Last time we talked about the idea of being pedantic with sequences (and consequently series). We needed to be careful about our definition of Convergence of a Sequence:
The definition of Convergence of a Sequence involves nested quantifiers. Namely we have where each of these quantifiers are being nested. For the definition for convergence we have:
The important thing here is that you construct your based on, so for some function on . The idea here is that we really need to work backwards here; the smaller the the bigger the (so you'll use some inverse relationship most likely).
Example
Let . Show that .
Proof
Let . This will always be your first statement.
Scratch
We need to magically pull out an out of our a** to be done. We have to do some scratch work here. We know that we want:
Now try to work backwards to get a result of :
But look! All we need is to construct some integer bigger than and we are done. As such, choose .
The Proof
Choose such that (notice that are inverses, which is a good sign). We can always choose this via the Cantor's Approach#^5404f9. Suppose that in this case:
Thus so we are done.
☐
We don't want to always prove that limits of specific sequences like our above have specific limits . Instead, we'll want to prove some theorems and laws so that we can use those instead of the limit proof directly.
If a sequence has a limit, then the limit is unique.
Proof
Let and are both true. We want to show that . We know that then and .
Here let (I know we aren't proving convergence, but we want to prove that since then . If you're confused see Least Upper Bounds and Greatest Upper Bounds and namely the Suprema Lemma for context). Since , and thus then there are such that for all that (why not just ? Later we'll have to add two $\varepsilons in the worst case, so then we need half of this to show that it's still possible). Similarly there is a where for all then .