Prove the alternating sum of a decreasing sequence converging to 0 is Cauchy. Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar ManaraSuppose for all positive integers $n$, $|x_n-y_n|< frac1n$ Prove that $(x_n)$ is also Cauchy.Proof check for completenessProve that $d_n$ is a Cauchy sequence in $mathbbR$Prove $aX_n +bY_n$ is a Cauchy Sequence.Prove a sequence is a Cauchy and thus convergentIf $(x_n)$ and $(y_n)$ are Cauchy sequences, then give a direct argument that $ (x_n + y_n)$ is a Cauchy sequenceIf $x_n$ and $y_n$ are Cauchy then $leftfrac2x_ny_nright$ is CauchyLet $x_n$ be a Cauchy sequence of rational numbers. Define a new sequence $y_n$ by $y_n = (x_n)(x_n+1)$. Show that $y_n$ is a CS.Let $x_n$ be a Cauchy sequence of real numbers, prove that a new sequence $y_n$, with $y_n$=$x_n^frac13$, is also a Cauchy sequence.$x_n rightarrow x$ iff the modified sequence is Cauchy

Is Electric Central Heating worth it if using Solar Panels?

Second order approximation of the loss function (Deep learning book, 7.33)

Can I criticise the more senior developers around me for not writing clean code?

How to open locks without disable device?

Why does the Cisco show run command not show the full version, while the show version command does?

Multiple fireplaces in an apartment building?

Passing args from the bash script to the function in the script

What to do with someone that cheated their way through university and a PhD program?

Arriving in Atlanta after US Preclearance in Dublin. Will I go through TSA security in Atlanta to transfer to a connecting flight?

What is this word supposed to be?

Co-worker works way more than he should

What’s with the clanks in Endgame?

Are these square matrices always diagonalisable?

Map material from china not allowed to leave the country

Trumpet valves, lengths, and pitch

My bank got bought out, am I now going to have to start filing tax returns in a different state?

Mistake in years of experience in resume?

A strange hotel

PIC mathematical operations weird problem

How to keep bees out of canned beverages?

Rolling Stones Sway guitar solo chord function

Can you stand up from being prone using Skirmisher outside of your turn?

Seek and ye shall find

How to not starve gigantic beasts



Prove the alternating sum of a decreasing sequence converging to 0 is Cauchy.



Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar ManaraSuppose for all positive integers $n$, $|x_n-y_n|< frac1n$ Prove that $(x_n)$ is also Cauchy.Proof check for completenessProve that $d_n$ is a Cauchy sequence in $mathbbR$Prove $aX_n +bY_n$ is a Cauchy Sequence.Prove a sequence is a Cauchy and thus convergentIf $(x_n)$ and $(y_n)$ are Cauchy sequences, then give a direct argument that $ (x_n + y_n)$ is a Cauchy sequenceIf $x_n$ and $y_n$ are Cauchy then $leftfrac2x_ny_nright$ is CauchyLet $x_n$ be a Cauchy sequence of rational numbers. Define a new sequence $y_n$ by $y_n = (x_n)(x_n+1)$. Show that $y_n$ is a CS.Let $x_n$ be a Cauchy sequence of real numbers, prove that a new sequence $y_n$, with $y_n$=$x_n^frac13$, is also a Cauchy sequence.$x_n rightarrow x$ iff the modified sequence is Cauchy










2












$begingroup$


Let $(x_n)$ be a decreasing sequence with $x_n > 0$ for all $n in mathbbN$, and $(x_n) to 0$. Let $(y_n)$ be defined for all $n in mathbbN$ by
$$y_n = x_0 - x_1 + x_2 - cdots + (-1)^n x_n .$$



I want to show, using the $varepsilon$ definition, that $(y_n)$ is Cauchy.



I am trying to find, given $varepsilon > 0$, a real number $N$ such that for all $m$ and $n$ with $m > n > N$, $|y_m - y_n| < varepsilon$.



