Proof verification. If $x_n$ is a monotone sequence and it has a convergent subsequence $x_{n_k}$, then $x_n$...












0












$begingroup$



Let $x_n$ denote a monotone sequence where $nin Bbb N$. Let $x_n$ have a convergent subsequence $x_{n_k}$. Prove that $x_n$ is convergent to the same limit as $x_{n_k}$.




I've decided to consider two separate cases. $x_n$ is either increasing or decreasing. For the case of a stationary sequence the result follows immediately.



Below i'm using the fact that a bounded monotone sequence has a limit.





Case 1. Let $x_n$ be a monotonically increasing sequence. Thus:
$$
x_{n+1} ge x_n
$$



Consider a subsequence of $x_n$ namely $x_{n_k}$. Then:
$$
x_{n_k} ge x_n, forall n_k ge n
$$



We are also given that:
$$
lim_{ktoinfty} x_{n_k} = L
$$



Given that fact we know that $x_{n_k}$ is bounded above. Therefore:
$$
x_n le x_{n_k} le L
$$



Now by monotone convergence theorem a monotone bounded sequence must be convergent. Also by uniqueness of a limit for a convergent sequence and the fact that all its subsequences are also convergent to the same limit:
$$
lim_{ktoinfty}x_{n_k} = lim_{ntoinfty}x_n = L
$$





Case 2. I know of two possible ways to follow for this case. First is reproduce the reasoning above for the monodically decreasing sequence, which is almost the same as case 1. Or, as mentioned in comments, consider a new sequence:
$$
y_n = (-x_n)_n
$$

Then the result follows immediately from case 1.




Is my proof rigorous enough to consider it complete?











share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I don't like the "take the limit of both sides" step. You're trying to show that the sequence has a limit, and without knowing that it has a limit beforehand, then the step is potentially meaningless. I would use the monotone convergence theorem.
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 7 at 13:36










  • $begingroup$
    @TheoBendit You're right, but MCT is hilariously overkill for this (and might well be circular, depending on how you proved MCT). Instead, use the bound on the distance from the terms of the subsequence to its limit to establish a bound on the distance from an arbitrary term to the limit.
    $endgroup$
    – user3482749
    Jan 7 at 13:38










  • $begingroup$
    @TheoBendit Thank you for the notice, i've updated the post
    $endgroup$
    – roman
    Jan 7 at 13:39










  • $begingroup$
    @user3482749 I could only see it be circular when proving the MCT from local compactness of the real line. Is that a common approach?
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 7 at 13:43






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @user3482749 The MCT is a nail in a board at best. It's a very fundamental, close-to-the-metal tool in a real analysts toolkit. The asker is clearly looking for an elegance to the proof and avoiding epsilons and deltas. I think the MCT is (typically) a fine tool to use. Also, I just don't see Heine-Borel being proven before MCT. :-P
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 7 at 13:50
















0












$begingroup$



Let $x_n$ denote a monotone sequence where $nin Bbb N$. Let $x_n$ have a convergent subsequence $x_{n_k}$. Prove that $x_n$ is convergent to the same limit as $x_{n_k}$.




I've decided to consider two separate cases. $x_n$ is either increasing or decreasing. For the case of a stationary sequence the result follows immediately.



Below i'm using the fact that a bounded monotone sequence has a limit.





Case 1. Let $x_n$ be a monotonically increasing sequence. Thus:
$$
x_{n+1} ge x_n
$$



Consider a subsequence of $x_n$ namely $x_{n_k}$. Then:
$$
x_{n_k} ge x_n, forall n_k ge n
$$



We are also given that:
$$
lim_{ktoinfty} x_{n_k} = L
$$



Given that fact we know that $x_{n_k}$ is bounded above. Therefore:
$$
x_n le x_{n_k} le L
$$



Now by monotone convergence theorem a monotone bounded sequence must be convergent. Also by uniqueness of a limit for a convergent sequence and the fact that all its subsequences are also convergent to the same limit:
$$
lim_{ktoinfty}x_{n_k} = lim_{ntoinfty}x_n = L
$$





Case 2. I know of two possible ways to follow for this case. First is reproduce the reasoning above for the monodically decreasing sequence, which is almost the same as case 1. Or, as mentioned in comments, consider a new sequence:
$$
y_n = (-x_n)_n
$$

Then the result follows immediately from case 1.




