2
$\begingroup$

Is my attempt at this problem correct?

Problem. Prove that the bolzano-weirstrass theorem implies the monotone convergence theorem. Do this without recourse to the axiom of completeness.

Proof. Let $(\alpha_n)$ be a increasing sequence that is bounded above, appealing to the Bolzano–Weierstrass Theorem yields a subsequence $(\alpha_{n_k})$ such that $(\alpha_{n_k})\to\beta$ for some $\beta\in\mathbf{R}$. We now show that $(\alpha_n)\to\beta$.

Let $\epsilon>0$, since $(\alpha_{n_k})\to\beta$, there exist a $n_K$ such that $|\alpha_{n_p}-\beta|<\epsilon/2,\forall p\ge K$. Now let $r\in\{n_K,n_K+1,n_K+2,\dots\}$, surely $n_K\leq r\leq n_{r}$ implying $|\alpha_{n_r}-\beta|<\epsilon$.

We now show that $|\alpha_r-\alpha_{n_r}|<\epsilon/2$, since $r\leq n_r$ and $(\alpha_n)$ is increasing it follows that $\alpha_r\leq \alpha_{n_r}<\alpha_{n_r}+\epsilon/2$. Now assume $\alpha_{n_r}-\epsilon/2\ge\alpha_r$ but then $\alpha_{n_r}>\alpha_r$ contradicting the fact that $(\alpha_n)$ is increasing thus $\alpha_{n_r}-\epsilon/2<\alpha_r$. In summary $\alpha_{n_r}-\epsilon/2<\alpha_r<\alpha_{n_r}+\epsilon/2$, equivalently $|\alpha_r-\alpha_{n_r}|<\epsilon/2$.

Thus $|\alpha_r-\beta| = |(\alpha_r-\alpha_{n_r})+(\alpha_{n_r}-\beta)|\leq |\alpha-\alpha_{n_r}|+|(\alpha_{n_r}-\beta|\leq\epsilon/2+\epsilon/2 = \epsilon$. An analogous argument can be constructed for the case where $(\alpha_n)$ is decreasing.

$\blacksquare$

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Your argument is a bit mixed up about the indexing of the convergent subsequence given to you by the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem: $(\alpha_{n_k})$ is a sequence indexed by $k$ and $(\alpha_{n_k}) \to \beta$ as $k \to \infty$. You also don't need to be taking estimates involving $\epsilon/2$ and you can take advantage of the monotonicity to avoid appealing to the triangle inequality.

Let's assume $(\alpha_n)$ is monotone non-decreasing. Given $\epsilon > 0$, the fact that $(\alpha_{n_k}) \to \beta$ says that there is a $K$ such that $\beta - \epsilon < \alpha_{n_k} \le \beta$ whenever $k > K$. But then taking $N = n_{K}$, we have (by monotonicity of $(a_n)$) that $\beta - \epsilon < \alpha_N = \alpha_{n_K} \le \alpha_r \le \beta$ whenever $r > N$. So $(\alpha_n) \to \beta$ if $(\alpha_n)$ is monotone non-decreasing.

Similarly for the case when $(\alpha_n)$ is monotone non-increasing.

(Apologies for being pedantic: I've written "non-decreasing"/"non-increasing" where you've written "increasing"/"decreasing" because we need to allow for sequences where we have $\alpha_n = \alpha_{n+1}$ for some $n$.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What do mean by "mixed up about indexing"? $\endgroup$ – Atif Farooq Jul 31 '18 at 23:25
  • $\begingroup$ You write $\forall n_p \ge n_k$, where your should be talking about the indexes $p$ and $k$. That's like saying"for all $\sin(\theta)$" rather than talking about the value of $\sin(\theta)$ for all $\theta$. $\endgroup$ – Rob Arthan Jul 31 '18 at 23:30
  • $\begingroup$ I have made some edits what would you say now about the argument above? $\endgroup$ – Atif Farooq Jul 31 '18 at 23:32
  • $\begingroup$ You don't need the estimates involving $\epsilon/2$ or the triangle inequality. $\endgroup$ – Rob Arthan Jul 31 '18 at 23:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for the green tick! I was just writing the following: "think of the sequence as a train line with infinitely many stops: Bolzano-Weierstrass tells you that there is an express train that may miss some of the stops but has a limit point at a final destination. If there is a slow train in front of the express, the slow train is going to have the same limit point." $\endgroup$ – Rob Arthan Jul 31 '18 at 23:54

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.