Proving that $lim_{ntoinfty}s_n=0$
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Prove: If $lim_{ntoinfty}s_n=s$ and ${s_n}$ has a subsequence ${s_{n_k}}$ such that $(-1)^ks_{n_k}geq0$ then $s=0$.
Proof. Since ${s_n}$ converges to $s$ then so does its subsequence ${s_{n_k}}$ . Again, if it is convergent then $liminf=limsup$, but for $k$ even the subsequence assumes the form $s_{n_{2k}}$, instead for odd the form $-s_{n_{2k+1}}$. For these to be equal, for large $n$, both limits $s$ and $-s$ must be equal to $0$. Since $liminf=limsup=0$ then $s=0$.
real-analysis sequences-and-series proof-verification
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Prove: If $lim_{ntoinfty}s_n=s$ and ${s_n}$ has a subsequence ${s_{n_k}}$ such that $(-1)^ks_{n_k}geq0$ then $s=0$.
Proof. Since ${s_n}$ converges to $s$ then so does its subsequence ${s_{n_k}}$ . Again, if it is convergent then $liminf=limsup$, but for $k$ even the subsequence assumes the form $s_{n_{2k}}$, instead for odd the form $-s_{n_{2k+1}}$. For these to be equal, for large $n$, both limits $s$ and $-s$ must be equal to $0$. Since $liminf=limsup=0$ then $s=0$.
real-analysis sequences-and-series proof-verification
"For these to be equal" -> the sequences are not equal. Their limits (respectively $s$ and $-s$) have to be.
– Clement C.
Nov 20 at 14:45
Sorry, that is what I intended to write
– DMH16
Nov 20 at 14:46
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Prove: If $lim_{ntoinfty}s_n=s$ and ${s_n}$ has a subsequence ${s_{n_k}}$ such that $(-1)^ks_{n_k}geq0$ then $s=0$.
Proof. Since ${s_n}$ converges to $s$ then so does its subsequence ${s_{n_k}}$ . Again, if it is convergent then $liminf=limsup$, but for $k$ even the subsequence assumes the form $s_{n_{2k}}$, instead for odd the form $-s_{n_{2k+1}}$. For these to be equal, for large $n$, both limits $s$ and $-s$ must be equal to $0$. Since $liminf=limsup=0$ then $s=0$.
real-analysis sequences-and-series proof-verification
Prove: If $lim_{ntoinfty}s_n=s$ and ${s_n}$ has a subsequence ${s_{n_k}}$ such that $(-1)^ks_{n_k}geq0$ then $s=0$.
Proof. Since ${s_n}$ converges to $s$ then so does its subsequence ${s_{n_k}}$ . Again, if it is convergent then $liminf=limsup$, but for $k$ even the subsequence assumes the form $s_{n_{2k}}$, instead for odd the form $-s_{n_{2k+1}}$. For these to be equal, for large $n$, both limits $s$ and $-s$ must be equal to $0$. Since $liminf=limsup=0$ then $s=0$.
real-analysis sequences-and-series proof-verification
real-analysis sequences-and-series proof-verification
edited Nov 20 at 14:47
asked Nov 20 at 14:43
DMH16
539217
539217
"For these to be equal" -> the sequences are not equal. Their limits (respectively $s$ and $-s$) have to be.
– Clement C.
Nov 20 at 14:45
Sorry, that is what I intended to write
– DMH16
Nov 20 at 14:46
add a comment |
"For these to be equal" -> the sequences are not equal. Their limits (respectively $s$ and $-s$) have to be.
– Clement C.
Nov 20 at 14:45
Sorry, that is what I intended to write
– DMH16
Nov 20 at 14:46
"For these to be equal" -> the sequences are not equal. Their limits (respectively $s$ and $-s$) have to be.
– Clement C.
Nov 20 at 14:45
"For these to be equal" -> the sequences are not equal. Their limits (respectively $s$ and $-s$) have to be.
– Clement C.