Is my proof rigorous enough to consider it complete?











share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I don't like the "take the limit of both sides" step. You're trying to show that the sequence has a limit, and without knowing that it has a limit beforehand, then the step is potentially meaningless. I would use the monotone convergence theorem.
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 7 at 13:36










  • $begingroup$
    @TheoBendit You're right, but MCT is hilariously overkill for this (and might well be circular, depending on how you proved MCT). Instead, use the bound on the distance from the terms of the subsequence to its limit to establish a bound on the distance from an arbitrary term to the limit.
    $endgroup$
    – user3482749
    Jan 7 at 13:38










  • $begingroup$
    @TheoBendit Thank you for the notice, i've updated the post
    $endgroup$
    – roman
    Jan 7 at 13:39










  • $begingroup$
    @user3482749 I could only see it be circular when proving the MCT from local compactness of the real line. Is that a common approach?
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 7 at 13:43






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @user3482749 The MCT is a nail in a board at best. It's a very fundamental, close-to-the-metal tool in a real analysts toolkit. The asker is clearly looking for an elegance to the proof and avoiding epsilons and deltas. I think the MCT is (typically) a fine tool to use. Also, I just don't see Heine-Borel being proven before MCT. :-P
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 7 at 13:50














0












0








0





$begingroup$



Let $x_n$ denote a monotone sequence where $nin Bbb N$. Let $x_n$ have a convergent subsequence $x_{n_k}$. Prove that $x_n$ is convergent to the same limit as $x_{n_k}$.




I've decided to consider two separate cases. $x_n$ is either increasing or decreasing. For the case of a stationary sequence the result follows immediately.



Below i'm using the fact that a bounded monotone sequence has a limit.





Case 1. Let $x_n$ be a monotonically increasing sequence. Thus:
$$
x_{n+1} ge x_n
$$



Consider a subsequence of $x_n$ namely $x_{n_k}$. Then:
$$
x_{n_k} ge x_n, forall n_k ge n
$$



We are also given that:
$$
lim_{ktoinfty} x_{n_k} = L
$$



Given that fact we know that $x_{n_k}$ is bounded above. Therefore:
$$
x_n le x_{n_k} le L
$$



Now by monotone convergence theorem a monotone bounded sequence must be convergent. Also by uniqueness of a limit for a convergent sequence and the fact that all its subsequences are also convergent to the same limit:
$$
lim_{ktoinfty}x_{n_k} = lim_{ntoinfty}x_n = L
$$





Case 2. I know of two possible ways to follow for this case. First is reproduce the reasoning above for the monodically decreasing sequence, which is almost the same as case 1. Or, as mentioned in comments, consider a new sequence:
$$
y_n = (-x_n)_n
$$

Then the result follows immediately from case 1.




Is my proof rigorous enough to consider it complete?











share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$





Let $x_n$ denote a monotone sequence where $nin Bbb N$. Let $x_n$ have a convergent subsequence $x_{n_k}$. Prove that $x_n$ is convergent to the same limit as $x_{n_k}$.




I've decided to consider two separate cases. $x_n$ is either increasing or decreasing. For the case of a stationary sequence the result follows immediately.



Below i'm using the fact that a bounded monotone sequence has a limit.





Case 1. Let $x_n$ be a monotonically increasing sequence. Thus:
$$
x_{n+1} ge x_n
$$



Consider a subsequence of $x_n$ namely $x_{n_k}$. Then:
$$
x_{n_k} ge x_n, forall n_k ge n
$$



We are also given that:
$$
lim_{ktoinfty} x_{n_k} = L
$$



Given that fact we know that $x_{n_k}$ is bounded above. Therefore:
$$
x_n le x_{n_k} le L
$$



Now by monotone convergence theorem a monotone bounded sequence must be convergent. Also by uniqueness of a limit for a convergent sequence and the fact that all its subsequences are also convergent to the same limit:
$$
lim_{ktoinfty}x_{n_k} = lim_{ntoinfty}x_n = L
$$





Case 2. I know of two possible ways to follow for this case. First is reproduce the reasoning above for the monodically decreasing sequence, which is almost the same as case 1. Or, as mentioned in comments, consider a new sequence:
$$
y_n = (-x_n)_n
$$

Then the result follows immediately from case 1.




