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 it sufficient to show that for any $\epsilon > 0$ that there exists $N$ such that if $n$ is greater than or equal to $N$, then $d(s_n, s_{n+1})$ is less than $\epsilon$ to prove that a sequence ${s_n}$ is Cauchy?

share|improve this question
    
2  
FYI, this is actually true in the p-adic world. ;) –  Mark Jan 3 '12 at 1:42
    
add comment

4 Answers

up vote 0 down vote accepted

In general, no, common counterexamples being $s_n = \sqrt{n}$ or $s_n = \log n$ or $s_n = \sum_1^n \frac{1}{i}$ as mentioned by Chris.

But it's not completely unfeasible that there exist metric spaces $(X,d)$ in which this is true. For example if $d$ is the discrete metric on $X$ then it is certainly true; I wonder if there are others.

share|improve this answer
2  
It's true, for example, in any ultrametric space. This includes the $p$-adics, as Mark notes in the comments. –  Chris Eagle Jan 3 '12 at 1:55
add comment

No. For example, take $s_n=\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{i}$.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Intuition and or process when looking for such a series: Firstly, it's going to be easier to look for an unbounded solution - it will require ingenuity to find a bounded one (though simple sequences can be found). Secondly, we don't want it to grow very quickly - we can tell if something grows quickly by taking it's derivitve. Canonical functions with such things are log(x).

share|improve this answer
add comment

No, this is false in general. A standard counter-example is the harmonic series: $H_n = \sum \limits_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{i}$. It is well-known that $H_n$ diverges while $H_{n} - H_{n-1} = \frac{1}{n} \to 0$.


This situation is the sequence-analogue of the “$n$-th term test” for series:

If $\sum a_n$ converges, then $a_n \to 0$. Equivalently, if $a_n$ does not converge to $0$, then $\sum a_n$ diverges.

You might know that the $n$-term test is a divergence test and cannot be used to assert convergence of a series. Similarly, we cannot conclude that a sequence $s_n$ converges given only that $s_{n} - s_{n-1} \to 0$.

In fact, this connection is not a coincidence. Let $\sum a_n$ be a series, and define $s_n$ be its $n$-th partial sum. Then $s_{n} - s_{n-1} = a_n$, so asking if $s_n - s_{n-1} \to 0$ is equivalent to asking whether the $n$-th term of the series goes to $0$.


Finally, let me also touch upon Mark Schwarzmann's comment. In any ultrametric space (with an addition operation satisfying the usual properties), a sequence $s_n$ converges if and only if $s_{n+1} - s_n \to 0$. By the preceding discussion, it follows that any series $\sum a_n$ in such a space converges if and only if it passes the $n$-term test!

Examples of such spaces include
(i) any discrete metric,
(ii) the $p$-adic numbers, and
(iii) the ring of formal power series $\mathbf C[[X]]$ (with the metric $d(a, b) = 2^{-i}$ where $i$ is the smallest index where $a$ and $b$ differ).

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.