I have been going backwards to try and find $N$, and have
beginalign*
|y_m - y_n| & = left| (x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_m) - (x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_n) right| \
|y_m - y_n| & = left| x_n + 1 - x_n + 2 + cdots pm x_m right| \
|y_m - y_n| & leq | x_n + 1 | + | x_n + 2 | + cdots + | x_m | \
|y_m - y_n| & leq ?
endalign*



I do not know how to get a solution from there, and am not sure about the process, particurlary the last step since I feel getting rid of the minuses might prevent me from finding a solution.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Because the series is alternating and decreasing, I think you can prove by induction on $m$ that $|y_m-y_n| leq |y_n|$.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @RobertShore is my answer okay?
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @RobertShore yes I can definitely show that, but it brings me to the same issue with $|y_m| leq |x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_m|$, and I am unsure how to proceed from there.
    $endgroup$
    – oranji
    43 mins ago
















2












$begingroup$


Let $(x_n)$ be a decreasing sequence with $x_n > 0$ for all $n in mathbbN$, and $(x_n) to 0$. Let $(y_n)$ be defined for all $n in mathbbN$ by
$$y_n = x_0 - x_1 + x_2 - cdots + (-1)^n x_n .$$



I want to show, using the $varepsilon$ definition, that $(y_n)$ is Cauchy.



I am trying to find, given $varepsilon > 0$, a real number $N$ such that for all $m$ and $n$ with $m > n > N$, $|y_m - y_n| < varepsilon$.



I have been going backwards to try and find $N$, and have
beginalign*
|y_m - y_n| & = left| (x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_m) - (x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_n) right| \
|y_m - y_n| & = left| x_n + 1 - x_n + 2 + cdots pm x_m right| \
|y_m - y_n| & leq | x_n + 1 | + | x_n + 2 | + cdots + | x_m | \
|y_m - y_n| & leq ?
endalign*



I do not know how to get a solution from there, and am not sure about the process, particurlary the last step since I feel getting rid of the minuses might prevent me from finding a solution.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Because the series is alternating and decreasing, I think you can prove by induction on $m$ that $|y_m-y_n| leq |y_n|$.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @RobertShore is my answer okay?
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @RobertShore yes I can definitely show that, but it brings me to the same issue with $|y_m| leq |x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_m|$, and I am unsure how to proceed from there.
    $endgroup$
    – oranji
    43 mins ago














2












2








2


1



$begingroup$


Let $(x_n)$ be a decreasing sequence with $x_n > 0$ for all $n in mathbbN$, and $(x_n) to 0$. Let $(y_n)$ be defined for all $n in mathbbN$ by
$$y_n = x_0 - x_1 + x_2 - cdots + (-1)^n x_n .$$



I want to show, using the $varepsilon$ definition, that $(y_n)$ is Cauchy.



I am trying to find, given $varepsilon > 0$, a real number $N$ such that for all $m$ and $n$ with $m > n > N$, $|y_m - y_n| < varepsilon$.



I have been going backwards to try and find $N$, and have
beginalign*
|y_m - y_n| & = left| (x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_m) - (x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_n) right| \
|y_m - y_n| & = left| x_n + 1 - x_n + 2 + cdots pm x_m right| \
|y_m - y_n| & leq | x_n + 1 | + | x_n + 2 | + cdots + | x_m | \
|y_m - y_n| & leq ?
endalign*



I do not know how to get a solution from there, and am not sure about the process, particurlary the last step since I feel getting rid of the minuses might prevent me from finding a solution.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




Let $(x_n)$ be a decreasing sequence with $x_n > 0$ for all $n in mathbbN$, and $(x_n) to 0$. Let $(y_n)$ be defined for all $n in mathbbN$ by
$$y_n = x_0 - x_1 + x_2 - cdots + (-1)^n x_n .$$



I want to show, using the $varepsilon$ definition, that $(y_n)$ is Cauchy.



I am trying to find, given $varepsilon > 0$, a real number $N$ such that for all $m$ and $n$ with $m > n > N$, $|y_m - y_n| < varepsilon$.



