0
$\begingroup$

Here's my attempt:

Lemma: If a real number $x = \lim_{n\to \infty} x_n > 0$, then the terms of the Cauchy sequence $\langle x_n \rangle$ must be eventually positive, i.e., there exists $N \in \mathbb{N}$ s.t., $\forall n\geq N$, $x_n >0$.

Proof: By definition of $x>0$, $x = \lim_{n\to \infty} y_n$ for some $\langle y_n \rangle $ that is positively bounded away from zero, so that $\forall n\geq N, y_n \geq w$, where $w>0 \in \mathbb{Q}$. Since $\lim_{n\to \infty} x_n = \lim_{n\to \infty} y_n$, by definition $\langle x_n \rangle = \langle y_n \rangle$. Then if we pick $\epsilon = \frac{w}{2}>0$, there exists $N$ s.t. $\forall n \geq N, |x_n - y_n| \leq \frac{w}{2}$, which implies $x_n - y_n \geq -\frac{w}{2}$; adding $y_n \geq w$ to both sides gives $x_n \geq \frac{w}{2} > 0$.

On to the real proof:

Since $a > c$, the formal limit of the Cauchy sequence of rationals $\langle a_n - c\rangle$ must be positive. By definition, this means $\lim_{n\to \infty} a_n -c = \lim_{n\to \infty} b_n$ for some Cauchy sequence $\langle b_n \rangle$ that is positively bounded away from zero, i.e., $\exists d >0, \forall n, b_n \geq d$. By definition of equality of real numbers, the sequences $\langle a_n -c \rangle$ and $\langle b_n \rangle$ are equivalent, so for every $\epsilon >0$, there exists $N_1 \in \mathbb{N}$ s.t. $\forall n \geq N_1$, $|a_n - c - b_n| \leq \epsilon$.

Since $a>0$, by our lemma there exists $N_2$ such that $\forall n\geq N_2, a_n > 0$. Let $N = \max \{N_1, N_2\}$.

Now assume for contradiction that it's not the case that eventually $a_n > c$; then there must exist $n_0\geq N$ with $a_{n_0} \leq c$, for otherwise eventually $\forall n\geq N, a_n > c$, a contradiction.

Then we have

$$c + d - a_{n_0} \leq c + b_n- a_{n_0} = |c + b_n| - |a_{n_0}| \leq |a_{n_0} - c - b_n| \leq \epsilon $$ so $a_{n_0} \geq c + d - \epsilon$.

If we choose $\epsilon=d/2$, then $a_{n_0} \geq c + d/2$, contradicting our assumption that $a_{n_0} \leq c$.

Is this correct? Any simpler or alternative proof is also appreciated.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ In the original post I intentionally used $lim$ instead of $\lim$, to emphasize that the real numbers are taken to be the formal (instead of "genuine") limits of rational numbers, i.e. a real $x$ is an object of the form $lim_{n\to\infty} x_n$ for some Cauchy sequence of rationals. But I guess the difference isn't critical. $\endgroup$ – Yibo Yang Jul 7 '18 at 18:44
  • $\begingroup$ I edited your for this problem. Very often, it isn't intentional, so when I happen to be looking at a post with this problem, iItake the liberty of editing it. Anyway, I don't think the difference is important here. $\endgroup$ – Bernard Jul 7 '18 at 18:47
  • $\begingroup$ Oh! b.t.w;, that $c$ be rational or not is unimportant, I think. $\endgroup$ – Bernard Jul 7 '18 at 18:49
  • $\begingroup$ You're right; I simplified things a bit :) $\endgroup$ – Yibo Yang Jul 7 '18 at 18:54
0
$\begingroup$

Proof

Let $\varepsilon=\dfrac{a-c}{2}>0.$ Then, accoring to the $\varepsilon-N$ definition of the sequence limit, we have that,for the $\varepsilon=\dfrac{a-c}{2}>0,$ there exists a $N \in \mathbb{N_+}$ such that $|a_n-a|<\varepsilon=\dfrac{a-c}{2}$when $n>N$. Thus, when $n>N$, we may have $-\dfrac{a-c}{2}<a_n-a$, namely, $a_n>a-\dfrac{a-c}{2}=\dfrac{a+c}{2}>c.$ This is exactly what we want to prove.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ That's for ordinary convergence, isn't it? As I understood the question it's a Cauchy sequence, not necessarily converging in the ordinary sense. $\endgroup$ – md2perpe Jul 7 '18 at 19:05
  • $\begingroup$ The Real Numbers with the Euclidan Normal is a Complete Metric Space. This means a sequence is Cauchy for the reals Number with the euclidan normal IF and ONLY IF, it is convergent. $\endgroup$ – user518441 Jul 7 '18 at 19:46
  • $\begingroup$ I know, but since Yibo Young started to talk about Cauchy sequences it seemed like we should work with such. $\endgroup$ – md2perpe Jul 7 '18 at 20:21

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.