I'm struggling a little with this question:

Let c be a cluster point of $A ⊂ \mathbb{R}$, and $f : A → \mathbb{R}$ be a function. Suppose for every sequence $\{x_n \}$ in A, such that $\lim x_n = c$, the sequence $\{ f (x_n )\}_{n=1}^{\infty} $ is Cauchy. Prove that $\lim_{x \rightarrow c} f(x)$ exists.

I also have the following lemma, which should probably help a lot:

Let $S ⊂ \mathbb{R}$ and $c$ be a cluster point of $S$. Let $f:S→ \mathbb{R} $ be a function. Then $f(x)→L$ as $x→c$ if and only if for every sequence ${x_n}$ of numbers such that $x_n ∈ S - \{c \}$ for all n, and such that $\lim x_n = c$, we have that the sequence ${ f (x_n)}$ converges to L.

I feel like I'm so close but I'm missing something incredibly obvious.

Following the hint from Robert Shore, this is my attempt:

We try to prove that all sequences ${ f (x_n)} $ converge to a unique limit $L$. Assume for sake of contradiction that there are two sequences $\{x_{n_1}\} , \{x_{n_2}\}$ where $\lim \{x_{n_1}\} = \lim \{x_{n_2}\} = c$ but $\lim \{f(x_{n_1})\} = L_1 \neq \lim \{f(x_{n_2})\} = L_2$. Then from the epsilon-delta definition of limits, we have: $$ \forall \epsilon > 0, \exists M_1, \forall n \geq M_1 \implies |f(x_{n_1}) - L_1| < \epsilon/2 $$ $$ \forall \epsilon > 0, \exists M_2, \forall n \geq M_2 \implies |f(x_{n_2}) - L_2| < \epsilon/2 $$ Then $$ |L_1 - L_2| = |f(x_{n_1}) - L_1 - (f(x_{n_2}) - L_2 )|$$ $$ \leq |f(x_{n_1}) - L_1| + |f(x_{n_2}) - L_2|$$ $$ < \epsilon/2 + \epsilon/2 =\epsilon$$ Since $|L_1 - L_2| < \epsilon$ for all $\epsilon > 0, |L_1-L_2| = 0$ and so $L_1 = L_2$

I somehow feel like this proof is going in the wrong direction - I'm not at all using the fact that $\lim x_n = c$

  • $\begingroup$ By $R$ do you mean the real numbers $\Bbb R$? Or is $R$ some more general space? $\endgroup$ – Robert Shore Mar 5 at 22:14
  • $\begingroup$ R is indeed the real numbers. I'll make this edit. $\endgroup$ – JaP Mar 5 at 22:15
  • $\begingroup$ The proof is ok, except you have to choose an index $N$ such that the two inequalities you wrote are satisfied and then add and subtract $f(x_N)$. You're using that the limit of the two sequences is $c$ both because you're saying that the limits of the sequences $f(x_{n_i}})$ exist and in applying the Lemma you cited afterwards to claim that the limit of the function exists. $\endgroup$ – Federico Mar 5 at 23:07

Here's an outline of the proof. Since $\Bbb R$ is complete, every Cauchy sequence converges. Therefore, for every sequence $\{x_n \}$ converging to $c$, we have that $\{f(x_n) \}$ converges. All you need to prove is that all such sequences $\{f(x_n) \}$ converge to the same limit. (Let us know if you need help with that.) Once you know that, call that unique limit $L$ and then apply the Lemma.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! I'll do this now. $\endgroup$ – JaP Mar 5 at 22:23
  • $\begingroup$ Do you mind taking a look now? $\endgroup$ – JaP Mar 5 at 22:46
  • $\begingroup$ If two sequences $\{f(x_n) \}$ and $\{f(y_n) \}$ go to two different limits $L_1$ and $L_2$, consider what happens to the sequence obtained when you "interleave" the two sequences: $\{f(x_1), f(y_1), f(x_2), f(y_2), \ldots \}.$ It has to be Cauchy (because since $x_n$ and $y_n$ both converge to $c$, the interleaved sequence $\{x_1, y_1, x_2, y_2, \ldots \}$ also has to converge to $c$), but the difference between $L_1$ and $L_2$ ensures that it can't be. $\endgroup$ – Robert Shore Mar 5 at 23:10
  • $\begingroup$ And by the way, if you find an answer helpful, an upvote and an acceptance are always appreciated. $\endgroup$ – Robert Shore Mar 5 at 23:15
  • $\begingroup$ I got it! Thanks so much! $\endgroup$ – JaP Mar 5 at 23:20

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.