I have been going backwards to try and find $N$, and have
beginalign*
|y_m - y_n| & = left| (x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_m) - (x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_n) right| \
|y_m - y_n| & = left| x_n + 1 - x_n + 2 + cdots pm x_m right| \
|y_m - y_n| & leq | x_n + 1 | + | x_n + 2 | + cdots + | x_m | \
|y_m - y_n| & leq ?
endalign*



I do not know how to get a solution from there, and am not sure about the process, particurlary the last step since I feel getting rid of the minuses might prevent me from finding a solution.







real-analysis cauchy-sequences






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 3 hours ago









oranjioranji

616




616







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Because the series is alternating and decreasing, I think you can prove by induction on $m$ that $|y_m-y_n| leq |y_n|$.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @RobertShore is my answer okay?
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @RobertShore yes I can definitely show that, but it brings me to the same issue with $|y_m| leq |x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_m|$, and I am unsure how to proceed from there.
    $endgroup$
    – oranji
    43 mins ago













  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Because the series is alternating and decreasing, I think you can prove by induction on $m$ that $|y_m-y_n| leq |y_n|$.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @RobertShore is my answer okay?
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @RobertShore yes I can definitely show that, but it brings me to the same issue with $|y_m| leq |x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_m|$, and I am unsure how to proceed from there.
    $endgroup$
    – oranji
    43 mins ago








1




1




$begingroup$
Because the series is alternating and decreasing, I think you can prove by induction on $m$ that $|y_m-y_n| leq |y_n|$.
$endgroup$
– Robert Shore
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
Because the series is alternating and decreasing, I think you can prove by induction on $m$ that $|y_m-y_n| leq |y_n|$.
$endgroup$
– Robert Shore
3 hours ago












$begingroup$
@RobertShore is my answer okay?
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
@RobertShore is my answer okay?
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
3 hours ago












$begingroup$
@RobertShore yes I can definitely show that, but it brings me to the same issue with $|y_m| leq |x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_m|$, and I am unsure how to proceed from there.
$endgroup$
– oranji
43 mins ago





$begingroup$
@RobertShore yes I can definitely show that, but it brings me to the same issue with $|y_m| leq |x_0 - x_1 + cdots pm x_m|$, and I am unsure how to proceed from there.
$endgroup$
– oranji
43 mins ago











2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

To see that the sequence of partial sums is Cauchy, you cannot use the triangle inequality directly as you did. A famous counter example here is $sum_k=1^inftyfrac(-1)^kk$.



What you can do is grouping the terms of the partial sums $s_n= sum_j=1^n(-1)^jx_j$ as follows:



  • Let $m = n+k, k,n in mathbbN$

Now, you can write $|s_m - s_n|$ in two different ways:



$$|s_n+k - s_n| = begincases
|x_n+1 - (x_n+2-x_n+3) - cdots - (x_n+2i-x_n+2i+1)| & k = 2i+1 \
|x_n+1 - (x_n+2-x_n+3) - cdots - (x_n+2i-2-x_n+2i-1) - x_2i| & k = 2i \
endcases
$$



$$|s_n+k - s_n| = begincases
|(x_n+1 - x_n+2) + cdots + (x_n+2i-1-x_n+2i) + x_n+2i+1| & k = 2i+1 \
|(x_n+1 - x_n+2) + cdots + (x_n+2i-1-x_n+2i) | & k = 2i \
endcases
$$



Using the fact that $x_n searrow 0$, it follows immediately that for all $k in mathbbN$ holds
$$|s_n+k - s_n| leq x_n+1$$



Hence, for $epsilon > 0$ choose $N_epsilon$ such that $x_N_epsilon < epsilon$. Then, for all $m> n > N_epsilon$ you have
$$|s_m - s_n| leq x_n+1 leq x_N_epsilon < epsilon$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    This is exactly what I was about to do.
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    42 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @SubhasisBiswas So, I did it for you :-D
    $endgroup$
    – trancelocation
    41 mins ago


















2












$begingroup$

This is also known as the "Leibnitz's Test".



We write $s_n = x_1-x_2+x_3-...+(-1)^n+1x_n$



$s_2n+2-s_2n=u_2n+1-u_2n+2 geq0$ for all $n$.



$s_2n+1-s_2n-1=-u_2n+u_2n+1 leq 0$



$s_2n =u_1 -(u_2-u_3)-(u_4-u_5)...-u_2n leq u_1$, i.e. a monotone increasing sequence bounded above.



