0
$\begingroup$

Definition of null sequence I am using:

$(a_n) \to 0$ as $n \to \infty \iff$ given $\epsilon > 0$, there's $N$ such that $n > N \implies |a_n| < \epsilon.$

The sequences below are not null sequences because we can choose appropriate epsilons such that the absolute values of every term of a sequence after a certain point is greater or equal to epsilon.

a) $2, 1, 0, -0.1, 0.01, -0.001, 0.01, -0.001,\ldots, 0.01, -0.001,...\ldots$

b) $1, \frac12, 1, \frac14, 1, \frac18,\ldots$

The answers in my book(for proving the given sequences are not null) are $\epsilon = 0.01$ or less for (a) and $\epsilon = 1$ or less for (b).

I don't get these answers because in (a) if we choose $\epsilon = 0.01$, then there's always a term in the sequence such that $|-0.001| < \epsilon $ and in (b) if $\epsilon = 1$, then there's always a term $\frac 1n$ with $n \neq 0, 1$ such that $|\frac1n| < \epsilon$.

Please, explain why we choose these epsilons.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Instead of there's always a term you need all terms with $n\gt N$ to be within $\epsilon$ of $0$. Your problem is there is always a term with $|a_n| \not \lt \epsilon$ $\endgroup$ – Henry Mar 13 '16 at 22:00
  • $\begingroup$ This is how I am thinking: after we negate the definition of null sequence we need to find an $\epsilon \le |a_n| $ which holds for all $N$ after a $n$. If in (b), $\epsilon = 1$, then we can find such a $n$ which indexes a term, say, $\frac15$ which is smaller than $1$. Please, pinpoint exactly where I am tripping up s I can fix it. $\endgroup$ – user322231 Mar 13 '16 at 22:22
1
$\begingroup$

You're mixing up a "for all" and a "there exists." A sequence is null if for each $\epsilon$, there is some $N$ such that for all $n>N$ we have $\vert a_n\vert<\epsilon$.

So, for instance, looking at (b) and setting $\epsilon=1$: no matter what $N$ you pick, one or two terms later we have a "$1$", which is not $<\epsilon$.

Basically, think of it like this: a sequence is null if eventually every number in it is "small" - for every reasonable notion of "small." So these sequences aren't null because we keep having "large" (e.g. $\ge 1$ in (b)) terms.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Just to clarify: we do ignore the smaller numbers that occur after every $1$, right? For example, in (b), let $n = 5$. Then the next term is $\frac18$ which is smaller than $\epsilon = 1.$ And we ignore this because $1$ occurs over and over again in the sequence? $\endgroup$ – user322231 Mar 13 '16 at 22:51
  • $\begingroup$ @user322231 Yes - or rather, we don't ignore this fact, it's just not relevant. If we pick $\epsilon=1$, then for any $N$, we can find an $n>N$ such that $\vert a_n\vert\ge\epsilon$; this shows that $\epsilon=1$ is a counterexample to the definition of null-ness. The fact that small terms keep appearing doesn't matter; the point is that in a null sequence, large terms can't keep appearing. $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Mar 13 '16 at 22:54

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.