Is my proof rigorous enough to consider it complete?








calculus sequences-and-series limits proof-verification






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 7 at 14:04







roman

















asked Jan 7 at 13:33









romanroman

2,50721226




2,50721226












  • $begingroup$
    I don't like the "take the limit of both sides" step. You're trying to show that the sequence has a limit, and without knowing that it has a limit beforehand, then the step is potentially meaningless. I would use the monotone convergence theorem.
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 7 at 13:36










  • $begingroup$
    @TheoBendit You're right, but MCT is hilariously overkill for this (and might well be circular, depending on how you proved MCT). Instead, use the bound on the distance from the terms of the subsequence to its limit to establish a bound on the distance from an arbitrary term to the limit.
    $endgroup$
    – user3482749
    Jan 7 at 13:38










  • $begingroup$
    @TheoBendit Thank you for the notice, i've updated the post
    $endgroup$
    – roman
    Jan 7 at 13:39










  • $begingroup$
    @user3482749 I could only see it be circular when proving the MCT from local compactness of the real line. Is that a common approach?
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 7 at 13:43






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @user3482749 The MCT is a nail in a board at best. It's a very fundamental, close-to-the-metal tool in a real analysts toolkit. The asker is clearly looking for an elegance to the proof and avoiding epsilons and deltas. I think the MCT is (typically) a fine tool to use. Also, I just don't see Heine-Borel being proven before MCT. :-P
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 7 at 13:50


















  • $begingroup$
    I don't like the "take the limit of both sides" step. You're trying to show that the sequence has a limit, and without knowing that it has a limit beforehand, then the step is potentially meaningless. I would use the monotone convergence theorem.
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 7 at 13:36










  • $begingroup$
    @TheoBendit You're right, but MCT is hilariously overkill for this (and might well be circular, depending on how you proved MCT). Instead, use the bound on the distance from the terms of the subsequence to its limit to establish a bound on the distance from an arbitrary term to the limit.
    $endgroup$
    – user3482749
    Jan 7 at 13:38










  • $begingroup$
    @TheoBendit Thank you for the notice, i've updated the post
    $endgroup$
    – roman
    Jan 7 at 13:39










  • $begingroup$
    @user3482749 I could only see it be circular when proving the MCT from local compactness of the real line. Is that a common approach?
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 7 at 13:43






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @user3482749 The MCT is a nail in a board at best. It's a very fundamental, close-to-the-metal tool in a real analysts toolkit. The asker is clearly looking for an elegance to the proof and avoiding epsilons and deltas. I think the MCT is (typically) a fine tool to use. Also, I just don't see Heine-Borel being proven before MCT. :-P
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 7 at 13:50
















$begingroup$
I don't like the "take the limit of both sides" step. You're trying to show that the sequence has a limit, and without knowing that it has a limit beforehand, then the step is potentially meaningless. I would use the monotone convergence theorem.
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Jan 7 at 13:36




$begingroup$
I don't like the "take the limit of both sides" step. You're trying to show that the sequence has a limit, and without knowing that it has a limit beforehand, then the step is potentially meaningless. I would use the monotone convergence theorem.
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Jan 7 at 13:36












$begingroup$
@TheoBendit You're right, but MCT is hilariously overkill for this (and might well be circular, depending on how you proved MCT). Instead, use the bound on the distance from the terms of the subsequence to its limit to establish a bound on the distance from an arbitrary term to the limit.
$endgroup$
– user3482749
Jan 7 at 13:38




$begingroup$
@TheoBendit You're right, but MCT is hilariously overkill for this (and might well be circular, depending on how you proved MCT). Instead, use the bound on the distance from the terms of the subsequence to its limit to establish a bound on the distance from an arbitrary term to the limit.
$endgroup$
– user3482749
Jan 7 at 13:38












$begingroup$
@TheoBendit Thank you for the notice, i've updated the post
$endgroup$
– roman
Jan 7 at 13:39




$begingroup$
@TheoBendit Thank you for the notice, i've updated the post
$endgroup$
– roman
Jan 7 at 13:39












$begingroup$
@user3482749 I could only see it be circular when proving the MCT from local compactness of the real line. Is that a common approach?
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Jan 7 at 13:43




$begingroup$
@user3482749 I could only see it be circular when proving the MCT from local compactness of the real line. Is that a common approach?
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Jan 7 at 13:43




1




1




$begingroup$
@user3482749 The MCT is a nail in a board at best. It's a very fundamental, close-to-the-metal tool in a real analysts toolkit. The asker is clearly looking for an elegance to the proof and avoiding epsilons and deltas. I think the MCT is (typically) a fine tool to use. Also, I just don't see Heine-Borel being proven before MCT. :-P
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Jan 7 at 13:50




$begingroup$
@user3482749 The MCT is a nail in a board at best. It's a very fundamental, close-to-the-metal tool in a real analysts toolkit. The asker is clearly looking for an elegance to the proof and avoiding epsilons and deltas. I think the MCT is (typically) a fine tool to use. Also, I just don't see Heine-Borel being proven before MCT. :-P
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Jan 7 at 13:50










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

Here's a more formal (and shorter) proof:



Let $(x_{n_k})$ be a convergent subsequence of $(x_n)$, which we know exists, and let $L$ be its limit. Then, given any $varepsilon > 0$, there is some $K in mathbb{N}$ such that for all $k geq K$, $|x_{n_k} - L| < varepsilon$ (this is the definition of the limit).



