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.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $X$ be a normed space. We say that $X$ is complete if every Cauchy sequence in $X$ converges to an element of $X$ in norm. Now, in proofs of completeness, we start with $\{x_n \}$ Cauchy, and it seems we should first exhibit an element $x$ of $X$ and show that $\{x_n \}$ converges to $x$ in norm. But, I read a proof where first, they constructed the limiting element $x$, and then showed that $\{ x_n\}$ tend to $x$ under the norm, and used that convergence result to argue that $x$ was actually a member of the space $X$. I'm not sure why I find this argument fishy. I feel you can't say something converges in norm if the limiting element doesn't even exist in your space until after it converges...

share|cite|improve this question
If you know $X$ is complete that surely $x$ must belong to $X$, otherwise it is easy to construct a counterexample e.g. by looking at rational numbers converging to some none rational number. – AD. Mar 8 '12 at 7:37
I reference to the proof you mention might help. – AD. Mar 8 '12 at 7:38
up vote 1 down vote accepted

The kind of proof you describe is common in spaces of functions (or sequences, which are a special sort of functions). Typically, a function space $X$ contains only functions $f: E\to\mathbb R$ (or another field) with some specific properties. Given a sequence of functions $f_n$, it is natural to first exhibit a function to which they converge and then prove it has the properties that qualify it is a member of $X$.

For example: given a sequence of continuous function $f_n$ that is Cauchy in norm, one argues that for each $x\in E$ the limit $\lim_{n\to\infty} f_n(x)$ exists. Defining $f(x)$ to be this limit, we get a function $f:E\to\mathbb R$. Since we don't know yet that $f\in X$, we are not ready to argue that $f_n\to f$ in $X$. What we have so far is some function $f$ to which $f_n$ converge in some sense. Having a limit in some sense is better than nothing: it gives us a base to build on. A $3\epsilon$-argument is used to prove that $f$ actually is an element of $X$. After that, seeing that $f_n\to f$ in the norm of $X$ is easy.

In a nutshell: even though the ultimate goal is convergence in $X$, our proof may involve objects outside of $X$, and notions of convergence other than convergence in $X$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.