Difference between revisions of "Cauchy sequence/Definition"
From Maths
(Created page with "Given a metric space {{M|(X,d)}} and a sequence {{M|1=(x_n)_{n=1}^\infty\subseteq X}} is said to be a ''Cauchy sequence''<ref name="FA">Functiona...") |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | {{:Cauchy sequence/Short definition}}<ref group="Note">Note that in [[Krzysztof Maurin's notation]] this is written as {{MM|1=\bigwedge_{\epsilon>0}\bigvee_{N\in\mathbb{N} }\bigwedge_{m,n>\mathbb{N} }d(x_n,x_m)<\epsilon}} - which is rather elegant</ref><ref group="Note">It doesn't matter if we use {{M|n\ge m>N}} or {{M|n,m\ge N}} because if {{M|1=n=m}} then {{M|1=d(x_n,x_m)=0}}, it doesn't matter which way we consider them (as {{M|n>m}} or {{M|m>n}}) for {{M|1=d(x,y)=d(y,x)}} - I use the ordering to give the impression that as {{M|n}} goes out ahead it never ventures far (as in {{M|\epsilon}}-distance}}) from {{M|x_m}}. This has served me well</ref> | |
| − | + | ||
In words it is simply: | 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. | * 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. | ||
Latest revision as of 13:55, 5 December 2015
Given a metric space [ilmath](X,d)[/ilmath] and a sequence [ilmath](x_n)_{n=1}^\infty\subseteq X[/ilmath] is said to be a Cauchy sequence[1][2] if:
- [ilmath]\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][/ilmath][Note 1][Note 2]
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.
Notes
- ↑ Note that in Krzysztof Maurin's notation this is written as [math]\bigwedge_{\epsilon>0}\bigvee_{N\in\mathbb{N} }\bigwedge_{m,n>\mathbb{N} }d(x_n,x_m)<\epsilon[/math] - which is rather elegant
- ↑ It doesn't matter if we use [ilmath]n\ge m>N[/ilmath] or [ilmath]n,m\ge N[/ilmath] because if [ilmath]n=m[/ilmath] then [ilmath]d(x_n,x_m)=0[/ilmath], it doesn't matter which way we consider them (as [ilmath]n>m[/ilmath] or [ilmath]m>n[/ilmath]) for [ilmath]d(x,y)=d(y,x)[/ilmath] - I use the ordering to give the impression that as [ilmath]n[/ilmath] goes out ahead it never ventures far (as in [ilmath]\epsilon[/ilmath]-distance}}) from [ilmath]x_m[/ilmath]. This has served me well
References
- ↑ Functional Analysis - George Bachman and Lawrence Narici
- ↑ Analysis - Part 1: Elements - Krzysztof Maurin
