I want to prove this and intuitively it makes sense. But I'm having a hard time coming up with a proof. So if a sequence converges, then we have a natural number for which the distance between all terms after it and the limit point get arbitrarily small. So how can I show that this also holds for every subsequence (which is like a subset of a sequence)?

(are subsequences always infinite?)

Could I suppose that there is a subsequence that doesn't converge to that limit, and find a contradiction? (and do the same for the other direction?)

  • $\begingroup$ It seems like no effort has been made by the OP to try to answer the question. $\endgroup$
    – Lost1
    Dec 10 '14 at 0:18
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ What is the OP? $\endgroup$
    – user42
    Dec 10 '14 at 0:19
  • $\begingroup$ OP = original poster; the one who asked the original question. BTW, subsequences are always infinite, yes. $\endgroup$ Dec 10 '14 at 8:04

Let $x_n \to x$. Then given $\varepsilon> 0$, there exists an $N \in \mathbb N$ such that $|x_n - x| < \varepsilon$ for all $n \geq N$. In words, it means that if we go out far enough, $N$ terms, we can talk about the rest of the terms of the sequence as being close enough, within $\varepsilon$, to the limit, $x$.

If you take any subsequence, say $(x_{n_k})_{k\in\mathbb N}$, then we can say that the $N^{th}$ term of the subsequence is at least, or beyond, the $N^{th}$ term of the actual sequence. Thus, it shares the same property that the terms of the sequence are within a desired distance from the limit of the main sequence.

  • $\begingroup$ thank you! It's more simple than I thought $\endgroup$
    – user42
    Dec 10 '14 at 0:23
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ For the other direction, note that the sequence is a subsequene of itself. $\endgroup$ Dec 10 '14 at 8:09
  • $\begingroup$ This answer proves one direction. Any hints as to how to prove the other direction? $\endgroup$ Mar 12 '16 at 4:09
  • $\begingroup$ A sequence is a subsequence of itself - sort of in the same way that a set us a subset of itself. $\endgroup$
    – dannum
    Mar 12 '16 at 5:49
  • $\begingroup$ Is it true that if any increasing sequence conveges then any sequence converges? $\endgroup$
    – Canjioh
    Nov 18 '19 at 14:34

Let $\epsilon > 0$ be arbitrary. Since $x_n \rightarrow x \text{ as } n \rightarrow \infty$, $\exists \; N \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $n \geq N \Rightarrow d(x_n, x) < \epsilon$.

Now, let $\{x_{n_k}\}_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ be a sub-sequence of $\{x_n\}$. The part I'm writing next will give you intuition as to why the sub-sequence will also thin out to $x$ like the parent sequence.

$\exists \; k \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $n_k \geq N$. If not, then $N$ would be an upper bound for the $\textbf{strictly increasing}$ sequence of indices $\{n_1, n_2, \ldots\}$ and the sub-sequence won't have infinite terms. Try to understand this. This is the definition of a subsequence: that the indices are strictly increasing, i.e, $n_1 < n_2 <\ldots$.

Since $n_k \geq N$, we have that $d(x_{n_k}, x) < \epsilon$


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.