Definition: A sequence $(a_n)$ converges to a real number $a$ if, for every positive $\epsilon$, there exists an $N \in \mathbb N$ such that whenever $n \ge N$ it follows that $|a_n - a| \lt \epsilon$.

Using only this definition prove that if $(x_n) \rightarrow 2$ then $$(\frac{2x_n -1}{3}) \rightarrow1.$$

Solution. Since $(x_n) \rightarrow 2$ then there exists $N_1 \le n$ such that $|x_n -2| \lt \epsilon$. Choose $N_2 \le n$ such that $|x_n -2| \lt \frac{3\epsilon}{2}$. Then we have $$\frac{2}{3}|x_n -2| \lt \epsilon \Rightarrow \frac{2x_n -4}{3} \lt \epsilon $$

from which follows $$\frac{2x_n -1 -3}{3} \lt \epsilon $$
and hence $$\left|\frac{2x_n -1}{3} -1\right| \lt \epsilon $$ which by definition is $$\left(\frac{2x_n -1}{3}\right) \rightarrow1.$$

Is my argument correct to prove the fact? I feel like its missing something. Thank you in advance.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ what is $n$??.. $\endgroup$ – mathworker21 Jul 14 '18 at 5:18
  • $\begingroup$ @mathworker21 Thats the thing... How do I write $n$ less than some $\epsilon$ value in this case? $\endgroup$ – Red Jul 14 '18 at 5:22

So you are given an assumption of the form $\forall x_1 \exists y_1 ~P$, and you need to prove a statement of the form $\forall x_2 \exists y_2 ~ Q$. To prove the conclusion, you must present a function $y_2(x_2)$ that satisfies $Q$, and you may assume the existence of the function $y_1(x_1)$ which satisfies $P$. For this problem, you have to do that by defining $y_2$ in terms of $y_1$.

Since $(x_n) \to 2$ then there exists $N_1 \le n$

No. $N$ is a function of $\epsilon$, of the form $\mathbb R \to \mathbb N$. $N$ is not a function of $n$. If you want to call it $N_1$ to distinguish it from the solution that is good though.

Choose $N_2 \le n$ such that $|x_n−2| < \frac{3\varepsilon}2$.

That doesn't make sense to me. You are correct that the core of the proof is to show that $N_2 : \mathbb R \to \mathbb N$ exists which satisfies the conclusion. But I don't see how you are defining that here. You need to say something like

"Choose $N_2$ such that $N_2(\varepsilon) = \dots$"

And for this problem it is that $N_2(\varepsilon)= N_1(\frac 32 \varepsilon)$. So basically you go:

To prove: $$n > N_2(\varepsilon) \implies \left|\frac{2x_n - 1}3 - 1\right| < \varepsilon$$

Choose $N_1(\frac 32 \varepsilon)$ as the witness for $N_2(\varepsilon)$ so: $$n > N_1\left(\frac 32 \varepsilon\right) \implies \left|\frac{2x_n - 1}3 - 1\right| < \varepsilon$$

You can change variables and let $3/2~\varepsilon = d$:

$$n > N_1(d) \implies \left|\frac{2x_n - 1}3 - 1\right| < \frac 23 d$$

Some real number equivalences:

$$n > N_1(d) \implies \left|x_n - 2\right| < d$$

And that is the original assumption, which shows that choosing $N_1(\frac 32 \varepsilon)$ as the definition for $N_2(\varepsilon)$ satisfies the conclusion.

| cite | improve this answer | |

You've shown that, for sufficiently large $n$, \begin{align*} \frac{2x_n-1}{3} < 1+\varepsilon. \end{align*} You would also need to show that for large enough $n$, \begin{align*} \frac{2x_n-1}{3} > 1-\varepsilon. \end{align*} However, the proof is trivial if we simply invoke the continuity of the function $f(x) = (2x-1)/3$.

| cite | improve this answer | |

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.