$



So assuming $m>n$, I have to prove that:
$$forall epsilon >0, exists N in mathbb{N},$$ so that $$ forall m,n > N Rightarrow lvert a_m - a_nrvert < epsilon $$



What I gathered so far:
$ lvert a_m - a_nrvert = lvert sum_{k = n+1}^m (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2}rvert $



$b_k$ is a sequence of natural numbers ${1,2,3.....}$, so in absolute value, $(-1)^{b_k} $ is $1$.
Therefore:



$ lvert a_m - a_nrvert = lvert sum_{k = n+1}^m (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2}rvert leq sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}. $



From here on, its not so clear to me as to how to proceed.
What should be my next steps?






calculus sequences-and-series limits cauchy-sequences




calculus sequences-and-series limits cauchy-sequences






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 10:51









Jonas Lenz

530212




530212










asked Dec 9 '18 at 10:28









Tegernako

756




756








  • 1




    Note that (as suggested in one of the edits) the last equality in the last line should be an inequality $leq$.
    – Yanko
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:50










  • Just saw it, fixed, thanks a lot :)
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:51














  • 1




    Note that (as suggested in one of the edits) the last equality in the last line should be an inequality $leq$.
    – Yanko
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:50










  • Just saw it, fixed, thanks a lot :)
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:51








1




1




Note that (as suggested in one of the edits) the last equality in the last line should be an inequality $leq$.
– Yanko
Dec 9 '18 at 10:50




Note that (as suggested in one of the edits) the last equality in the last line should be an inequality $leq$.
– Yanko
Dec 9 '18 at 10:50












Just saw it, fixed, thanks a lot :)
– Tegernako
Dec 9 '18 at 10:51




Just saw it, fixed, thanks a lot :)
– Tegernako
Dec 9 '18 at 10:51










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















5














You're almost done. Since $frac{1}{k^2} leq frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}$ you have that



$$sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}leqsum_{k=n+1}^m left[frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}right]$$ This is a telescoping series which is equal to $frac{1}{n}-frac{1}{m}$. It converges to zero as $n,mrightarrow 0$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Exactly! Thanks.
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:41



















5














Now, use the fact that$$sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1k-frac1{k-1}=frac1n-frac1m.$$






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 1




    I've edited my answer. Thank you.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:39










  • Seems like I went into paralysis by analysis trying to over-express the sum I had. Thanks!
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:40






  • 1




    Why do we need the hint? Can't we simply say that as $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ is convergent, we know that that $sum_{k=n}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ converges to $0$ as $n to infty$ which shows the claim, too.
    – Jonas Lenz
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:44








  • 1




    In order to prove that, for each $varepsilon>0$, $sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<varepsilon$, if $m$ and $n$ are large enough.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:46








  • 1




    @JonasLenz I guess that is how one shows that $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ convergent.
    – Yanko
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:49











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%2f3032238%2fdetermine-if-this-specific-sequence-is-a-cauchy-sequence%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









5














You're almost done. Since $frac{1}{k^2} leq frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}$ you have that



$$sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}leqsum_{k=n+1}^m left[frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}right]$$ This is a telescoping series which is equal to $frac{1}{n}-frac{1}{m}$. It converges to zero as $n,mrightarrow 0$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Exactly! Thanks.
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:41
















5














You're almost done. Since $frac{1}{k^2} leq frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}$ you have that



$$sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}leqsum_{k=n+1}^m left[frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}right]$$ This is a telescoping series which is equal to $frac{1}{n}-frac{1}{m}$. It converges to zero as $n,mrightarrow 0$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Exactly! Thanks.
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:41














5












5








5






You're almost done. Since $frac{1}{k^2} leq frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}$ you have that



$$sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}leqsum_{k=n+1}^m left[frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}right]$$ This is a telescoping series which is equal to $frac{1}{n}-frac{1}{m}$. It converges to zero as $n,mrightarrow 0$.






