I have been tasked with proving the following:
$a_n$ is bounded but not necessarily convergent
assume that $\lim{b_n} \to 0$
show $\lim{a_n b_n} \to 0$.
I started my proof listing what I know:
- If $a_n$ is bounded then there is some number $M \gt 0$ such that $|a_n| \le M$ for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$.
- $|b_n - 0| \lt \epsilon$.
My proof proceeded directly from this:
$|a_n b_n| = |a_n| |b_n| \lt \epsilon$
$|b_n| \lt \frac{\epsilon}{|a_n|}$
And since $|b_n - 0| = |b_n|$ can be made arbitrarily small by (2) above we have shown that for all $n \ge N$ ($N \in \mathbb{N}$),
$|a_n b_n| = |a_n| |b_n| \lt |a_n| \frac{\epsilon}{|a_n|} = \epsilon$.
Our limit therefore converges to 0 as desired.
I was fairly satisfied with this proof, I had considered $M$ being able to be replaced by $|a_n|$ (as I didn't see a reason I couldnt do this), so this took advantage of (1) as well.
The author went about it in a different but similar way starting from the same "base":
$|a_n b_n - 0| = |a_n| |b_n| \le M|b_n|$ from (1)
Because $(b_n) \to 0$ we can pick an $N$ such that:
$|b_N| \lt \frac{\epsilon}{K}$
Finally, we can conclude that for this choice of $N$,
$|a_n b_n - 0| \lt K |b_n| \lt K \frac{\epsilon}{K} = \epsilon$
The author seemed to have just "dropped" the $|a_n|$ from the last part where he does $K |b_n|$?
Other than that weirdness (and the ham fisted nature of my newbie proof), is there any fundamental differences in our approach? Am I not able to let $M = |a_n|$?