Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space and let $(x_n)$ be a Cauchy sequence in $X$. Let $(\epsilon_n)$ be a sequence of real numbers and decrease to $0$. Show that there is a subsequence $(x_{n_k})$ of $(x_n)$ such that: $$d(x_{n_j},x_{n_k})<\epsilon_{\min\{j,k\}}\:\:\: j,k=1,2,\dots$$

I'm not sure about my solution. Each time I try to find a subsequence, it just makes me more confused. Here is my solution.

Since $(x_n)$ is Cauchy, so for $\epsilon_1$ there is an integer $N_1\in\mathbb{N}$, such that for any $j,m\geq N_1$, we have $d(x_m,x_j)<\epsilon_1.$

Now define a subsequence $(x_{n_k})$ of $(x_n)$ such that: $x_{n_1}=x_{N_1},\: x_{n_2}=x_{N_1+1}$ and so on. Obviously, the subsequence $(x_{n_k})$ is Cauchy.

Similarly, for $\epsilon_2$, there is an integer $N_2$ such that for any $m,j\geq N_2$, we have $d(x_{n_m},x_{n_j})<\epsilon_2.$

Without loss of generality, let $(x_{n})=(x_{n_k})$. Define the subsequence $(x_{n_k})$ of $(x_{n})$ such that $x_{n_1}=x_{N_2}, \: x_{n_2}=x_{N_2+1}$.

Hence, $d(x_{n_1},x_{n_2})<\epsilon_2<\epsilon_1$ and also, $d(x_{n_2},x_{n_3})<\epsilon_2$.

Continuing this method $n'$ times, for $\epsilon_{n'}$, there is an integer $N_{n'}$ such that for any $m,j\geq N_{n'}$, we have $d(x_{m},x_{j})<\epsilon_{n'}$.
Now define seubsequence $(x_{n_k})$ of $(x_n)$ such that: $x_{n_1}=x_{N_{n'}},\: x_{n_2}=x_{N_{n'}+1}$ and so on. Now for the subsequence $(x_{n_k})$ we have: $$d(x_{n_j},x_{n_k})<\epsilon_{n'}<\epsilon_{\min\{j,k\}}\:\:\: j,k=1,2,\dots,n' $$

  • $\begingroup$ When you say "decrease to $0$," are you saying that $\varepsilon_n$ is monotonically decreasing or just that the limit is zero? $\endgroup$ – MCT Jul 21 '16 at 4:38
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelTong Is there any difference between a decreasing sequence to $0$ and a decreasing sequence with limit 0? However, the problem didn't mention to the limit of $(\epsilon_n)$ $\endgroup$ – Parisina Jul 21 '16 at 4:51
  • $\begingroup$ I just wasn't sure if when you said "decrease to $0$" you meant the limit was zero (it's something that makes sense in plain english) or specifically that it decreased to $0$. It doesn't end up mattering for the solution - $\varepsilon_n$ just need to be positive real numbers I think. $\endgroup$ – MCT Jul 21 '16 at 4:53

I think that your way of thinking is correct, but it may also help conceptually to think of these sequences as sets of points which you can manipulate all at once:

We have our original Cauchy sequence $S = \{x_1, x_2, x_3,\ldots\}$ and a decreasing sequence $E$ of positive numbers $\epsilon_1 > \epsilon_2 > \epsilon_3 > \ldots$ which converges monotonically toward zero.

Because the sequence $S$ is Cauchy, we know that for every $\epsilon_i \in E$, there exists an integer $N_i$ so that all of the terms in the tail of $S$ are within $\epsilon_i$ of each other (i.e. for all $x_a,x_b$ with $a,b>N_i$, we have $d(x_a,x_b)<\epsilon_i$.)

The first trick is to notice that we can choose the $N_i$ so that they form an increasing sequence $N_1 < N_2 < N_3 < \ldots$. (Intuitively, this is because if we have some $N_i$, we may freely increase its value as much as we like without affecting the $\epsilon_i$ property.)

Now let us define $S_i$ to refer to the tail of the sequence $S$ starting at term $N_i$:

$$S_i \equiv \{x_n \in S : n > N_i\}\qquad\text{for }i=1,2,3,\ldots$$

The $S_i$ sets have two important properties:

  • Because the $N_i$ are increasing, the $S_i$ are nested: $S_1 \supseteq S_2 \supseteq S_3 \supseteq \ldots$.
  • Because $S$ is Cauchy, every $S_i$ is nonempty, and every pair of points in $S_i$ is within $\epsilon_i$ of each other. (In fact, every $S_i$ contains infinitely many points!)

Now the construction is essentially finished:

  1. Pick any $y_1 \in S_1$ for the first term in the subsequence.
  2. You could pick $y_2 \in S_2$, but you must ensure that it comes after $y_1$ in the original sequence. Therefore, choose $y_2$ from $S_2$ excluding the finitely many points that came before $y_1$ in the original sequence.[1]
  3. Similarly, we can pick each successive term $y_{i+1}$ from the set $S_{i+1}$, excluding the finitely many terms that came before $y_i$ in the original sequence.

It will always be possible to pick the $y_i$ because each $S_i$ contains infinitely many points ($S$ is Cauchy), and because we are only ever excluding finitely many of them in the $i$th step.

[1] A technicality about this exclusion process: of course sequences may contain the same point more than once. If for the $i$th term in our subsequence, we pick the $j$th term $x_j$ of the original sequence, this exclusion process only ensures that the $(i+1)$th term in our subsequence comes later ($x_k$ for some $k>j$). Hence, we are not excluding points in $X$, only terms from the sequence $S$.


Take a point $x_{1, 1}$ such that the open ball $B(x_{1, 1}, \varepsilon_1)$ contains infinitely many points. Denote the subsequence of points of $(x_n)$ in this ball by $(x_{1, k})$. In particular, we may re-order the sequence so that the sequential order of terms in $(x_n)$ is preserved in $(x_{1, k})$.

Now, there is a point $x_{2, 1}$ such that the intersection $B(x_{1, 1}, \varepsilon_1) \cap B(x_{2, 1}, \varepsilon_2)$ contains infinitely many points. Denote this subsequence of points by $(x_{2, k})$ with the same ordering conditino as before. Indeed, $(x_{2, k})$ is clearly a subsequence of $(x_{1, k})$.

Continue this process. Taking the sequence $(x_{j, 1}) := (x_{n_j})$ works.


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.