Help with a sequence proof
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
How can I show that if $a_n$ is a sequence of real numbers, then the following statements are equivalent:
$a_n$ has a subsequence, $a_{n_k}$, such that the summation of the subsequence converges,i.e:
$$ sum_{k=0}^infty a_{n_k} $$ converges
and
$$ liminf |a_n| = 0$$
This makes some intuitive sense to me, because if a_n has a convergent subsequence, it must be bounded somehow (above or below or both), and if liminf of the absolute value sequence is zero, then it again means that the sequence must be in some way bounded, because if it didnt it would diverge to infinity.
However I have no idea where to start on this in a formal proof sense. Does anyone have any tips for how to form this connection? I don't really know anything concrete that I can conclude from the second statement (the liminf one) I feel like maybe bolzano-weierstrauss can give me a hand somehow??
real-analysis proof-writing
asked Nov 20 at 21:16
ktuggle
184
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
How can I show that if $a_n$ is a sequence of real numbers, then the following statements are equivalent:
$a_n$ has a subsequence, $a_{n_k}$, such that the summation of the subsequence converges,i.e:
$$ sum_{k=0}^infty a_{n_k} $$ converges
and
$$ liminf |a_n| = 0$$
This makes some intuitive sense to me, because if a_n has a convergent subsequence, it must be bounded somehow (above or below or both), and if liminf of the absolute value sequence is zero, then it again means that the sequence must be in some way bounded, because if it didnt it would diverge to infinity.
However I have no idea where to start on this in a formal proof sense. Does anyone have any tips for how to form this connection? I don't really know anything concrete that I can conclude from the second statement (the liminf one) I feel like maybe bolzano-weierstrauss can give me a hand somehow??
real-analysis proof-writing
asked Nov 20 at 21:16
ktuggle
184
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
How can I show that if $a_n$ is a sequence of real numbers, then the following statements are equivalent:
$a_n$ has a subsequence, $a_{n_k}$, such that the summation of the subsequence converges,i.e:
$$ sum_{k=0}^infty a_{n_k} $$ converges
and
$$ liminf |a_n| = 0$$
This makes some intuitive sense to me, because if a_n has a convergent subsequence, it must be bounded somehow (above or below or both), and if liminf of the absolute value sequence is zero, then it again means that the sequence must be in some way bounded, because if it didnt it would diverge to infinity.
However I have no idea where to start on this in a formal proof sense. Does anyone have any tips for how to form this connection? I don't really know anything concrete that I can conclude from the second statement (the liminf one) I feel like maybe bolzano-weierstrauss can give me a hand somehow??
real-analysis proof-writing
asked Nov 20 at 21:16
ktuggle
184
How can I show that if $a_n$ is a sequence of real numbers, then the following statements are equivalent:
$a_n$ has a subsequence, $a_{n_k}$, such that the summation of the subsequence converges,i.e:
$$ sum_{k=0}^infty a_{n_k} $$ converges
and
$$ liminf |a_n| = 0$$
This makes some intuitive sense to me, because if a_n has a convergent subsequence, it must be bounded somehow (above or below or both), and if liminf of the absolute value sequence is zero, then it again means that the sequence must be in some way bounded, because if it didnt it would diverge to infinity.
However I have no idea where to start on this in a formal proof sense. Does anyone have any tips for how to form this connection? I don't really know anything concrete that I can conclude from the second statement (the liminf one) I feel like maybe bolzano-weierstrauss can give me a hand somehow??
real-analysis proof-writing
real-analysis proof-writing
asked Nov 20 at 21:16
ktuggle
184
asked Nov 20 at 21:16
ktuggle
184
edited Nov 20 at 21:53
asked Nov 20 at 21:16
ktuggle
184
asked Nov 20 at 21:16
ktuggle
184
asked Nov 20 at 21:16
ktuggle
184
184
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Check first that $liminf |a_n|=0$ if and only if some subsequence of the $a_n$ converges to $0$.
Assuming that $liminf|a_n|=0$, use the equivalence above to show that, indeed, there is a subsequence $(a_{n_k})_{kge0}$ that, not only converges to 0, but does it very quickly, say $|a_{n_k}|<1/2^k$ for all $k$. Check that the sum of this subsequence converges.
For the converse, if there is a subsequence whose series converges, this subsequence converges to 0 (right?). Use the equivalence mentioned in the first paragraph to conclude.
answered Nov 20 at 21:57
Andrés E. Caicedo
64.6k8158246
How do I go about showing the "very quickly" part. Given that i'm working with a very general sequence, how can i prove its always smaller than $1/2^k$
– ktuggle
Nov 21 at 3:32
1
Use the definition of "the sequence converges to 0" to show that from some point on all terms are in absolute value less than 1, and from some point on they are all in absolute value less than $1/2$, and so on, and use this to extract the required subsequence.
– Andrés E. Caicedo
Nov 21 at 4:02
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',
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%2f3006914%2fhelp-with-a-sequence-proof%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
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Check first that $liminf |a_n|=0$ if and only if some subsequence of the $a_n$ converges to $0$.
Assuming that $liminf|a_n|=0$, use the equivalence above to show that, indeed, there is a subsequence $(a_{n_k})_{kge0}$ that, not only converges to 0, but does it very quickly, say $|a_{n_k}|<1/2^k$ for all $k$. Check that the sum of this subsequence converges.
