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.

Is the following correct or along the right lines?

Thanks for any help

Question

A sequence $\{x_n\}$ in a metric space is said to be bounded if it is contained in some open ball $B(a,r)$.

Prove that every Cauchy sequence in a metric space is bounded.

Proof

Put $\{x_n\}\in(X,d)$ s.t. $\forall\epsilon>0\ \exists k\in\mathbb{N}\ s.t. \ d(x_n,x_m)<\epsilon$ whenever $n,m\geq k$.

Now for $x_n\geq k$ we have $x_n\in{B(x_n,\epsilon)}$

Defining the finite sequence $y=\{x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n\}$.

Take $r=\epsilon+\max\{|\max(y)|,|\min(y)|\}$, and so $x_n\in{B(0,r)}$

share|improve this question
    
Do you instead mean "Now for $x_n \geq k $ we have $ x_n \in B(x_k, \epsilon) $"? Are you sure you mean $B(0,r)$ at the end? –  Daniel Freedman Dec 31 '11 at 17:28
    
well, I guess you got the idea. But: i) $B(0,r)$ -- what is $0$? ii) clearly $x_n\in B(x_n, \varepsilon)$. You want $x_m\in B(x_k, \varepsilon)$ iii) what is $\max(y), \min(y)$? You seem to know what to do, but the way you put it is not too clean. –  user20266 Dec 31 '11 at 17:30
    
It's close, but some corrections will be needed. Did you want to write $x_n\in{B(x_k,\epsilon)}$ instead of $x_n\in{B(x_n,\epsilon)}$? Also $\max y$ makes sense, for instance, if $y$ is a real number, but you are working with points of metric space; so it is not clear what you mean by $\max(y)$. –  Martin Sleziak Dec 31 '11 at 17:31
    
Thanks, yes I mean $x_n\in{B(x_k,\epsilon)}$. If I change $y=\{d(x_0,x_1),d(x_0,x_2),.....,d(x_0,x_n)\}$ and then change my open ball to $B(x_0,r)$ will this work? –  hmmmm Dec 31 '11 at 17:41
    
I think you mean "Now for $n\geq k$..." –  leo Jan 24 '12 at 22:59
add comment

4 Answers

up vote 1 down vote accepted

You seem to have the gist of it, but some of your details are a bit off.

Firstly, I find your first line a tad confusing. You seem to be defining your Cauchy sequence as a sequence that satisfies some condition based on $\epsilon$. What you should be saying is "given a Cauchy sequence $ \{ x_n \} $, fix $ \epsilon > 0 $ and let $k $ be such that $ d(x_n, x_m) < \epsilon $ whenever $n, m \geq k $". Words are often easier to read than symbols and abbreviations like s.t., $ \exists $ etc. In any case, you do not (or should not) mean to use "$\forall$". For the argument to work, $\epsilon$ needs to be fixed. Can you see why?

As Thomas points out, "for $ x_n \geq k $ we have $x_n \in B(x_n , \epsilon) $" is rather obvious. Maybe you made a typo there, but can you see why it is much more useful to observe that for $ x_n \geq k$, we have $ x_n \in B(x_k, \epsilon) $?

So far we've trapped all the terms after (and including) the $k$-th in a ball of size $\epsilon$ around $x_k$. It will help here if we think graphically. We'd now also like to trap the first $k-1$ terms in a ball around $ x_k $, because then we'd know that all of the terms in the sequence lie within a ball around $x_k$ (which, as you stated, is precisely the definition of boundedness), since we can just take the larger of the two balls.

Well, thankfully, we only have finitely many terms $x_1, ... x_{k-1}$. So we know that (at least) one of them is furthest away from $x_k$ (and that this distance is finite). Call this distance $d$.

So if $ D = \mathrm{max} \{\epsilon, d \} $, then everything in the sequence must lie inside $ B(x_k, D + 1) $ (or $B( x_k, D + \delta)$ where $\delta > 0 $).

share|improve this answer
1  
Thanks very much. Sorry about my notation, my first line is supposed to be saying that $\{x_n\}$ is cauchy (from the definition) I should then go on an say "fix $\epsilon$....". I think I might have addressed the main problems in the comment I left but thanks for your answer it is much clearer than mine. –  hmmmm Dec 31 '11 at 17:51
add comment

The intuition behind what you wrote is undoubtedly right. The actual details, not so good. We give an argument that is in spirit close to what I perceive as your intuition.

Pick a fixed $\epsilon >0$. (Actually, we can choose $\epsilon=1$, or $47$.) Then there is an $m$ such that if $n \ge m$, then $d(x_m,x_n)<\epsilon$. Let $p$ be any point in the space, and let $$k=\max_{i\le m} \:d(p, x_i).$$ The maximum exists, since $\{x_i\colon\; i\le m\}$ is a finite set.

We show that for any $n$, $d(p,x_n)<k+\epsilon$. This is obvious for $n\le m$, since then $d(p,x_n)\le k$. For $n>m$, we have, by the Triangle Inequality, $$d(p,x_n)\le d(p,x_m)+d(x_m, x_n) <k+\epsilon.$$

share|improve this answer
add comment

Choose $N$ so that $m, n\ge N\implies d(x_m, x_n) < 1.$ Using the the triangle inequality, it is fairly easy to see that $x_n \in B_2(x_N)$ for $n \ge N$. Consequently, we have all but finitely many of the $x_n$ contained in a bounded subset of the space. Hence, the sequence is bounded.

share|improve this answer
add comment

I have a qualm with one point in the writing style which I think is worth elucidating (hopefully elucidating):

When you say:

"Put $\{x_n\}\in(X,d)$ s.t. $\forall\epsilon>0\ \exists k\in\mathbb{N}\ s.t. \ d(x_n,x_m)<\epsilon$ whenever $n,m\geq k$."

all you are stating is that $\{x_n\}$ is a Cauchy sequence. You are not fixing a value of $\epsilon$ here, and the statement does not give you a value of $k$ that you can work with. The statement is passive in this regard: it states that these $\epsilon$'s and $k$'s exist, but it does not provide specific instances of them by itself.

You have to explicitly state that there is a $k$ that corresponds to a particular and fixed value of $\epsilon$ that you have selected.

So in between the above quoted line and your next line, you'd need to say something like:

"Let $\epsilon>0$"

Now you have a value of $\epsilon$ declared that you can work with. Using the fact that $\{x_n\}$ is Cauchy, you would next say

"since $\{x_n\}$ is Cauchy, there is a $k$ such that..."

(even more nitpicky here, you'd have to add "and we select this value of $k$"; or say something like "since $\{x_n\}$ is cauchy, we may, and do, pick $k$ such that...")

And then you'd proceed with the rest of your proof (with corrections as gleaned from the other fine answers).

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.