share|cite|improve this answer














You're almost done. Since $frac{1}{k^2} leq frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}$ you have that



$$sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}leqsum_{k=n+1}^m left[frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}right]$$ This is a telescoping series which is equal to $frac{1}{n}-frac{1}{m}$. It converges to zero as $n,mrightarrow 0$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 9 '18 at 10:51

























answered Dec 9 '18 at 10:35









Yanko

6,124724




6,124724












  • Exactly! Thanks.
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:41


















  • Exactly! Thanks.
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:41
















Exactly! Thanks.
– Tegernako
Dec 9 '18 at 10:41




Exactly! Thanks.
– Tegernako
Dec 9 '18 at 10:41











5














Now, use the fact that$$sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1k-frac1{k-1}=frac1n-frac1m.$$






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 1




    I've edited my answer. Thank you.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:39










  • Seems like I went into paralysis by analysis trying to over-express the sum I had. Thanks!
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:40






  • 1




    Why do we need the hint? Can't we simply say that as $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ is convergent, we know that that $sum_{k=n}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ converges to $0$ as $n to infty$ which shows the claim, too.
    – Jonas Lenz
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:44








  • 1




    In order to prove that, for each $varepsilon>0$, $sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<varepsilon$, if $m$ and $n$ are large enough.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:46








  • 1




    @JonasLenz I guess that is how one shows that $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ convergent.
    – Yanko
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:49
















5














Now, use the fact that$$sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1k-frac1{k-1}=frac1n-frac1m.$$






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 1




    I've edited my answer. Thank you.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:39










  • Seems like I went into paralysis by analysis trying to over-express the sum I had. Thanks!
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:40






  • 1




    Why do we need the hint? Can't we simply say that as $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ is convergent, we know that that $sum_{k=n}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ converges to $0$ as $n to infty$ which shows the claim, too.
    – Jonas Lenz
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:44








  • 1




    In order to prove that, for each $varepsilon>0$, $sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<varepsilon$, if $m$ and $n$ are large enough.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:46








  • 1




    @JonasLenz I guess that is how one shows that $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ convergent.
    – Yanko
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:49














5












5








5






Now, use the fact that$$sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1k-frac1{k-1}=frac1n-frac1m.$$






share|cite|improve this answer














Now, use the fact that$$sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1k-frac1{k-1}=frac1n-frac1m.$$







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 9 '18 at 10:39

























answered Dec 9 '18 at 10:36









José Carlos Santos

150k22121221




150k22121221








  • 1




    I've edited my answer. Thank you.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:39










  • Seems like I went into paralysis by analysis trying to over-express the sum I had. Thanks!
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:40






  • 1




    Why do we need the hint? Can't we simply say that as $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ is convergent, we know that that $sum_{k=n}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ converges to $0$ as $n to infty$ which shows the claim, too.
    – Jonas Lenz
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:44








  • 1




    In order to prove that, for each $varepsilon>0$, $sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<varepsilon$, if $m$ and $n$ are large enough.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:46








  • 1




    @JonasLenz I guess that is how one shows that $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ convergent.
    – Yanko
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:49














  • 1




    I've edited my answer. Thank you.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:39










  • Seems like I went into paralysis by analysis trying to over-express the sum I had. Thanks!
    – Tegernako
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:40






  • 1




    Why do we need the hint? Can't we simply say that as $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ is convergent, we know that that $sum_{k=n}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ converges to $0$ as $n to infty$ which shows the claim, too.
    – Jonas Lenz
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:44








  • 1




    In order to prove that, for each $varepsilon>0$, $sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<varepsilon$, if $m$ and $n$ are large enough.
    – José Carlos Santos
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:46








  • 1




    @JonasLenz I guess that is how one shows that $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ convergent.
    – Yanko
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:49








1




1




I've edited my answer. Thank you.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 '18 at 10:39




I've edited my answer. Thank you.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 '18 at 10:39












