2
$\begingroup$

The question I am working on is:

Let $(a_n)$ be a fixed (and unspecified) strictly increasing sequence of real numbers. Find (with proof) a sequence $(b_n)$ whose set of cluster points is precisely $(a_n)$.

However, I don't see how this could be true. For example, let $a_n := \sum_{i = 0}^n 10^{-i}$. Then $(a_n)$ is strictly increasing, and it's limit is $\frac{10}{9} = L$. Suppose $(b_n)$ were such a sequence where it's cluster points were exactly the points in $(a_n)$.

Then because $a_n \to L$, for any $\varepsilon > 0$, we have some $N$ so that for all $n \geq N$, $d(a_n, L) < \varepsilon / 2$, and $d(b_i, a_n) < \varepsilon / 2$ for some $b_i$ (because $a_n$ is a cluster point of $(b_n)$), so $d(b_i, L) \leq d(b_i, a_n) + d(a_n, L) < \epsilon$. Picking such a $b_i$ for each $a_n$ gives a subsequence of $(b_n)$, $(b_{n_i})$, so that $b_{n_i} \to L$, so then $L$ is a limit point of $(b_n)$. Then $L$ must be a point in $a_i$. But there is no $n$ so that $\sum_{i = 0}^n 10^{-i} = \frac{10}{9}$.

So $(a_n)$ is a strictly increasing sequence of real numbers for which there can be no sequence whose cluster points are exactly $(a_n)$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ HINT: What got you in trouble was having the sequence $(a_n)$ converge in the first place! $\endgroup$ – Ted Shifrin Oct 9 '19 at 21:25
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @TedShifrin But the question doesn’t say the sequence can’t converge? $\endgroup$ – Reed Oei Oct 9 '19 at 21:26
  • $\begingroup$ You're right. $(a_n)$ should "converge" to $+\infty$. $\endgroup$ – amsmath Oct 9 '19 at 21:27
  • $\begingroup$ You argued that if $a_n\to L$, then $L$ will have to be a cluster point of $(b_n)$. $\endgroup$ – Ted Shifrin Oct 9 '19 at 21:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your counterexample looks valid to me. There must be a missing hypothesis. $\endgroup$ – Bungo Oct 9 '19 at 21:43
2
$\begingroup$

You just need to design a sequence $(b_n)$ that gets arbitrarily close to every point in $(a_n)$. You have total freedom to choose the $b_n$'s. For example, the sequence $(b_n)$ could start out within $1$ of $a_1$; its next two terms could be within $\frac12$ of $a_1$ and $a_2$, the next three terms could be within $\frac13$ of $a_1$, $a_2$, $a_3$, etc. Your job is to show that such a $(b_n)$ satisfies the requirements of your problem.

EDIT: As discussed in the comments, any construction of $b_n$ will also pick up $\lim a_n$ as a cluster point of $(b_n)$, unless the sequence $(a_n)$ is unbounded. When $(a_n)$ is bounded, the OP's argument shows how $\lim a_n$ will be a cluster point of $(b_n)$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ But wouldn’t this have the same problem I mentioned above, where such a sequence may have additional cluster points that are not elements of the sequence $(a_n)$? $\endgroup$ – Reed Oei Oct 9 '19 at 21:43
  • $\begingroup$ This construction will ensure that the set of cluster points of $(b_n)$ includes every $a_n$, but this set may be a strict superset of $(a_n)$, e.g. if $(a_n)$ has cluster points not contained in $(a_n)$, as in the OP's example. $\endgroup$ – Bungo Oct 9 '19 at 21:44
  • $\begingroup$ @Bungo Quite right. It is hard to see how to avoid $L$ also being a limit point of any sequence $b_n$, unless the sequence $a_n$ is unbounded. $\endgroup$ – grand_chat Oct 9 '19 at 21:46
  • $\begingroup$ Even unboundedness wouldn't suffice in general. For example, $a_n$ could be something like $1, -1, 1/2, 2, -2, 1/3, 3, -3, 1/4, 4, -4, \ldots$ which is unbounded above and below but has zero as a cluster point that is not contained in the sequence, so $b_n$ will also cluster at zero. There's clearly a missing hypothesis, but I'm not sure what it should have been. $\endgroup$ – Bungo Oct 9 '19 at 21:48
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Bungo We can still assume $(a_n)$ is strictly increasing. $\endgroup$ – grand_chat Oct 9 '19 at 21:48

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.