Consider the following two statements :

$S_1$: If $(a_n)$ is any real sequence , then $(\frac{a_n}{1+|a_n|})$ has a convergent subsequence .

$S_2$ : If every subseqeunce of $(a_n) $ has convergent subsequence , then $(a_n)$ is bounded .

Which is of the follwoing statement is true ?

(A) Both $S_1$ and $S_2$ are true .

(B) Both $S_1$ and $S_2$ are false .

(c) $S_1 $ is false but $S_2$ is true .

(D) $S_2$ is false and $S_1$ is true .

My work : $1+|a_n|\geq 1+a_n>a_n$ . So $|(\frac{a_n}{1+|a_n|})|\leq 1$ . So it is a bounded sequence and via Bolzano-wietrass theorem it has a convergent subsequence .

$a_{2n}$ and $a_{2n-1}$ are convergent . So they are bounded . Let the bounds be $M $ and $L$ respectively .

Hence $a_n \leq M+L $ .So $a_n$ is bounded .

So both $S_1$ and $S_2$ are true .


You are right about $S_1$, and your proof is correct.

Your proof for $S_2$ is wrong, since $(a_{2n})$ and $(a_{2n+1})$ does not represent every subsequence.

Plus, they can not be bounded in general, since $(a_n)$ can be anything.

What you can do instead:

If $(a_n)$ is not bounded, then there exist a subsequence $(b_n)$ such that

$$\vert b_n\vert \to \infty.$$

And this sequence $(b_n)$ can not have a convergent subsequence.

So $S_2$ is true.

  • $\begingroup$ Well, you can guarantee that $|b_n| \to \infty$. $\endgroup$ – Omnomnomnom Jun 3 '17 at 20:35
  • $\begingroup$ @Omnomnomnom I think you can choose $(b_n)$ such that either $b_n\to +\infty$ or $b_n\to -\infty$. But you are right, may be it is more clear that way. $\endgroup$ – E. Joseph Jun 3 '17 at 20:38
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure about clarity, but using $|b_n|$ means you don't have to consider two separate cases. $\endgroup$ – Omnomnomnom Jun 3 '17 at 20:42

Your assessment of $S_1$ is correct: the statement is true.

Note that your approach for $S_2$ is incorrect: we cannot assume that the particular subsequences $(a_{2n}), (a_{2n-1})$ are convergent; all we know is that these subsequences have their own convergent subsequences in turn.

However, the statement is indeed true. I find it's easiest to prove by contrapositive: suppose that $(a_n)$ is not bounded. Then for every $k \in \Bbb N$, there exists an $n_k \in \Bbb N$ such that $|a_{n_k}| > k$ (that is, we can construct a sequence with $|a_{n_k}| \to \infty$). If we construct such a subsequence $(a_{n_k})$, then this subsequence can have no convergent subsequence (why is this the case?).

So, if $(a_{n})$ is such that every subsequence has a convergent subsequence, $(a_n)$ must be bounded.


Your work on the first statement looks good.

On the second, the problem statement says

S2 : If every subseqeunce of $(a_n)$ has convergent subsequence , then $(a_n)$ is bounded.

So we don't know at $a_{2n}$ and $a_{2n+1}$ are convergent, only that they have a convergent subsequence.

  • $\begingroup$ You are right . But how about this approach : $a_{2n}$ is a subsequence of $a_n$ .So $a_{4n}=a_{2(2n)} $ and $a_{2(2n+1)} $ are subsequences of $a_{2n}$ and hence bounded by $M_1 $ and $M_2$ respectively . Similarly $a_{4n+1}=a_2{2n}+1$ and $a_{4n+3}=a_{2{2n+1}} $ are bounded by $M_3$ and $M_4$ . So $a_n$ is bounded by $M_1+M_2+M+M_3+M_4$ . Does it work ? $\endgroup$ – Suman Kundu Jun 3 '17 at 20:39
  • $\begingroup$ @SumanKundu now you're assuming that $a_{2(2n)}$ is convergent, which isn't necessarily the case. $\endgroup$ – Omnomnomnom Jun 3 '17 at 20:43
  • $\begingroup$ That still doesn't work because, for $a_{2n}$, for example, we know that it has some convergent subsequence, not that every subsequence is convergent. So it may happen at $a_{4n}$ is not convergent, but some other subsequence is. $\endgroup$ – idontseethepoint Jun 3 '17 at 20:43
  • $\begingroup$ Ahh ! Now i understand . Thank you . $\endgroup$ – Suman Kundu Jun 3 '17 at 20:45

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.