For the converse, if there is a subsequence whose series converges, this subsequence converges to 0 (right?). Use the equivalence mentioned in the first paragraph to conclude.
answered Nov 20 at 21:57
Andrés E. Caicedo
64.6k8158246
How do I go about showing the "very quickly" part. Given that i'm working with a very general sequence, how can i prove its always smaller than $1/2^k$
– ktuggle
Nov 21 at 3:32
1
Use the definition of "the sequence converges to 0" to show that from some point on all terms are in absolute value less than 1, and from some point on they are all in absolute value less than $1/2$, and so on, and use this to extract the required subsequence.
– Andrés E. Caicedo
Nov 21 at 4:02
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Check first that $liminf |a_n|=0$ if and only if some subsequence of the $a_n$ converges to $0$.
Assuming that $liminf|a_n|=0$, use the equivalence above to show that, indeed, there is a subsequence $(a_{n_k})_{kge0}$ that, not only converges to 0, but does it very quickly, say $|a_{n_k}|<1/2^k$ for all $k$. Check that the sum of this subsequence converges.
For the converse, if there is a subsequence whose series converges, this subsequence converges to 0 (right?). Use the equivalence mentioned in the first paragraph to conclude.
answered Nov 20 at 21:57
Andrés E. Caicedo
64.6k8158246
How do I go about showing the "very quickly" part. Given that i'm working with a very general sequence, how can i prove its always smaller than $1/2^k$
– ktuggle
Nov 21 at 3:32
1
Use the definition of "the sequence converges to 0" to show that from some point on all terms are in absolute value less than 1, and from some point on they are all in absolute value less than $1/2$, and so on, and use this to extract the required subsequence.
– Andrés E. Caicedo
Nov 21 at 4:02
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Check first that $liminf |a_n|=0$ if and only if some subsequence of the $a_n$ converges to $0$.
Assuming that $liminf|a_n|=0$, use the equivalence above to show that, indeed, there is a subsequence $(a_{n_k})_{kge0}$ that, not only converges to 0, but does it very quickly, say $|a_{n_k}|<1/2^k$ for all $k$. Check that the sum of this subsequence converges.
For the converse, if there is a subsequence whose series converges, this subsequence converges to 0 (right?). Use the equivalence mentioned in the first paragraph to conclude.
answered Nov 20 at 21:57
Andrés E. Caicedo
64.6k8158246
Check first that $liminf |a_n|=0$ if and only if some subsequence of the $a_n$ converges to $0$.
Assuming that $liminf|a_n|=0$, use the equivalence above to show that, indeed, there is a subsequence $(a_{n_k})_{kge0}$ that, not only converges to 0, but does it very quickly, say $|a_{n_k}|<1/2^k$ for all $k$. Check that the sum of this subsequence converges.
For the converse, if there is a subsequence whose series converges, this subsequence converges to 0 (right?). Use the equivalence mentioned in the first paragraph to conclude.
answered Nov 20 at 21:57
Andrés E. Caicedo
64.6k8158246
edited Nov 20 at 23:37
answered Nov 20 at 21:57
Andrés E. Caicedo
64.6k8158246
answered Nov 20 at 21:57
Andrés E. Caicedo
64.6k8158246
answered Nov 20 at 21:57
Andrés E. Caicedo
64.6k8158246
64.6k8158246
How do I go about showing the "very quickly" part. Given that i'm working with a very general sequence, how can i prove its always smaller than $1/2^k$
– ktuggle
Nov 21 at 3:32
1
Use the definition of "the sequence converges to 0" to show that from some point on all terms are in absolute value less than 1, and from some point on they are all in absolute value less than $1/2$, and so on, and use this to extract the required subsequence.
– Andrés E. Caicedo
Nov 21 at 4:02
add a comment |
How do I go about showing the "very quickly" part. Given that i'm working with a very general sequence, how can i prove its always smaller than $1/2^k$
– ktuggle
Nov 21 at 3:32
1
Use the definition of "the sequence converges to 0" to show that from some point on all terms are in absolute value less than 1, and from some point on they are all in absolute value less than $1/2$, and so on, and use this to extract the required subsequence.
– Andrés E. Caicedo
Nov 21 at 4:02
How do I go about showing the "very quickly" part. Given that i'm working with a very general sequence, how can i prove its always smaller than $1/2^k$
– ktuggle
Nov 21 at 3:32
How do I go about showing the "very quickly" part. Given that i'm working with a very general sequence, how can i prove its always smaller than $1/2^k$
– ktuggle
Nov 21 at 3:32
1
1
Use the definition of "the sequence converges to 0" to show that from some point on all terms are in absolute value less than 1, and from some point on they are all in absolute value less than $1/2$, and so on, and use this to extract the required subsequence.
– Andrés E. Caicedo
Nov 21 at 4:02
Use the definition of "the sequence converges to 0" to show that from some point on all terms are in absolute value less than 1, and from some point on they are all in absolute value less than $1/2$, and so on, and use this to extract the required subsequence.
– Andrés E. Caicedo
Nov 21 at 4:02
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.
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.
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%2f3006914%2fhelp-with-a-sequence-proof%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
