My current proof: As $x_n$ and $y_n$ are Cauchy, they are both convergent. Then, as $y_n \neq 0$ for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$, then $\displaystyle{\frac{x_n}{y_n}}$ is also convergent. Thus, as $\displaystyle \frac{x_n}{y_n}$ is convergent, $\displaystyle\frac{x_n}{y_n}$ is Cauchy. Therefore, the statement is true.

Does my reasoning make sense? Are there any steps that I am missing, or are there any significant mistakes?

I would appreciate any insight. Thank you for your help!

  • 8
    $\begingroup$ You have also to assume then $y_n \not\to 0$. Otherwise you are wrong. For $x_n = 1 \to 1$, $y_n =\frac 1n \to 0$, but $\frac{x_n}{y_n} = n$ does not converge. $\endgroup$ – martini Nov 26 '12 at 8:23
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! I knew that I was missing something essential in my proof. $\endgroup$ – Jess Nov 26 '12 at 8:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I should point out that Cauchy sequences are not necessarily convergent, though since your sequences are real-valued, they are. I apologize if you already were aware of this; I just know that sometimes this is a point of confusion when students first generalize analysis to arbitrary metric spaces. $\endgroup$ – Christopher A. Wong Nov 26 '12 at 8:31
  • $\begingroup$ A real sequence is Cauchy iff it is convergent. Thus your question reduces to: if x_n and y_n are convergent, is x_n / y_n convergent? This is true by the algebra of limits. One way of seeing this is that if y_n converges to B then 1/y_n converges to 1/B and if x_n converges to A then x_n/y_n = [x_n times (1/y_n)] converges to A/B by AOL $\endgroup$ – Adam Rubinson Nov 26 '12 at 9:16
  • $\begingroup$ @Adam: you're missing an important case. $y_n$ can't converge to $0$, or else the fraction converges to $A/0$ (i.e., does not converge) $\endgroup$ – nomen Dec 25 '14 at 3:26

Suppose $\{x_n\}$, $\{y_n\}$ are Cauchy sequences where $y_n \neq 0$ for all $n \in \mathbb N$ and $y_n \not\to 0$.

Let $\varepsilon > 0$.

There exists $N_1$ such that if $n, m > N_1$ then $\displaystyle \vert x_n - x_m \vert < \frac{C^2 \varepsilon}{2M_y}$.

There exists $N_2$ such that if $n, m > N_2$ then $\displaystyle \vert y_n - y_m \vert < \frac{C^2 \varepsilon}{2M_x}$.

Since $\{x_n\}$, $\{y_n\}$ are Cauchy, they are bounded.

So there exist $M_x, M_y$ such that $\vert x_n \vert \leq M_x$ for all $n \in \mathbb N$ and $\vert y_n \vert \leq M_y$ for all $n \in \mathbb N$.

Since $y_n \not \to 0$ there exists $C > 0$ such that for all $n \in \mathbb N$ we have $\vert y_n \vert \geq C$. This implies that $\displaystyle \frac{1}{\vert y_ny_m \vert} \leq \frac{1}{C^2}$ for all $n \in \mathbb N$.

If $n, m > N := \max\{N_1, N_2\}$, then \begin{align*} \bigg \vert \frac{x_n}{y_n} - \frac{x_m}{y_m} \bigg \vert &= \bigg \vert \frac{x_ny_m - x_my_n}{y_ny_m} \bigg \vert \\ &= \bigg \vert \frac{x_ny_m - x_ny_n + x_ny_n - x_my_n}{y_ny_m} \bigg \vert \\ &\leq \frac{\vert x_ny_m - x_ny_n\vert + \vert x_ny_n - x_my_n\vert }{\vert y_ny_m\vert } \\ &=\frac{\vert x_n \vert \vert y_m - y_n\vert + \vert y_n \vert \vert x_n - x_m\vert }{\vert y_ny_m\vert } \\ &< \frac{M_x \cdot \frac{C^2 \varepsilon}{2M_x} + M_y \frac{C^2 \varepsilon}{2M_y}}{C^2} \\ &= \varepsilon. \end{align*}

Thus $\{x_n/y_n\}$ is a Cauchy sequence by definition.

Without the $y_n \not\to 0$ hypothesis, this will not work. We need to bound the denominator away from zero. Martini's counterexample shows this brilliantly: $$x_n = 1 \to 1, \qquad y_n = \frac{1}{n} \to 0, \qquad \frac{x_n}{y_n} = n \to \infty$$ and hence it's not Cauchy because it's not bounded, and we know that every Cauchy sequence is bounded.


Suppose $x_n = 1/n^2$ and $y_n = 1/n^4$.

Then $x_n$ and $y_n$ are Cauchy but $x_n/y_n =n^2 $ which is not convergent and therefore not Cauchy.

So you also need to assume that $|y_n| > r $ for some positive real $r$.


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.