Nov 20 at 14:45
Sorry, that is what I intended to write
– DMH16
Nov 20 at 14:46
Sorry, that is what I intended to write
– DMH16
Nov 20 at 14:46
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
Your proof is fine. Here a proof without $ lim inf$ and $lim sup$:
Suppose that $s ne 0$. WLOG we assume thatb $s>0$. Since $s_{n_k} to s$ as $ k to infty$, there is $K$ such that $s_{n_k}>0$ for all $k>K$. If $k>K$ and $k$ is odd, we get $(-1)^ks_{n_k}<0$, a contradiction.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
$lim_{n rightarrow infty} s_n=s.$
Then every subsequence converges to $s$.
Given:
$s_{n_k}$ converges to $s$, and $(-1)^k s_{n_k} ge 0$.
1) $k =2m$ then $s_{n_{2m}} ge 0$, and this subsequence of $s_{n_k}$ converges to $s$:
$lim_{m rightarrow infty} s_{n_{2m}} =s ge 0.$
Similarly;
2)$ k=(2m+1)$ then $s_{n_{2m+1}} le 0$, and this subsequence of $s_{n_k}$ converges to $s$.
$lim_{ m rightarrow infty}s_{n_{2m+1}}=s le 0.$
Hence?
Used : If every term of a convergent sequence is $ge 0,$ then the limit is $ge 0$.
I am not sure how your answer differs from mine
– DMH16
Nov 21 at 4:11
DMH16.Same idea, without limsup,liminf.
– Peter Szilas
Nov 21 at 8:36
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
Your proof is fine. Here a proof without $ lim inf$ and $lim sup$:
Suppose that $s ne 0$. WLOG we assume thatb $s>0$. Since $s_{n_k} to s$ as $ k to infty$, there is $K$ such that $s_{n_k}>0$ for all $k>K$. If $k>K$ and $k$ is odd, we get $(-1)^ks_{n_k}<0$, a contradiction.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
Your proof is fine. Here a proof without $ lim inf$ and $lim sup$:
Suppose that $s ne 0$. WLOG we assume thatb $s>0$. Since $s_{n_k} to s$ as $ k to infty$, there is $K$ such that $s_{n_k}>0$ for all $k>K$. If $k>K$ and $k$ is odd, we get $(-1)^ks_{n_k}<0$, a contradiction.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
Your proof is fine. Here a proof without $ lim inf$ and $lim sup$:
Suppose that $s ne 0$. WLOG we assume thatb $s>0$. Since $s_{n_k} to s$ as $ k to infty$, there is $K$ such that $s_{n_k}>0$ for all $k>K$. If $k>K$ and $k$ is odd, we get $(-1)^ks_{n_k}<0$, a contradiction.
Your proof is fine. Here a proof without $ lim inf$ and $lim sup$:
Suppose that $s ne 0$. WLOG we assume thatb $s>0$. Since $s_{n_k} to s$ as $ k to infty$, there is $K$ such that $s_{n_k}>0$ for all $k>K$. If $k>K$ and $k$ is odd, we get $(-1)^ks_{n_k}<0$, a contradiction.
answered Nov 20 at 14:50
Fred
42.2k1642
42.2k1642
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
$lim_{n rightarrow infty} s_n=s.$
Then every subsequence converges to $s$.
Given:
$s_{n_k}$ converges to $s$, and $(-1)^k s_{n_k} ge 0$.
1) $k =2m$ then $s_{n_{2m}} ge 0$, and this subsequence of $s_{n_k}$ converges to $s$:
$lim_{m rightarrow infty} s_{n_{2m}} =s ge 0.$
Similarly;
2)$ k=(2m+1)$ then $s_{n_{2m+1}} le 0$, and this subsequence of $s_{n_k}$ converges to $s$.
$lim_{ m rightarrow infty}s_{n_{2m+1}}=s le 0.$
Hence?
