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.

Let $(x_n)$ and $(y_n)$ be Cauchy sequences in $(X, d)$. Show that $(x_n)$ and $(y_n)$ converge to the same limit iff $d(x_n, y_n) \rightarrow 0$

Proof $\rightarrow$

Suppose $(x_n) \to a$ and $(y_n) \to a$, then \begin{equation} \forall_{\epsilon > 0} \exists_{N_1} s.t. \forall_{n>N_1} \implies d(x_n, a) < \dfrac{\epsilon}{2} \\ \forall_{\epsilon > 0} \exists_{N_2} s.t. \forall_{n>N_2} \implies d(y_n, a) < \dfrac{\epsilon}{2} \end{equation}

Given $\epsilon>0$ take $N=\max(N_1, N_2)$ then $\forall_{n>N}$ we have: \begin{align} d(x_n, y_n) &\leq d(x_n, a) + d(a, y_n) \\ & < \dfrac{\epsilon}{2} + \dfrac{\epsilon}{2} = \epsilon \end{align}

What is the cleanest way to finish this piece of the proof? Technically I feel like I could do the following:

Consider $d(d(x_n, y_n), 0)$: \begin{align} d(d(x_n, y_n), 0) &< d(\epsilon, 0) < \epsilon \implies d(x_n, y_n) \to 0 \end{align}

What can I do to make this direction of the proof cleaner? Note that I only used the fact that the sequences converged and nothing special about Cauchy sequences. Additionally, what is the formal definition of $d(x_n, yn) \to 0$?

ADDED

$\leftarrow$ Suppose $d(x_n, y_n) \to 0$ that is $\forall_{\epsilon > 0} \exists_{N_1} s.t \forall_{n > N_1} \implies |d(x_n, y_n) - 0| < \epsilon$. Given $\epsilon > 0$ take $N > N_1$ then by the triangle inequality we have:

\begin{align} 0 < d(x_n, y_n) \leq d(x_n, a) + d(a, y_n) < \epsilon \end{align} We know this $a$ exists as $(X, d)$ is a complete metric space and $(x_n)$ and $(y_n)$ are Cauchy. Thus we have that $d(x_n, a) < \epsilon \land d(y_n, a) < \epsilon$. Therefore, $(x_n)\to a \land (y_n)\to a$

How does the other direction look?

share|improve this question
1  
The reverse implication is false if the space $(X,d)$ is not complete. –  egreg Apr 17 '13 at 21:31

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Remember that your metric d is real valued, and the real numbers are a metric space. Thus, the formal definition of $d(x_n, y_n) \rightarrow 0$ is the same as for convergence of a sequence in a metric space, i.e., for every $\epsilon > 0$ there exists an $N \in \mathbb{N}$ such that for all $n \geq N$ we have $d_{\mathbb{R}}(d(x_n,y_n), 0) < \epsilon$.

Note the $d_{\mathbb{R}}$! This is the metric on the real numbers (where $d(x_n,y_n)$ and $0$ live). It is defined by $d_{\mathbb{R}}(x,y) = |x -y|$. So a much less obfuscated way to write the definition above is the following:

$d(x_n, y_n) \rightarrow 0$ if for every $\epsilon > 0$ there exists an $N \in \mathbb{N}$ such that for all $n \geq N$ we have $|d(x_n,y_n) - 0| < \epsilon$. But this is exactly what you have shown in the part before your proposed finish! You can actually stop right there with the $\epsilon$. You could also add a note about how you know $d(x_n,y_n) \geq 0$.

The error in what you go on to write is that $d(d(x_n,y_n), 0)$ may not be defined since $d$ is a metric on $X$ while $d(x_n, y_n)$ and $0$ are in $\mathbb{R}$.

As for the Cauchy assumption, you need that to do the converse (along with completeness of $X$).

share|improve this answer
    
take a look at the other direction of the proof I just added –  CodeKingPlusPlus Apr 17 '13 at 23:31

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.