$s_2n+1 =(u_1 -u_2)+(u_3-u_4)+...+u_2n+1 geq u_1-u_2$, i.e. a monotone decreasing sequence bounded below.



Hence, both are convergent subsequences of $(s_n)$. But, we have $lim (s_2n+1-s_2n)=u_2n+1=0$, therefore, they converge to the same limit.



Hence, $(s_n)$ converges, i.e. it is Cauchy.



Note: We conclude that $(s_n)$ converges because the indices of the two subsequences $(s_2n)$ and $(s_2n+1)$ i.e. $U = 2n+1 : n in mathbbN$ and $V = 2n : n in mathbbN$ form a partition of $mathbbN$ and they both converge to the same limit.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I want to use the $varepsilon$ definition of a Cauchy sequence, and not the fact that all convergent sequences are Cauchy, which is why I cannot use this solution.
    $endgroup$
    – oranji
    46 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    I'll edit this answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    43 mins ago











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%2f3201256%2fprove-the-alternating-sum-of-a-decreasing-sequence-converging-to-0-is-cauchy%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2












$begingroup$

To see that the sequence of partial sums is Cauchy, you cannot use the triangle inequality directly as you did. A famous counter example here is $sum_k=1^inftyfrac(-1)^kk$.



What you can do is grouping the terms of the partial sums $s_n= sum_j=1^n(-1)^jx_j$ as follows:



  • Let $m = n+k, k,n in mathbbN$

Now, you can write $|s_m - s_n|$ in two different ways:



$$|s_n+k - s_n| = begincases
|x_n+1 - (x_n+2-x_n+3) - cdots - (x_n+2i-x_n+2i+1)| & k = 2i+1 \
|x_n+1 - (x_n+2-x_n+3) - cdots - (x_n+2i-2-x_n+2i-1) - x_2i| & k = 2i \
endcases
$$



$$|s_n+k - s_n| = begincases
|(x_n+1 - x_n+2) + cdots + (x_n+2i-1-x_n+2i) + x_n+2i+1| & k = 2i+1 \
|(x_n+1 - x_n+2) + cdots + (x_n+2i-1-x_n+2i) | & k = 2i \
endcases
$$



Using the fact that $x_n searrow 0$, it follows immediately that for all $k in mathbbN$ holds
$$|s_n+k - s_n| leq x_n+1$$



Hence, for $epsilon > 0$ choose $N_epsilon$ such that $x_N_epsilon < epsilon$. Then, for all $m> n > N_epsilon$ you have
$$|s_m - s_n| leq x_n+1 leq x_N_epsilon < epsilon$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    This is exactly what I was about to do.
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    42 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @SubhasisBiswas So, I did it for you :-D
    $endgroup$
    – trancelocation
    41 mins ago















2












$begingroup$

To see that the sequence of partial sums is Cauchy, you cannot use the triangle inequality directly as you did. A famous counter example here is $sum_k=1^inftyfrac(-1)^kk$.



What you can do is grouping the terms of the partial sums $s_n= sum_j=1^n(-1)^jx_j$ as follows:



  • Let $m = n+k, k,n in mathbbN$

Now, you can write $|s_m - s_n|$ in two different ways:



$$|s_n+k - s_n| = begincases
|x_n+1 - (x_n+2-x_n+3) - cdots - (x_n+2i-x_n+2i+1)| & k = 2i+1 \
|x_n+1 - (x_n+2-x_n+3) - cdots - (x_n+2i-2-x_n+2i-1) - x_2i| & k = 2i \
endcases
$$



$$|s_n+k - s_n| = begincases
|(x_n+1 - x_n+2) + cdots + (x_n+2i-1-x_n+2i) + x_n+2i+1| & k = 2i+1 \
|(x_n+1 - x_n+2) + cdots + (x_n+2i-1-x_n+2i) | & k = 2i \
endcases
$$



Using the fact that $x_n searrow 0$, it follows immediately that for all $k in mathbbN$ holds
$$|s_n+k - s_n| leq x_n+1$$



Hence, for $epsilon > 0$ choose $N_epsilon$ such that $x_N_epsilon < epsilon$. Then, for all $m> n > N_epsilon$ you have
$$|s_m - s_n| leq x_n+1 leq x_N_epsilon < epsilon$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    This is exactly what I was about to do.
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    42 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @SubhasisBiswas So, I did it for you :-D
    $endgroup$
    – trancelocation
    41 mins ago













2












2








2





$begingroup$

To see that the sequence of partial sums is Cauchy, you cannot use the triangle inequality directly as you did. A famous counter example here is $sum_k=1^inftyfrac(-1)^kk$.