Now, for any $n geq n_K$, we will show than $|x_n - L| < varepsilon$, which will complete the proof. For this purpose, suppose that this is not true. Then there is some $n geq n_K$ such that $|x_n - L| geq varepsilon > |x_{n_K} - L|$.



First, note that if $x_1 leq L$ then we must have $x_i leq L$ for all $i$: if not, then we have some $i$, such that $x_1 leq L < x_i$, but then for all $m > i$, $x_m geq x_i > L$, so $|x_m - L| geq |x_i - L| > 0$, so in particular, $(x_{n_k})notto L$, a contradiction. Symmetrically, if $x_1 geq L$, then $x_i geq L$ for all $i$.



Now, we have a problem: we have either $x_n geq L + varepsilon > x_{n_K} geq L$ or $x_nleq L - varepsilon < x_{n_K} leq L$, but then monotonicity gives us either $x_m geq L + varepsilon$ or $x_m leq L - varepsilon$ for all $m geq n$, in particular for all but finitely many $n_k$, so $|x_{n_k} - L| geq varepsilon$ for all but finitely many $n_k$, so $(x_{n_k})notto L$, a contradiction.



Thus, we must have $|x_n - L| <varepsilon$ for all $n geq n_K$, hence $(x_n)to L$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Even though you've used some bare metal machinery this is still a nice alternative. Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – roman
    Jan 7 at 14:09












Your Answer








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%2f3065011%2fproof-verification-if-x-n-is-a-monotone-sequence-and-it-has-a-convergent-subs%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









1












$begingroup$

Here's a more formal (and shorter) proof:



Let $(x_{n_k})$ be a convergent subsequence of $(x_n)$, which we know exists, and let $L$ be its limit. Then, given any $varepsilon > 0$, there is some $K in mathbb{N}$ such that for all $k geq K$, $|x_{n_k} - L| < varepsilon$ (this is the definition of the limit).



Now, for any $n geq n_K$, we will show than $|x_n - L| < varepsilon$, which will complete the proof. For this purpose, suppose that this is not true. Then there is some $n geq n_K$ such that $|x_n - L| geq varepsilon > |x_{n_K} - L|$.



First, note that if $x_1 leq L$ then we must have $x_i leq L$ for all $i$: if not, then we have some $i$, such that $x_1 leq L < x_i$, but then for all $m > i$, $x_m geq x_i > L$, so $|x_m - L| geq |x_i - L| > 0$, so in particular, $(x_{n_k})notto L$, a contradiction. Symmetrically, if $x_1 geq L$, then $x_i geq L$ for all $i$.



Now, we have a problem: we have either $x_n geq L + varepsilon > x_{n_K} geq L$ or $x_nleq L - varepsilon < x_{n_K} leq L$, but then monotonicity gives us either $x_m geq L + varepsilon$ or $x_m leq L - varepsilon$ for all $m geq n$, in particular for all but finitely many $n_k$, so $|x_{n_k} - L| geq varepsilon$ for all but finitely many $n_k$, so $(x_{n_k})notto L$, a contradiction.



Thus, we must have $|x_n - L| <varepsilon$ for all $n geq n_K$, hence $(x_n)to L$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Even though you've used some bare metal machinery this is still a nice alternative. Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – roman
    Jan 7 at 14:09
















1












$begingroup$

Here's a more formal (and shorter) proof:



Let $(x_{n_k})$ be a convergent subsequence of $(x_n)$, which we know exists, and let $L$ be its limit. Then, given any $varepsilon > 0$, there is some $K in mathbb{N}$ such that for all $k geq K$, $|x_{n_k} - L| < varepsilon$ (this is the definition of the limit).



Now, for any $n geq n_K$, we will show than $|x_n - L| < varepsilon$, which will complete the proof. For this purpose, suppose that this is not true. Then there is some $n geq n_K$ such that $|x_n - L| geq varepsilon > |x_{n_K} - L|$.



First, note that if $x_1 leq L$ then we must have $x_i leq L$ for all $i$: if not, then we have some $i$, such that $x_1 leq L < x_i$, but then for all $m > i$, $x_m geq x_i > L$, so $|x_m - L| geq |x_i - L| > 0$, so in particular, $(x_{n_k})notto L$, a contradiction. Symmetrically, if $x_1 geq L$, then $x_i geq L$ for all $i$.



