0
$\begingroup$

Find a sequence such that for any real number $x$, there exists a subsequence which converges to $x$.

So I pick the sequence of the rational numbers ( we know this is a sequence because the rationals are countable ) so we write

$f : N \to Q$

$n \to (r_1,r_2,r_3, \cdots )$

And then I defined the gubsequence $g : N \to N$ so that $f o g : N \to Q.$

We define g(k) such that $x-1 < r(g(1)) < x+1$

$x-\tfrac12 < r(g(2)) < x+\tfrac12$

And in general,

$x-\tfrac{1}{2^{k-1}} < r(g(k)) < x+ \tfrac{1}{2^{k-1}}$

where $r(g(k))$ is the rational number corresponding to the index $g(k)$ in our list of rationals.

But then, I face a different problem.

How do I ensure that $g(k)$ is a strictly increasing function, i.e , my subsequence doesn't mess up the order the terms appear in?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Please use MathJax to format maths in your question to make things more readable. You can find some more information here math.stackexchange.com/help/notation $\endgroup$ – Rhys Steele Sep 27 '17 at 22:15
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, essentially you are defining a subsequence of $\{r_n\}$, $g_1,g_2,\cdots$ such that $g_k$ is the first term of $\{r_n\}$ lying in the interval $\left(x-2^{-k},x+2^{-k}\right)$. This will converge to $x$. If you want strictly increasing, pick $g_k$ in $\left(x-2^{-k},x\right)$. $\endgroup$ – John Wayland Bales Sep 27 '17 at 22:23
  • $\begingroup$ I have tried to improve your text. Next time use Mathjax... $\endgroup$ – Jean Marie Sep 27 '17 at 22:29
2
$\begingroup$

Note that when you choose the value of $g(k)$, there are only finitely many natural numbers smaller than $g(k)$. But there are infinitely many rationals in $(x - \frac{1}{2^{k}}, x + \frac{1}{2^{k}})$ so there are infinitely many rationals in that interval with an index higher than $g(k)$. Picking the index of such a rational to be $g(k+1)$ allows you to ensure that $g$ is strictly increasing.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I don't understand how we went from infinitely many rationals in the interval to infinitely many rationals with an index higher than g(k). Suppose we want x=0.5 Then $-0.5$< $r_g(_1)$< $1.5$ And $0$< $r_g(_2)$< $1.0$ Then how do we conclude that g(2) > g(1)? $\endgroup$ – Saad Sep 27 '17 at 23:15
  • $\begingroup$ Remember we are free to choose $g(k)$ in a clever way (having chosen $g(1), \dots, g(k-1)$). Since the set $\{1, 2, 3, \dots, g(k) \}$ is finite it cannot contain the index of every one of the infinitely many rationals in $(x - \frac{1}{2^{k}}, x + \frac{1}{2^{k}})$. As a result we can pick a rational in that interval whose index is not contained in $\{1, 2, 3, \dots, g(k) \}$ to be $g(k=1)$. i.e. such that $g(k+1) \gt g(k)$ $\endgroup$ – Rhys Steele Sep 27 '17 at 23:24
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. I think I understand now. $\endgroup$ – Saad Sep 28 '17 at 0:11

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.