Used : If every term of a convergent sequence is $ge 0,$ then the limit is $ge 0$.
I am not sure how your answer differs from mine
– DMH16
Nov 21 at 4:11
DMH16.Same idea, without limsup,liminf.
– Peter Szilas
Nov 21 at 8:36
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
$lim_{n rightarrow infty} s_n=s.$
Then every subsequence converges to $s$.
Given:
$s_{n_k}$ converges to $s$, and $(-1)^k s_{n_k} ge 0$.
1) $k =2m$ then $s_{n_{2m}} ge 0$, and this subsequence of $s_{n_k}$ converges to $s$:
$lim_{m rightarrow infty} s_{n_{2m}} =s ge 0.$
Similarly;
2)$ k=(2m+1)$ then $s_{n_{2m+1}} le 0$, and this subsequence of $s_{n_k}$ converges to $s$.
$lim_{ m rightarrow infty}s_{n_{2m+1}}=s le 0.$
Hence?
Used : If every term of a convergent sequence is $ge 0,$ then the limit is $ge 0$.
I am not sure how your answer differs from mine
– DMH16
Nov 21 at 4:11
DMH16.Same idea, without limsup,liminf.
– Peter Szilas
Nov 21 at 8:36
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
$lim_{n rightarrow infty} s_n=s.$
Then every subsequence converges to $s$.
Given:
$s_{n_k}$ converges to $s$, and $(-1)^k s_{n_k} ge 0$.
1) $k =2m$ then $s_{n_{2m}} ge 0$, and this subsequence of $s_{n_k}$ converges to $s$:
$lim_{m rightarrow infty} s_{n_{2m}} =s ge 0.$
Similarly;
2)$ k=(2m+1)$ then $s_{n_{2m+1}} le 0$, and this subsequence of $s_{n_k}$ converges to $s$.
$lim_{ m rightarrow infty}s_{n_{2m+1}}=s le 0.$
Hence?
Used : If every term of a convergent sequence is $ge 0,$ then the limit is $ge 0$.
$lim_{n rightarrow infty} s_n=s.$
Then every subsequence converges to $s$.
Given:
$s_{n_k}$ converges to $s$, and $(-1)^k s_{n_k} ge 0$.
1) $k =2m$ then $s_{n_{2m}} ge 0$, and this subsequence of $s_{n_k}$ converges to $s$:
$lim_{m rightarrow infty} s_{n_{2m}} =s ge 0.$
Similarly;
2)$ k=(2m+1)$ then $s_{n_{2m+1}} le 0$, and this subsequence of $s_{n_k}$ converges to $s$.
$lim_{ m rightarrow infty}s_{n_{2m+1}}=s le 0.$
Hence?
Used : If every term of a convergent sequence is $ge 0,$ then the limit is $ge 0$.
answered Nov 20 at 16:18
Peter Szilas
10.1k2720
10.1k2720
I am not sure how your answer differs from mine
– DMH16
Nov 21 at 4:11
DMH16.Same idea, without limsup,liminf.
– Peter Szilas
Nov 21 at 8:36
add a comment |
I am not sure how your answer differs from mine
– DMH16
Nov 21 at 4:11
DMH16.Same idea, without limsup,liminf.
– Peter Szilas
Nov 21 at 8:36
I am not sure how your answer differs from mine
– DMH16
Nov 21 at 4:11
I am not sure how your answer differs from mine
– DMH16
Nov 21 at 4:11
DMH16.Same idea, without limsup,liminf.
– Peter Szilas
Nov 21 at 8:36
DMH16.Same idea, without limsup,liminf.
– Peter Szilas
Nov 21 at 8:36
add a comment |
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%2f3006388%2fproving-that-lim-n-to-inftys-n-0%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
"For these to be equal" -> the sequences are not equal. Their limits (respectively $s$ and $-s$) have to be.
– Clement C.
Nov 20 at 14:45
Sorry, that is what I intended to write
– DMH16
Nov 20 at 14:46