Seems like I went into paralysis by analysis trying to over-express the sum I had. Thanks!
– Tegernako
Dec 9 '18 at 10:40




Seems like I went into paralysis by analysis trying to over-express the sum I had. Thanks!
– Tegernako
Dec 9 '18 at 10:40




1




1




Why do we need the hint? Can't we simply say that as $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ is convergent, we know that that $sum_{k=n}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ converges to $0$ as $n to infty$ which shows the claim, too.
– Jonas Lenz
Dec 9 '18 at 10:44






Why do we need the hint? Can't we simply say that as $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ is convergent, we know that that $sum_{k=n}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ converges to $0$ as $n to infty$ which shows the claim, too.
– Jonas Lenz
Dec 9 '18 at 10:44






1




1




In order to prove that, for each $varepsilon>0$, $sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<varepsilon$, if $m$ and $n$ are large enough.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 '18 at 10:46






In order to prove that, for each $varepsilon>0$, $sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<varepsilon$, if $m$ and $n$ are large enough.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 '18 at 10:46






1




1




@JonasLenz I guess that is how one shows that $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ convergent.
– Yanko
Dec 9 '18 at 10:49




@JonasLenz I guess that is how one shows that $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ convergent.
– Yanko
Dec 9 '18 at 10:49


















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%2f3032238%2fdetermine-if-this-specific-sequence-is-a-cauchy-sequence%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

Plaza Victoria

Image
Plaza Victoria Plaza Victoria en 2017 Otros nombres Plaza de La Victoria Localización El Almendral, Valparaíso, Chile Vías adyacentes Chacabuco, Molina, Plaza Victoria y Edwards Creación 1841 Metro Bellavista Ubicación 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 Coordenadas: 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 [editar datos en Wikidata] La Plaza Victoria , también llamada Plaza de la Victoria , [ 1 ] ​ es una plaza ubicada en el sector El Almendral del plan de la ciudad de Valparaíso, Chile, de importancia patrimonial, que incluye valiosas estatuas y especies vegetales. [ 2 ] ​ La plaza se creó como tal en la primera mitad del siglo XIX, tomando previamente los nombres de Plaza Nueva y Plaza de Orrego . Si bien desde sus inicios tuvo relevancia histórica, no fue sino a partir de fines de los años 1860 cuando comenzó a cobrar mayor importancia y se convirtió en uno de los principales centros sociales de l
Read more

In PowerPoint, is there a keyboard shortcut for bulleted / numbered list?

Image
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box; } 2 OneNote has two useful keyboard shortcuts for bulleted and numbered lists, namely Ctrl + . and Ctrl + - . Is there something similar for PowerPoint where the work with lists is also very common? Haven't found anything here: Use keyboard shortcuts in PowerPoint. keyboard-shortcuts microsoft-powerpoint share | improve this question edited Aug 14 '14 at 14:49 Linger 2,826 10 28 40
Read more

How to put 3 figures in Latex with 2 figures side by side and 1 below these side by side images but in...

Image
1 0 I want to put 3 images in LateX such as 2 figures are side by side horizotally and 3rd figure below these 2 side by side figures but in middle. I have following code: begin{figure}[H] centering begin{minipage}{.5textwidth} centering includegraphics[width=.50linewidth]{Text/Images/Genelec_8010_AP.jpg} captionof{figure}{Genelec 8010 AP} label{fig:Genelec 8010} end{minipage}% begin{minipage}{.5textwidth} centering includegraphics[width=.69linewidth]{Text/Images/Genelec_8020_CPM.jpg} captionof{figure}{Genelec 8020 CPM} label{fig:Genelec 8020} end{minipage}% end{figure} %%Here is my 3rd picture code begin{figure} centering includegraphics[width=5cm]{Text/Images/Genelec_8030_BPM.jpg} caption{Genelec 8030 BPM} label{fig:Genelec 8030} end{figure} I want to ask ho
Read more