0
$\begingroup$

Can anyone verify if the following proof is correct and/or suggest any improvement to be made?

Let $x \in \mathbb{R}$ and let $\{x_n\}$ be sequence of real numbers not convergent to $x$. Then there is $\varepsilon > 0$ and subsequence $\{x_{n_k}\}$ such that for all $k \in \mathbb{N}$ we have $|x_{n_k}-x| \geq \varepsilon$.

\textbf{Proof:} Assume that for all $\varepsilon > 0$ and for all subsequences $\{x_{n_k}\}$ there exists $K \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $|x_{n_k}-x| < \varepsilon$.

Now let $\varepsilon$ be given. Let $N_{1}$ be minimal natural number such that $|x_{N_1}-x| < \varepsilon$. Now let $\{x_{n_k}\}$ be subsequence such that $n_k = N_1+1, N_1+2, \ldots$. There is still some minimal number $N_{2} = n_k$ such that $|x_{N_2}-x| < \varepsilon$. Proceeding in the same manner, we find number $N_3$ and, in general, we obtain sequence of natural numbers $\{N_j\}$, such that subsequence $\{x_{N_j}\}$ consists, by construction, of all elements of $\{x_n\}$ such that $|x_n-x| < \varepsilon$. But this leaves two possibilities for us.

First one is that $\mathbb{N} \setminus \{N_j\}$ is finite, from what it follows that $\{x_n\}$ converges to $x$. Indeed, it is enough to take $N' = \max (\mathbb{N} \setminus \{N_j\})$ and for $n > N'$ then $|x_n-x| < \varepsilon$, completing proof by contrapositive.

Another case is that, assuming that $\{x_n\}$ does not converge to $x$, we see that for subsequence $\{x_m\}$ where $m \in \mathbb{N} \setminus \{N_j\}$, there is no such $M$ such that $|x_{n_k}-x| < \varepsilon$, which contradicts to assumption made.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ How do you know that outside $(x_{N_j})$, no element is near $x$? $\endgroup$ – Tito Eliatron Sep 15 '20 at 17:53
  • $\begingroup$ because for given $\varepsilon$ , i first choose $N_1$ to be minimal number for which $|x_n-x|<\varepsilon$ holds, then consider subsequence consisting of all terms with indices $> N_1$, obtain from this sequence next $N_2$ and by this process i collect all such $N$'s into one sequence of naturals. $\endgroup$ – Commander Vimes Sep 15 '20 at 17:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Upd: i found some unclearness in the considering case when I get contrapositive, which I will clean up right now $\endgroup$ – Commander Vimes Sep 15 '20 at 17:59
  • $\begingroup$ I fixed subtlety in the part with contrapositive making it clearer. $\endgroup$ – Commander Vimes Sep 15 '20 at 18:09
0
$\begingroup$

Proving this by contraposition seems (in my opinion) a bit clumsy.

Here is a way to prove directly the implication. If $(x_n)$ does not converge to $x$, by definition, that means that there exists $\varepsilon > 0$ such that $\forall N \in \mathbb{N}$, $\exists n > N$ with $|x_n - x| \geq \varepsilon$ (let's call this property $(*)$).

Take this $\varepsilon >0$, and let's construct recursively the subsequence $(x_{n_k})$ using the property $(*)$. For $N=0$, you get that there exists $n_0 > 0$ such that $|x_{n_0}-x|\geq \varepsilon$. Now, let's suppose that you constructed $n_k$. There applying the property $(*)$ to $N=n_k$, you deduce that there exists an integer $n_{k+1} > n_k$ such that $|x_{n_{k+1}}-x|\geq \varepsilon$.

By induction, you constructed a strictly increasing sequence $(n_k)$ such that for all $k$, $|x_{n_k}-x| \geq \varepsilon$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, this one is much more direct approach than mine, thank you! But still, can you find whether is there any error in the proof? Or it is correct? $\endgroup$ – Commander Vimes Sep 15 '20 at 18:30

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.