Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

I am working on proving that there exists a Cauchy sequence approaching to $x$ where all the terms of $\{x_j\}$ is strictly less than $x$.

My plan is to construct a new sequence as follows.

Take any Cauchy sequence $\{a_j\} \to x$

Define $\{b_j\}$ equal to $\{-|a_j-\frac{1}{j}|\}$ where all $b_j \le x$.

Define $\{c_j\}$ such that if any term of $b_j = 0$ it is substituted by -1, that way all terms are now less than $x$.

I know how to show that the last part is valid, but I am stuck with a rather algebraic part where I need to show that if $\{a_j\}$ is Cauchy, $\{b_j\}$ also is.

Can someone help me out ?

share|cite|improve this question
I am not sure I understand your strategy, or perhaps there is a typo. Suppose $a_j$ is just an infinite sequence of $5$s. Then the $b_j$ are all negative, and certainly can't converge to $5$. Or is another sequence supposed to be the new sequence? – Potato Jun 20 '13 at 7:37
(I could post an answer if you like, but I think it is more instructive to let you work through your own ideas.) – Potato Jun 20 '13 at 7:38
Presumably you are working in the reals, which are complete. So, can you find a sequence converging to $x$ that satisfies $x_n < x$? What number is $\frac{1}{n}$ away from $x$, and less than $x$? – copper.hat Jun 20 '13 at 7:57
My idea was, I understand that ${1 \over j}$ is a sequence that converges to $0$ AND it's terms are always greater than 0. So I want to shift where the sequence converges to. However, if I use $x - \frac{1}{j}$, then $x$ may be irrational, which is not allowed in my case because the sequence must be rational. So I thought, if $\{x_j\} \to x$, then $\{x_j-\frac{1}{j}\} \to x$. The new problem is that now this new sequence is not always less than $x$. So I took the absolute value and negated the sequence so that each term is at most $x$ ... – hyg17 Jun 20 '13 at 16:54
Thus, all I had to do is to convert all of the terms in $\{x_j\}$ which equaled zero into -1, so that now ALL terms are less than $x$. I should have mentioned, "if $x \ne 0$," there are only finite terms where $x_j = 0$ so that $\{x_j-\frac{1}{j}\} \to x$. – hyg17 Jun 20 '13 at 16:57

(i) A hint: Any sequence $(x_n)_{n\geq1}$ converging to $x$ is automatically a Cauchy sequence. It follows that $$x_n:=x-{1\over n}\qquad(n\geq1)$$ does the job.

(ii) If you need rational $x_n$ the following might help: Assume $x>0$. Then $x$ possesses a decimal expansion $$x= a_0.a_1a_2a_3a_4\ldots$$ with $a_0\in{\mathbb N}$, $\>a_k\in \{0,\ldots,9\}$ $\>(k\geq1)$, and not ending with zeros. Now put $$x_n:=a_0.a_1a_2a_3a_4\ldots a_n\qquad(n\geq1)\ .$$ (iii) If your real number $x$ is given (or represented) by a Cauchy sequence $(r_k)_{k\geq1}$ of rational numbers define a new sequence $(x_m)_{m\geq1}$ as follows: For each $m\geq1$ there is an $n=n(m)$ such that $$|r_i-r_k|\leq {1\over m}\qquad(i,k\geq n(m))\ .$$ Put $$x_m:=r_{n(m)}-{2\over m}\in {\mathbb Q}\qquad(m\geq1)\ .\tag{1}$$ Then $$r_k\geq r_{n(m)}-{1\over m}=x_m+{1\over m}\qquad(k\geq n(m))$$ and therefore $$x=\lim_{k\to\infty} r_k\geq x_m+{1\over m}\ \qquad(m\geq1)\ .$$ It follows that $x_m<x$ for all $m\geq1$. Furthermore letting $m\to\infty$ in $(1)$ immediately shows that $\lim_{m\to\infty} x_m=x$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Haha, thank you. Although I appreciate your help I don't know how this helps me because I am already aware of this. – hyg17 Jun 20 '13 at 16:58
@hyg17: See my edit. – Christian Blatter Jun 20 '13 at 18:46
Ah, so my approach is fine. That's good to hear. But I need all $x_n$ to be rational and less than $x$. I'm having trouble algebraically only proving that part. – hyg17 Jun 20 '13 at 19:10
@hyg17: See my edit. – Christian Blatter Jun 20 '13 at 19:26
I am so sorry to be anal, but I still haven't learned neither the decimal expansion nor the Dedekind cut for real numbers, so all I pretty much know is that real numbers are equivalent classes of a sequence of rationals. So I am not sure what you are saying. – hyg17 Jun 20 '13 at 19:30

Let $y_i = x-\max(|x-x_i|, \frac{1}{i})$.

Then $y_i < x$ and, since $|x-x_i| \to 0$, $y_i \to x$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Haha, I like the way everyone uses the same argument. I actually appreciate this idea and I understand it very well, however, I need the Cauchy sequence to be rational and that's where I am having most trouble. – hyg17 Jun 20 '13 at 19:42
Once you have a $y_i < x$, you can find a rational between $y_i$ and $x$ as has been shown here before. – marty cohen Jun 21 '13 at 5:33

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.