What you can do is grouping the terms of the partial sums $s_n= sum_j=1^n(-1)^jx_j$ as follows:



  • Let $m = n+k, k,n in mathbbN$

Now, you can write $|s_m - s_n|$ in two different ways:



$$|s_n+k - s_n| = begincases
|x_n+1 - (x_n+2-x_n+3) - cdots - (x_n+2i-x_n+2i+1)| & k = 2i+1 \
|x_n+1 - (x_n+2-x_n+3) - cdots - (x_n+2i-2-x_n+2i-1) - x_2i| & k = 2i \
endcases
$$



$$|s_n+k - s_n| = begincases
|(x_n+1 - x_n+2) + cdots + (x_n+2i-1-x_n+2i) + x_n+2i+1| & k = 2i+1 \
|(x_n+1 - x_n+2) + cdots + (x_n+2i-1-x_n+2i) | & k = 2i \
endcases
$$



Using the fact that $x_n searrow 0$, it follows immediately that for all $k in mathbbN$ holds
$$|s_n+k - s_n| leq x_n+1$$



Hence, for $epsilon > 0$ choose $N_epsilon$ such that $x_N_epsilon < epsilon$. Then, for all $m> n > N_epsilon$ you have
$$|s_m - s_n| leq x_n+1 leq x_N_epsilon < epsilon$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



To see that the sequence of partial sums is Cauchy, you cannot use the triangle inequality directly as you did. A famous counter example here is $sum_k=1^inftyfrac(-1)^kk$.



What you can do is grouping the terms of the partial sums $s_n= sum_j=1^n(-1)^jx_j$ as follows:



  • Let $m = n+k, k,n in mathbbN$

Now, you can write $|s_m - s_n|$ in two different ways:



$$|s_n+k - s_n| = begincases
|x_n+1 - (x_n+2-x_n+3) - cdots - (x_n+2i-x_n+2i+1)| & k = 2i+1 \
|x_n+1 - (x_n+2-x_n+3) - cdots - (x_n+2i-2-x_n+2i-1) - x_2i| & k = 2i \
endcases
$$



$$|s_n+k - s_n| = begincases
|(x_n+1 - x_n+2) + cdots + (x_n+2i-1-x_n+2i) + x_n+2i+1| & k = 2i+1 \
|(x_n+1 - x_n+2) + cdots + (x_n+2i-1-x_n+2i) | & k = 2i \
endcases
$$



Using the fact that $x_n searrow 0$, it follows immediately that for all $k in mathbbN$ holds
$$|s_n+k - s_n| leq x_n+1$$



Hence, for $epsilon > 0$ choose $N_epsilon$ such that $x_N_epsilon < epsilon$. Then, for all $m> n > N_epsilon$ you have
$$|s_m - s_n| leq x_n+1 leq x_N_epsilon < epsilon$$







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 26 mins ago

























answered 43 mins ago









trancelocationtrancelocation

14.6k1929




14.6k1929











  • $begingroup$
    This is exactly what I was about to do.
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    42 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @SubhasisBiswas So, I did it for you :-D
    $endgroup$
    – trancelocation
    41 mins ago
















  • $begingroup$
    This is exactly what I was about to do.
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    42 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @SubhasisBiswas So, I did it for you :-D
    $endgroup$
    – trancelocation
    41 mins ago















$begingroup$
This is exactly what I was about to do.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
42 mins ago




$begingroup$
This is exactly what I was about to do.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
42 mins ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@SubhasisBiswas So, I did it for you :-D
$endgroup$
– trancelocation
41 mins ago




$begingroup$
@SubhasisBiswas So, I did it for you :-D
$endgroup$
– trancelocation
41 mins ago











2












$begingroup$

This is also known as the "Leibnitz's Test".



