3
$\begingroup$

What is the negation of the Cauchy criterion for sequences? I initially believed that the negation of the Cauchy criterion for a sequence ${p_n}$ in $\mathbb{R}$ is

$\exists \epsilon>0:\forall N\in \mathbb{N}, \exists (n\geq N \lor m\geq N):|p_n - p_m| \geq \epsilon$

due to the effect of DeMorgan's Law on the part $\forall(n \geq N \land m\geq N)$ ... of the Cauchy criterion statement.

However, I am unsure if this negation is correct (if, for example, there only exists $n\geq N : |p_n - p_m| \geq \epsilon$, what is the significance of $m$ in $|p_n - p_m|$?).

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ The negation is exactly as you have stated. $\endgroup$ Jun 25 at 5:03
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @geetha290krm not true $\endgroup$ Jun 25 at 5:27

2 Answers 2

7
$\begingroup$

The cauchy criterion states $\forall \epsilon>0 \exists N\in\mathbb{N}\forall n\geq N \forall m\geq N(|p_n-p_m|)<\epsilon)$. The negation should be $\exists \epsilon > 0 \forall N\in \mathbb{N} \exists n\geq N \exists m\geq N (|p_n -p_m|\ge\epsilon)$.

I think your mistake can be attributed to the following: the cauchy criterion is often written $\forall \epsilon>0 \exists N\in\mathbb{N}\forall n,m\geq N (|p_n-p_m|)<\epsilon)$, which people pronounce as "for all epsilon greater than zero, there existn $N$ in $\mathbb{N}$ such that, for all $n$ and $m$ greater than $N$, $|p_n-p_m|<\epsilon$". However, the "$n$ and $m$" is misleading. This does not mean logical and, but rather just suggest you quantify over $n$ and you then quantify over $m$.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$
  1. $\exists \epsilon>0:\forall N\in \mathbb{N}, \exists (n\geq N \lor m\geq N):|p_n - p_m| \geq \epsilon$

    Expanding out a part of the quantification shorthand in Cauchy's criterion gives $$\forall \varepsilon{>}0\:\;\exists N{\in} \mathbb{N}\:\;\forall n{,}m{\in}\mathbb{N}\:\;\Big(n,m \geq N \implies |p_n - p_m|< \varepsilon\Big),$$ so its negation is $$\exists \varepsilon{>}0\:\;\forall N{\in} \mathbb{N}\:\;\exists n{,}m{\in}\mathbb{N}\:\;\Big(n,m \geq N \quad\text{and}\quad|p_n - p_m| \geq \varepsilon\Big).$$ You can then recompress it as $$\exists \varepsilon{>}0\:\;\forall N{\in} \mathbb{N}\:\;\exists n{,}m{\geq} N\quad|p_n - p_m| \geq \varepsilon,$$ where it is implicit that the indices $n,m$ are elements of $\mathbb N.$

  2. In general, due to the long forms of these quantifier notational shorthand, the correct negation of, say, $$\forall x{\in}(4,7) \; P(x) \quad\text{and}\quad \exists x{\le}3 \; P(x)$$ is $$\exists x{\in}(4,7) \; \lnot P(x) \quad\text{or}\quad \forall x{\le}3 \; \lnot P(x),$$ rather than $$\exists x{\in}\color\red{\mathbb R{\setminus}}(4,7) \; \lnot P(x) \quad\text{or}\quad \forall x{\le}3 \; \lnot P(x).$$

  3. Notice that the commas and colons in your proposed formula are unnecessary. As they are not typically meant as delimiters, including them is generally a stylistic choice.

$\endgroup$

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.