Now, we have a problem: we have either $x_n geq L + varepsilon > x_{n_K} geq L$ or $x_nleq L - varepsilon < x_{n_K} leq L$, but then monotonicity gives us either $x_m geq L + varepsilon$ or $x_m leq L - varepsilon$ for all $m geq n$, in particular for all but finitely many $n_k$, so $|x_{n_k} - L| geq varepsilon$ for all but finitely many $n_k$, so $(x_{n_k})notto L$, a contradiction.



Thus, we must have $|x_n - L| <varepsilon$ for all $n geq n_K$, hence $(x_n)to L$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Even though you've used some bare metal machinery this is still a nice alternative. Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – roman
    Jan 7 at 14:09














1












1








1





$begingroup$

Here's a more formal (and shorter) proof:



Let $(x_{n_k})$ be a convergent subsequence of $(x_n)$, which we know exists, and let $L$ be its limit. Then, given any $varepsilon > 0$, there is some $K in mathbb{N}$ such that for all $k geq K$, $|x_{n_k} - L| < varepsilon$ (this is the definition of the limit).



Now, for any $n geq n_K$, we will show than $|x_n - L| < varepsilon$, which will complete the proof. For this purpose, suppose that this is not true. Then there is some $n geq n_K$ such that $|x_n - L| geq varepsilon > |x_{n_K} - L|$.



First, note that if $x_1 leq L$ then we must have $x_i leq L$ for all $i$: if not, then we have some $i$, such that $x_1 leq L < x_i$, but then for all $m > i$, $x_m geq x_i > L$, so $|x_m - L| geq |x_i - L| > 0$, so in particular, $(x_{n_k})notto L$, a contradiction. Symmetrically, if $x_1 geq L$, then $x_i geq L$ for all $i$.



Now, we have a problem: we have either $x_n geq L + varepsilon > x_{n_K} geq L$ or $x_nleq L - varepsilon < x_{n_K} leq L$, but then monotonicity gives us either $x_m geq L + varepsilon$ or $x_m leq L - varepsilon$ for all $m geq n$, in particular for all but finitely many $n_k$, so $|x_{n_k} - L| geq varepsilon$ for all but finitely many $n_k$, so $(x_{n_k})notto L$, a contradiction.



Thus, we must have $|x_n - L| <varepsilon$ for all $n geq n_K$, hence $(x_n)to L$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Here's a more formal (and shorter) proof:



Let $(x_{n_k})$ be a convergent subsequence of $(x_n)$, which we know exists, and let $L$ be its limit. Then, given any $varepsilon > 0$, there is some $K in mathbb{N}$ such that for all $k geq K$, $|x_{n_k} - L| < varepsilon$ (this is the definition of the limit).



Now, for any $n geq n_K$, we will show than $|x_n - L| < varepsilon$, which will complete the proof. For this purpose, suppose that this is not true. Then there is some $n geq n_K$ such that $|x_n - L| geq varepsilon > |x_{n_K} - L|$.



First, note that if $x_1 leq L$ then we must have $x_i leq L$ for all $i$: if not, then we have some $i$, such that $x_1 leq L < x_i$, but then for all $m > i$, $x_m geq x_i > L$, so $|x_m - L| geq |x_i - L| > 0$, so in particular, $(x_{n_k})notto L$, a contradiction. Symmetrically, if $x_1 geq L$, then $x_i geq L$ for all $i$.



Now, we have a problem: we have either $x_n geq L + varepsilon > x_{n_K} geq L$ or $x_nleq L - varepsilon < x_{n_K} leq L$, but then monotonicity gives us either $x_m geq L + varepsilon$ or $x_m leq L - varepsilon$ for all $m geq n$, in particular for all but finitely many $n_k$, so $|x_{n_k} - L| geq varepsilon$ for all but finitely many $n_k$, so $(x_{n_k})notto L$, a contradiction.



Thus, we must have $|x_n - L| <varepsilon$ for all $n geq n_K$, hence $(x_n)to L$.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Jan 7 at 13:58









user3482749user3482749

4,3291119




4,3291119












  • $begingroup$
    Even though you've used some bare metal machinery this is still a nice alternative. Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – roman
    Jan 7 at 14:09


















  • $begingroup$
    Even though you've used some bare metal machinery this is still a nice alternative. Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – roman
    Jan 7 at 14:09
















$begingroup$
Even though you've used some bare metal machinery this is still a nice alternative. Thank you!
$endgroup$
– roman
Jan 7 at 14:09




$begingroup$
Even though you've used some bare metal machinery this is still a nice alternative. Thank you!
$endgroup$
– roman
Jan 7 at 14:09


















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%2f3065011%2fproof-verification-if-x-n-is-a-monotone-sequence-and-it-has-a-convergent-subs%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

Wiesbaden

Marschland

Dieringhausen