We write $s_n = x_1-x_2+x_3-...+(-1)^n+1x_n$



$s_2n+2-s_2n=u_2n+1-u_2n+2 geq0$ for all $n$.



$s_2n+1-s_2n-1=-u_2n+u_2n+1 leq 0$



$s_2n =u_1 -(u_2-u_3)-(u_4-u_5)...-u_2n leq u_1$, i.e. a monotone increasing sequence bounded above.



$s_2n+1 =(u_1 -u_2)+(u_3-u_4)+...+u_2n+1 geq u_1-u_2$, i.e. a monotone decreasing sequence bounded below.



Hence, both are convergent subsequences of $(s_n)$. But, we have $lim (s_2n+1-s_2n)=u_2n+1=0$, therefore, they converge to the same limit.



Hence, $(s_n)$ converges, i.e. it is Cauchy.



Note: We conclude that $(s_n)$ converges because the indices of the two subsequences $(s_2n)$ and $(s_2n+1)$ i.e. $U = 2n+1 : n in mathbbN$ and $V = 2n : n in mathbbN$ form a partition of $mathbbN$ and they both converge to the same limit.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I want to use the $varepsilon$ definition of a Cauchy sequence, and not the fact that all convergent sequences are Cauchy, which is why I cannot use this solution.
    $endgroup$
    – oranji
    46 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    I'll edit this answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    43 mins ago















2












$begingroup$

This is also known as the "Leibnitz's Test".



We write $s_n = x_1-x_2+x_3-...+(-1)^n+1x_n$



$s_2n+2-s_2n=u_2n+1-u_2n+2 geq0$ for all $n$.



$s_2n+1-s_2n-1=-u_2n+u_2n+1 leq 0$



$s_2n =u_1 -(u_2-u_3)-(u_4-u_5)...-u_2n leq u_1$, i.e. a monotone increasing sequence bounded above.



$s_2n+1 =(u_1 -u_2)+(u_3-u_4)+...+u_2n+1 geq u_1-u_2$, i.e. a monotone decreasing sequence bounded below.



Hence, both are convergent subsequences of $(s_n)$. But, we have $lim (s_2n+1-s_2n)=u_2n+1=0$, therefore, they converge to the same limit.



Hence, $(s_n)$ converges, i.e. it is Cauchy.



Note: We conclude that $(s_n)$ converges because the indices of the two subsequences $(s_2n)$ and $(s_2n+1)$ i.e. $U = 2n+1 : n in mathbbN$ and $V = 2n : n in mathbbN$ form a partition of $mathbbN$ and they both converge to the same limit.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I want to use the $varepsilon$ definition of a Cauchy sequence, and not the fact that all convergent sequences are Cauchy, which is why I cannot use this solution.
    $endgroup$
    – oranji
    46 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    I'll edit this answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    43 mins ago













2












2








2





$begingroup$

This is also known as the "Leibnitz's Test".



We write $s_n = x_1-x_2+x_3-...+(-1)^n+1x_n$



$s_2n+2-s_2n=u_2n+1-u_2n+2 geq0$ for all $n$.



$s_2n+1-s_2n-1=-u_2n+u_2n+1 leq 0$



$s_2n =u_1 -(u_2-u_3)-(u_4-u_5)...-u_2n leq u_1$, i.e. a monotone increasing sequence bounded above.



$s_2n+1 =(u_1 -u_2)+(u_3-u_4)+...+u_2n+1 geq u_1-u_2$, i.e. a monotone decreasing sequence bounded below.



Hence, both are convergent subsequences of $(s_n)$. But, we have $lim (s_2n+1-s_2n)=u_2n+1=0$, therefore, they converge to the same limit.



Hence, $(s_n)$ converges, i.e. it is Cauchy.



Note: We conclude that $(s_n)$ converges because the indices of the two subsequences $(s_2n)$ and $(s_2n+1)$ i.e. $U = 2n+1 : n in mathbbN$ and $V = 2n : n in mathbbN$ form a partition of $mathbbN$ and they both converge to the same limit.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



This is also known as the "Leibnitz's Test".



We write $s_n = x_1-x_2+x_3-...+(-1)^n+1x_n$



$s_2n+2-s_2n=u_2n+1-u_2n+2 geq0$ for all $n$.



