Subsequence

From Maths
Jump to: navigation, search

Definition

Given a sequence (xn)n=1 we define a subsequence of (xn)n=1[1][2] as follows:

  • Given any strictly increasing monotonic sequence[Note 1], (kn)n=1N
    • That means that nN[kn<kn+1][Note 2]

Then the subsequence of (xn) given by (kn) is:

  • (xkn)n=1, the sequence whose terms are: xk1,xk2,,xkn,
    • That is to say the ith element of (xkn) is the kith element of (xn)

As a mapping

Consider an (injective) mapping: k:NN with the property that:

  • a,bN[a<bk(a)<k(b)]

This defines a sequence, (kn)n=1 given by kn:=k(n)

  • Now (xkn)n=1 is a subsequence

Immediate properties

[Expand]

nN[knn] - the kith term of a subsequence cannot correspond to any element before the (but not including) ith term of the main sequence

See also

Notes

  1. <cite_references_link_accessibility_label> Note that strictly increasing cannot be replaced by non-decreasing as the sequence could stay the same (ie a term where mi=mi+1 for example), it didn't decrease, but it didn't increase either. It must be STRICTLY increasing.

    If it was simply "non-decreasing" or just "increasing" then we could define: kn:=5 for all n.
    • Then (xkn)nN is a constant sequence where every term is x5 - the 5th term of (xn).
  2. <cite_references_link_accessibility_label> Some books may simply require increasing, this is wrong. Take the theorem from Equivalent statements to compactness of a metric space which states that a metric space is compact every sequence contains a convergent subequence. If we only require that:
    • knkn+1
    Then we can define the sequence: kn:=1. This defines the subsequence x1,x1,x1,x1, of (xn)n=1 which obviously converges. This defeats the purpose of subsequences. A subsequence should preserve the "forwardness" of a sequence, that is for a sub-sequence the terms are seen in the same order they would be seen in the parent sequence, and also the "sub" part means building a sequence from it, we want to built a sequence by choosing terms, suggesting we ought not use terms twice.
    The mapping definition directly supports this, as the mapping can be thought of as choosing terms
  3. <cite_references_link_accessibility_label> The proof of this is elementary and omitted here. Usually I avoid "exercise for the reader" but they really ought to be able to see it themselves, kids in year 3 can!

References

  1. <cite_references_link_accessibility_label> Analysis - Part 1: Elements - Krzysztof Maurin
  2. <cite_references_link_accessibility_label> Functional Analysis - Volume 1: A gentle introduction - Dzung Minh Ha