Sign up ×
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.

Dear reader of this post,

I am currently working on some problems about sequences and their subsequences. I proved a claim and because this prove involves some elementary concepts, I would like to ask three related questions. The claim is as follows: For any real number $x$ and $x_m \in \mathbb{R}^{\infty}$, show that $x_m \rightarrow x$ if every subsequence of $(x_m)$ has itself a subsequence that converges to $x$.

My prove is as follows: Take any subsequence $x_{m_{k}}$. As stated, I know that $\exists$ a (sub)subsequence $x_{m_{k_{i}}} \rightarrow x $. Let $\bar{x}_{m_{k_{i}}}$ be the non-convergent part of the subsequence. Redefine $x_{m_{k}}$ as $\tilde{x}_{m_{k_{i}}} = \left\lbrace \bar{x}_{m_{k_{1}}},\bar{x}_{m_{k_{2}}},\ldots,x_{m_{k_{1}}},x_{m_{k_{2}}},\ldots \right\rbrace $. Redefine the mother sequence $x_m$ furthermore as $\tilde{x}_m = \left\lbrace \tilde{x}_{m_{1}},\tilde{x}_{m_{2 }},\ldots \right\rbrace$. Finally, take any $\epsilon >0 $. I know that for any $ \tilde{x}_{m_{k}}$ $\exists M \in \mathbb{N}$ for which $\forall i > M$ $| \tilde{x}_{m_{k_{i}}} - x | < \epsilon $. Thus, $x_m$ is convergent.

After having stated my prove, I'd like to ask my three questions:

  • I think the prove requires each subsequence to contain infinitely many elements. Is this correct and does every subsequence contain indeed infinitely many elements in general?
  • Do I really need to redefine the sequence $x_m$ and its subsequences $x_{m_{k}}$ and is this legitimate?
  • If these two questions are answered positively, is my prove correct?

Thank you very much for your support. I am looking forward for your replies.

share|cite|improve this question
What is the 'non-convergent part' of a (sub)sequence? – Michael Albanese Jul 25 '13 at 11:03
Dear Michael, thank you for your comment. I thought that I could separate the subsequence into one part which is convergent and another which does not converge. Writing these lines, I realize that this separation does not match the claim ``[...] does every subsequence contain indeed infinitely many elements in general?''. Ok, it seems to me now that I either cannot separate a subsequence or the assertion is not correct. Could you maybe comment on this a bit? – fabian Jul 25 '13 at 11:10
Such a decomposition will not be unique without further restrictions. – Michael Albanese Jul 25 '13 at 11:27
The title does not correspond to the post (and the result it asserts does not hold). – Did Jul 25 '13 at 12:39
Note that the post requires a limit $x$ which can be achieved within every subsequence. This is essential, but is not flagged in the title. For example if $s_n=(-1)^n$ every subsequence has either an infinite number of terms equal to $1$ or an infinite number equal to $-1$ (possibly both) - and therefore has a convergent subsequence which is constant. It does not qualify under the "limit $x$" definition because $1\neq -1$. – Mark Bennet Jul 25 '13 at 13:29

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Here is an alternative method to prove the desired claim.

Theorem: If every subsequence of $(x_n)$ has a subsequence which converges to $x$, then $(x_n)$ converges to $x$.

Proof: Suppose $x_n$ does not converge to $x$. Then there is $\varepsilon > 0$ such that $|x_n - x| \geq \varepsilon$ for infinitely many $n$. Therefore, there is a subsequence $(x_{n_k})$ with $|x_{n_k} - x| \geq \varepsilon$ for all $k \in \mathbb{N}$. This is a contradiction as $(x_{n_k})$ is a subsequence of $(x_n)$ which does not have a subsequence which converges to $x$.

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.