Lecture 5
Cauchy sequence: “we don't know where we are heading, but we agree with each other more and more”.
Cauchy sequence is equivalent to convergent sequences…. in
R.
Limit sets and subsequences.
Cauchy Sequences
First, the definition. Let (an) be a sequence in R, we say (an) is Cauchy, if for any ϵ>0, we have N>0, such that for all n,m>N, we have ∣an−am∣<ϵ.
Lemma : Convergent sequence is Cauchy.
Pf: suppose an→a. We need to show that for any ϵ>0, we have N>0, such that for all n,m>N, we have ∣an−am∣<ϵ. Let ϵ1=ϵ/2, then by convergence of an, we have N1>0, such that ∣an−a∣<ϵ1 for all n>N1. Thus for any n,m>N1, we have
∣an−am∣≤∣an−a∣+∣am−a∣≤ϵ1+ϵ1=ϵ
Thus, let N=N1 would work.
Lemma : If An≥an≥Bn, and limAn=limBn=a, then liman=a.
Pf: for any ϵ>0, we have N>0 such that, for all n>N, ∣An−a∣<ϵ,∣Bn−a∣<ϵ, then
an≤An≤a+ϵ,an≥Bn≥a−ϵ
Thus ,∣an−a∣≤ϵ for all n>N, hence an→a.
Lemma : Let (an) be a bounded sequence. (an) is convergent if and only if limsupan=liminfan.
Pf: Assume limsupan=liminfan=a. Let An=supm≥nam,Bn=infm≥nam, then An≥an≥Bn. By preview lemma, we know an→a.
Assume (an) is convergent to a. Then, for any ϵ>0, there is an N>0, that for all n>N, ∣an−a∣<ϵ. In particular, we know limsupan≤a+ϵ. Since this is true for all ϵ>0, we have limsupan≤a. Similarly, liminfan≥a. On the other hand, since An≥Bn, we have limsupan=limAn≥limBn=liminfan. Hence, limsupan=liminfan=a.
Lemma: Cauchy sequence is bounded. (Exercise)
Lemma: If limsupan=A, then for any ϵ>0, and any N>0, there exists n>N with ∣an−A∣<ϵ. Similarly, if limsupan=B, then for any ϵ>0, and any N>0, there exists n>N with ∣an−B∣<ϵ.
Pf: Since An=supm>nam is a monotone decreasing sequence with limit A, then for any ϵ>0 and N>0, we can find M>N such that A+ϵ/2>AM≥A. By definition of AM, there exists some an with n≥M, that AM≥an>AM−ϵ/2. Now, we have
∣an−A∣≤∣an−AM∣+∣AM−A∣≤ϵ/2+ϵ/2=ϵ
The result is proven.
Theorem : Cauchy sequence in R is convergent.
Proof: Let (an) be a Cauchy sequence. By previous lemma, it is bounded. Let A=limsupan and B=liminfan, we only need to show that A=B to show liman exists. We know A≥B for all bounded sequence an, suppose A>B, and let ϵ=(A−B)/3. Then, by Cauchyness of (an), we there is an N>0, such that for all n,m>N, we have ∣an−am∣<ϵ. By previous lemma, there exists n>N, with ∣an−A∣<ϵ, and m>N with ∣am−B∣<ϵ. Hence
∣A−B∣≤∣A−an∣+∣an−am∣+∣am−B∣<3ϵ=∣A−B∣,
notice the inequality is strict, hence we have a contradiction. Thus A=B.
Subsequence and Subsequntial Limit
If n1<n2<⋯ is a strictly increasing sequence in N, and (an) is a sequence, then (ank) is a subsequence of (an).
In this section, we can ask, even if (an) itself does not converge to some a∈R, can we cherry-picking some nice subsequence in (an) that does converge.
Example:
an=(−1)n+1/n has a convergent subsequences, that converges to
+1; and another subseq convergent to
−1.
Definition: Let (an) be a sequence in R, if a∈R is the limit of a sequence of (an), we say a is a subsequential limit.
Lemma : a is a subsequential limit of (an) ⇔ for any ϵ>0,N>0, there exists an n>N, with ∣an−a∣<ϵ. Equivalently, for any ϵ>0, the set Aϵ={n∣∣an−a∣<ϵ} is infinite.
Pf: ⇒ : let ank be a subseq that converges to n, then we can find among member within this subsequence.
$ \Lefgarrow$: it's a good opportunity to introduce the Cantor's diagonal trick. For any positive integer k, we know A1/k is infinite, we write it in the k-th row, as
A1/k=nk,1<nk,2<⋯
As k=1,2,⋯, we have an semi-infinite matrix of indices. We may check that nk,i≤nk+1,i. Thus nk,k≤nk+1,k<nk+1,k+1, hence along the diagonal, we have strictly increasing sequence. Consider the subsequence ankk, that will converge to a.