Limit (sequence)

From Maths
Revision as of 13:51, 5 December 2015 by Alec (Talk | contribs) (Cauchy sequence: typo)

Jump to: navigation, search
Note: see Limit page for other kinds of limits

Definition

Given a sequence (xn)n=1X, a metric space (X,d) (that is complete) and a point xX, the sequence (xn) is said to[1][Note 1]:

  • have limit x or converge to x

When:

  • ϵ>0NNnN[n>Nd(x,xn)<ϵ][Note 2]
    (note that ϵR, obviously - as the co-domain of d is R)
  • Read this as:
    for all ϵ greater than zero, there exists an N in the natural numbers such that for all n that are also natural we have that:
    whenever n is beyond N that xn is within ϵ of x

Equivalent definitions

Note: where it is not obvious changes have a { underneath them
[Expand]

lim

Discussion

Requiring x\in X

If x\notin X then d(x_n,x) is undefined, as d:X\times X\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{\ge_0} , that is the distance metric is only defined for things in X.

To sidestep this limitation and talk about sequences that would converge if only their limit was in the space we consider Cauchy sequences. It is easy to see that all convergent sequences are Cauchy:

Cauchy sequence

Recall a Cauchy sequence is defined as:
Given a metric space (X,d) and a sequence (x_n)_{n=1}^\infty\subseteq X is said to be a Cauchy sequence[2][3] if:

  • \forall\epsilon > 0\exists N\in\mathbb{N}\forall n,m\in\mathbb{N}[n\ge m> N\implies d(x_m,x_n)<\epsilon][Note 3][Note 4]

In words it is simply:

  • For any arbitrary distance apart, there exists a point such that any two points in the sequence after that point are within that arbitrary distance apart.


Process

[Expand]

Discussion of why the definition is what it is.


See also

Notes

  1. Jump up Actually Maurin gives:
    • \forall\epsilon>0\exists N\in\mathbb{N}\forall n[n\ge N\implies d(x_n,x)<\epsilon] (the change is the \ge sign between the n and N) but as we shall see this doesn't matter
  2. Jump up In Krzysztof Maurin's notation this can be written as:
    • \bigwedge_{\epsilon>0}\bigvee_{N\in\mathbb{N} }\bigwedge_{n>N}d(x_n,x)<\epsilon
  3. Jump up Note that in Krzysztof Maurin's notation this is written as \bigwedge_{\epsilon>0}\bigvee_{N\in\mathbb{N} }\bigwedge_{m,n>\mathbb{N} }d(x_n,x_m)<\epsilon - which is rather elegant
  4. Jump up It doesn't matter if we use n\ge m>N or n,m\ge N because if n=m then d(x_n,x_m)=0, it doesn't matter which way we consider them (as n>m or m>n) for d(x,y)=d(y,x) - I use the ordering to give the impression that as n goes out ahead it never ventures far (as in \epsilon-distance}}) from x_m. This has served me well

References

  1. Jump up Krzysztof Maurin - Analysis - Part 1: Elements
  2. Jump up Functional Analysis - George Bachman and Lawrence Narici
  3. Jump up Analysis - Part 1: Elements - Krzysztof Maurin