Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Prove that every Cauchy sequence in $\mathbb{C}$ is bounded.

In $\mathbb{R}$, this is a sketch of the proof that I recall:

Let {${a_k}$} be Cauchy in $\mathbb{R}$, since $1\in\mathbb{R}$, $\exists N$ s.t. $\forall m,n>N$, $|a_n-A_N|<1\rightarrow$$|a_n|-|A_N|<|a_n-A_N|<1\iff|a_n|<1+|a_N|,\forall n>N-1$. Let $M = \max{|a_1|,|a_2|,\ldots,|a_N-1|,1+|a_N|}$. Then, $M$, $-M$ bound {$a_k$}.

A sequence is bounded in $\mathbb{C}$ if $\exists R\in\mathbb{R}$ and an integer $N$ s.t. $|z_n|<R$ $\forall, n>N$. Here's my attempt at the proof at hand then:

Let {${z_n}$} be Cauchy in $\mathbb{C}$. I want to show that there exists an R s.t. that definition above is satisfied. Is this R just the $M$ from the proof in $\mathbb{R}$?

share|improve this question
1  
Does it? Where do you think it might stop working? You have to show us a little bit of what you have tried, for us to be able to help you with it. –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Jan 24 '12 at 21:39
2  
See also: math.stackexchange.com/questions/95442/… –  Byron Schmuland Jan 24 '12 at 21:46
    
What is a bounded sequence in $\mathbb{C}$? –  leo Jan 24 '12 at 22:55
    
Emir, how can possibly «this $R$ be just the $M$ from the proof in $\mathbb R$»?! In the proof in $\mathbb R$ there were $a$s, in the new instances there are $z$s... Can you please write out in detail what you have tried to do? –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Jan 25 '12 at 3:28

1 Answer 1

To say that $-M$ and $M$ are respectively lower and upper bounds on the sequence $\{a_k\}$ is the same as saying $M$ is an upper bound on the sequence $\{|a_k|\}$. Think about how all that applies to $\mathbb{R}$ and then to $\mathbb{C}$.

share|improve this answer
    
Doesn't the proof implicitly use the lub property of $\mathbb{R}$? This clearly wouldnt work in $\mathbb{C}$ since it's not an ordered field. –  Emir Jan 24 '12 at 22:12
    
I don't think you need that property. This proof would work just as well for $\mathbb{Q}$. –  Michael Hardy Jan 25 '12 at 4:31

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.