I'm reading Baby Rudin at the moment and it claims something remarkable. Consider the sequence

$$ x_n=\frac{1}{n}.$$

The book claims that this converges to zero in the reals:

$$\lim_{n\to\infty} x_n=0.$$

It also claims that it does not converge like this in the positive reals. Why is this?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Where does it claim that? $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Jul 6 '14 at 18:45
  • $\begingroup$ Damn, sorry, I seem to have misread it. It claims something else which I cannot understand. Will edit the question. $\endgroup$ – user161959 Jul 6 '14 at 18:45
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "Positive reals" means $(0,\infty)$. The point to which the sequence would converge does not belong to the space. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Jul 6 '14 at 18:47
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Simply because $0$ is not positive. It's just a technicality: to converge in a particular space, the point of convergence also has to be in the space. $\endgroup$ – angryavian Jul 6 '14 at 18:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is by definition, more or less. $0$ is usually not taken to be a positive or a negative number. So the sequence is Cauchy in the positive reals but the value it converges to is not in the positive reals. $\endgroup$ – Cameron Williams Jul 6 '14 at 18:47

Because $0$ is not a positive real!


the definition of the rudin book: "A sequence $\{p_n\}$ in a metric space $X$ is said to converge if there is a point $**p \in X**$ with the following property...$$\lim_{n\to\infty }\{p_n\}=p$$

how $0 \notin X=(0,\infty)$ then don't exist, a such $p\in(0,\infty)$


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.