In this problem, we will investigate a new property which some sequences may have. Here is a new definition.

Definition: A sequence $\{a_n\}_{n=0}^∞$ is said to be Cauchy iff

$$\forall \varepsilon,\exists N\in\mathbb{N}s.t.\forall n\in\mathbb{N},\forall m\in\mathbb{N}(n,m\geq N\rightarrow|a_n-a_m|<\varepsilon)$$

Let $\{a_n\}_{n=0}^∞$ be a sequence of real numbers that converges to a number L. Show that $\{a_n\}_{n=0}^∞$ must be Cauchy

My attempts:


Let $\{a_n\}_{n=0}^∞$ be a sequence of real numbers

Assume $\{a_n\}_{n=0}^∞$ converges to a number L where $L\in \mathbb{R}$

Show $\{a_n\}_{n=0}^∞$ must be Cauchy

By assumption we have

1.$\forall \varepsilon>0,\exists n_0\in\mathbb{N}s.t.\forall n\in\mathbb{N},(n\geq n_0\rightarrow L-\varepsilon<a_n<L+\varepsilon)$


$\forall \varepsilon>0,\exists N\in \mathbb{N}s.t.\forall n,m\in \mathbb{N},n,m\geq N\rightarrow a_m-\varepsilon<a_n<a_m+\varepsilon$

By 1. we have

$\forall \varepsilon>0,\exists N\in\mathbb{N}s.t.\forall n,m\in\mathbb{N},$

$n\geq N\rightarrow L-\varepsilon<a_n<L+\varepsilon $

$\wedge m\geq N\rightarrow L-\varepsilon<a_m<L+\varepsilon$

Since $2\varepsilon>0$, this also hold for $2\varepsilon$

Implies the following:

$\forall \varepsilon>0,\exists N\in\mathbb{N}s.t.\forall n,m\in\mathbb{N},$

$n\geq N\rightarrow\underbrace{L-2\varepsilon<a_n<L+2\varepsilon}_\alpha $

$\wedge m\geq N\rightarrow\underbrace{L-\varepsilon<a_m<L+\varepsilon}_\beta$

$\Leftrightarrow \forall \varepsilon>0,\exists N\in\mathbb{N}s.t.\forall n,m\in\mathbb{N},\underbrace{n,m\geq N}_p$

$\rightarrow \underbrace{L-\varepsilon<a_n<L+\varepsilon\wedge L-\varepsilon<a_m<L+\varepsilon}_q$

Since $\alpha -\beta$ have $-\varepsilon<a_n-a_m<\varepsilon$

That $a_m-\varepsilon<a_n<a_m+\varepsilon$

$\forall \varepsilon>0,\exists N\in\mathbb{N}s.t.\forall n,m\in\mathbb{N},\underbrace{n,m\geq N}_p$

$\rightarrow ((\underbrace{L-\varepsilon<a_n<L+\varepsilon\wedge L-\varepsilon<a_m<L+\varepsilon}_q)\rightarrow \underbrace{a_m-\varepsilon<a_n<a_m+\varepsilon}_r)$

Consider $((p\rightarrow (q\rightarrow r))\rightarrow(p\rightarrow r))$

It's only False when p is true, q is false and r is false.

However we had show $p\rightarrow q$ is true,

but when p is true and q is false that $p\rightarrow q$ is false

Therefore this False case can never happen by contradiction

In another word $((p\rightarrow q)\wedge(p\rightarrow (q\rightarrow r)))\rightarrow(p\rightarrow r)$ is a tautology

Implies $\forall \varepsilon>0,\exists N\in\mathbb{N}s.t.\forall n,m\in\mathbb{N},\underbrace{n,m\geq N}_p \rightarrow \underbrace{\vert a_n-a_m\vert<\varepsilon}_r$

Therefore $\{a_n\}_{n=0}^∞$ must be Cauchy

Is my proof correct? Any suggestion would be appreciated.


Although the proof seems correct from a logical point of view, those references to first-order logic make it quite hard to read and there is no reason for them. It is much simpler to write that, given $\varepsilon>0$, if you take $N\in\mathbb N$ such that $n\geqslant N\implies\lvert a_n-L\rvert<\frac\varepsilon2$, then, if $m,n\geqslant N$,$$\lvert a_m-a_n\rvert=\lvert a_m-L+L-a_n\rvert\leqslant\lvert a_m-L\rvert+\lvert a_n-L\rvert<\varepsilon.$$


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.