Assume $(a_n)_{n=1}^\infty$ has the following property: For all $\epsilon>0$ exists some $N\in\Bbb N$ such that for every $n>m\ge N$, $a_n-a_m<\epsilon$. We want to prove that $a_n$ converges to a real limit or to $-\infty$.

This condition implies that $a_n$ is bounded above. So, I tried to show what happens if it's bounded below or unbounded below. When bounded below, by Bolzano-Weierstrass $a_n$ has some convergent subsequence, $a_{n_k} \rightarrow L$, so for all $k\ge K$ for some $K\in \Bbb N$, $|a_{n_k}-L|<\epsilon \iff -\epsilon<a_{n_k}-L<\epsilon$ .

I tried to use this to prove the convergence of the entire sequence but it didn't work - I tried to take some $n>n_k>max(N, n_K)$, $a_n-L=a_n-a_{n_k}+a_{n_k}-L <2\epsilon$, but now I can't get the left inequality right. This makes me question my entire process. Maybe I should've gone about this a different way?


Your approach is fine.

If $(a_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ is undounded below, Take $M<0$. The inequality $a_n<M-1$ holds infinitely often and there is a $N\in\mathbb N$ such that $$n>m\geqslant N\implies a_n-a_m<1.$$Therefore, if $n\gg1$, $a_n<(M-1)+1=M$. This proves that $\lim_{n\to\infty}a_n=-\infty$.

Otherwise, let $L=\liminf_na_n$. Take $\varepsilon>0$. Then the inequality $|a_n-L|<\frac\varepsilon2$ hold infinitely often and $a_n>L-\frac\varepsilon2$ if $n\gg1$. Now, take $N\in\mathbb N$ such that$$n>m\geqslant N\implies a_n-a_m<\frac\varepsilon2.$$Then, if $n\gg1$, $|L-a_n|<\varepsilon$.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't understand the sentence beginning with "Therefore". $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Jan 22 '18 at 1:19
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielWainfleet I suppose that that's due to a typo in the previous sentence: I wrote “$a_n<M-$”, whereas I should have written “$a_n<M-1$”. The answer has already been edited. $\endgroup$ – José Carlos Santos Jan 22 '18 at 8:45
  • $\begingroup$ Good A...................... $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Jan 24 '18 at 5:04
  • $\begingroup$ Not sure I understand. How does the fact that $a_n<M-1$ for an infinite number is $n$'s, imply that for all $1<<m<n$, $a_n<M$? This is unclear to me as the first inequality does not necessarily hold for all $m$'s in the range. $\endgroup$ – Noa Jan 24 '18 at 8:26
  • $\begingroup$ @Noa Take $N$ large enough so that $n>m\geqslant M\implies a_n-a_m<1$. Take $m\geqslant N$ such that $a_m<M-1$. Then,$$n\geqslant m\implies a_n=a_n-a_m+a_m<1+M-1=M.$$ $\endgroup$ – José Carlos Santos Jan 24 '18 at 8:31

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.