$s_2n+1-s_2n-1=-u_2n+u_2n+1 leq 0$



$s_2n =u_1 -(u_2-u_3)-(u_4-u_5)...-u_2n leq u_1$, i.e. a monotone increasing sequence bounded above.



$s_2n+1 =(u_1 -u_2)+(u_3-u_4)+...+u_2n+1 geq u_1-u_2$, i.e. a monotone decreasing sequence bounded below.



Hence, both are convergent subsequences of $(s_n)$. But, we have $lim (s_2n+1-s_2n)=u_2n+1=0$, therefore, they converge to the same limit.



Hence, $(s_n)$ converges, i.e. it is Cauchy.



Note: We conclude that $(s_n)$ converges because the indices of the two subsequences $(s_2n)$ and $(s_2n+1)$ i.e. $U = 2n+1 : n in mathbbN$ and $V = 2n : n in mathbbN$ form a partition of $mathbbN$ and they both converge to the same limit.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 3 hours ago









Subhasis BiswasSubhasis Biswas

608512




608512











  • $begingroup$
    I want to use the $varepsilon$ definition of a Cauchy sequence, and not the fact that all convergent sequences are Cauchy, which is why I cannot use this solution.
    $endgroup$
    – oranji
    46 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    I'll edit this answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    43 mins ago
















  • $begingroup$
    I want to use the $varepsilon$ definition of a Cauchy sequence, and not the fact that all convergent sequences are Cauchy, which is why I cannot use this solution.
    $endgroup$
    – oranji
    46 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    I'll edit this answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    43 mins ago















$begingroup$
I want to use the $varepsilon$ definition of a Cauchy sequence, and not the fact that all convergent sequences are Cauchy, which is why I cannot use this solution.
$endgroup$
– oranji
46 mins ago




$begingroup$
I want to use the $varepsilon$ definition of a Cauchy sequence, and not the fact that all convergent sequences are Cauchy, which is why I cannot use this solution.
$endgroup$
– oranji
46 mins ago












$begingroup$
I'll edit this answer.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
43 mins ago




$begingroup$
I'll edit this answer.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
43 mins ago

















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%2f3201256%2fprove-the-alternating-sum-of-a-decreasing-sequence-converging-to-0-is-cauchy%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

ValueError: Error when checking input: expected conv2d_13_input to have shape (3, 150, 150) but got array with shape (150, 150, 3)2019 Community Moderator ElectionError when checking : expected dense_1_input to have shape (None, 5) but got array with shape (200, 1)Error 'Expected 2D array, got 1D array instead:'ValueError: Error when checking input: expected lstm_41_input to have 3 dimensions, but got array with shape (40000,100)ValueError: Error when checking target: expected dense_1 to have shape (7,) but got array with shape (1,)ValueError: Error when checking target: expected dense_2 to have shape (1,) but got array with shape (0,)Keras exception: ValueError: Error when checking input: expected conv2d_1_input to have shape (150, 150, 3) but got array with shape (256, 256, 3)Steps taking too long to completewhen checking input: expected dense_1_input to have shape (13328,) but got array with shape (317,)ValueError: Error when checking target: expected dense_3 to have shape (None, 1) but got array with shape (7715, 40000)Keras exception: Error when checking input: expected dense_input to have shape (2,) but got array with shape (1,)

Ружовы пелікан Змест Знешні выгляд | Пашырэнне | Асаблівасці біялогіі | Літаратура | НавігацыяДагледжаная версіяправерана1 зменаДагледжаная версіяправерана1 змена/ 22697590 Сістэматыкана ВіківідахВыявына Вікісховішчы174693363011049382

Illegal assignment from SObject to ContactFetching String, Id from Map - Illegal Assignment Id to Field / ObjectError: Compile Error: Illegal assignment from String to BooleanError: List has no rows for assignment to SObjectError on Test Class - System.QueryException: List has no rows for assignment to SObjectRemote action problemDML requires SObject or SObject list type error“Illegal assignment from List to List”Test Class Fail: Batch Class: System.QueryException: List has no rows for assignment to SObjectMapping to a user'List has no rows for assignment to SObject' Mystery