Determine if this specific sequence is a Cauchy sequence
I have the following sequence:
$$a_n =sum_{k = 1}^n (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2} $$
And the hint is that I have to prove that:
$$ {1over k^2} < {1over k-1} - {1over k} $$
So assuming $m>n$, I have to prove that:
$$forall epsilon >0, exists N in mathbb{N},$$ so that $$ forall m,n > N Rightarrow lvert a_m - a_nrvert < epsilon $$
What I gathered so far:
$ lvert a_m - a_nrvert = lvert sum_{k = n+1}^m (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2}rvert $
$b_k$ is a sequence of natural numbers ${1,2,3.....}$, so in absolute value, $(-1)^{b_k} $ is $1$.
Therefore:
$ lvert a_m - a_nrvert = lvert sum_{k = n+1}^m (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2}rvert leq sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}. $
From here on, its not so clear to me as to how to proceed.
What should be my next steps?
calculus sequences-and-series limits cauchy-sequences
add a comment |
I have the following sequence:
$$a_n =sum_{k = 1}^n (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2} $$
And the hint is that I have to prove that:
$$ {1over k^2} < {1over k-1} - {1over k} $$
So assuming $m>n$, I have to prove that:
$$forall epsilon >0, exists N in mathbb{N},$$ so that $$ forall m,n > N Rightarrow lvert a_m - a_nrvert < epsilon $$
What I gathered so far:
$ lvert a_m - a_nrvert = lvert sum_{k = n+1}^m (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2}rvert $
$b_k$ is a sequence of natural numbers ${1,2,3.....}$, so in absolute value, $(-1)^{b_k} $ is $1$.
Therefore:
$ lvert a_m - a_nrvert = lvert sum_{k = n+1}^m (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2}rvert leq sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}. $
From here on, its not so clear to me as to how to proceed.
What should be my next steps?
calculus sequences-and-series limits cauchy-sequences
1
Note that (as suggested in one of the edits) the last equality in the last line should be an inequality $leq$.
– Yanko
Dec 9 at 10:50
Just saw it, fixed, thanks a lot :)
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:51
add a comment |
I have the following sequence:
$$a_n =sum_{k = 1}^n (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2} $$
And the hint is that I have to prove that:
$$ {1over k^2} < {1over k-1} - {1over k} $$
So assuming $m>n$, I have to prove that:
$$forall epsilon >0, exists N in mathbb{N},$$ so that $$ forall m,n > N Rightarrow lvert a_m - a_nrvert < epsilon $$
What I gathered so far:
$ lvert a_m - a_nrvert = lvert sum_{k = n+1}^m (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2}rvert $
$b_k$ is a sequence of natural numbers ${1,2,3.....}$, so in absolute value, $(-1)^{b_k} $ is $1$.
Therefore:
$ lvert a_m - a_nrvert = lvert sum_{k = n+1}^m (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2}rvert leq sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}. $
From here on, its not so clear to me as to how to proceed.
What should be my next steps?
calculus sequences-and-series limits cauchy-sequences
I have the following sequence:
$$a_n =sum_{k = 1}^n (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2} $$
And the hint is that I have to prove that:
$$ {1over k^2} < {1over k-1} - {1over k} $$
So assuming $m>n$, I have to prove that:
$$forall epsilon >0, exists N in mathbb{N},$$ so that $$ forall m,n > N Rightarrow lvert a_m - a_nrvert < epsilon $$
What I gathered so far:
$ lvert a_m - a_nrvert = lvert sum_{k = n+1}^m (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2}rvert $
$b_k$ is a sequence of natural numbers ${1,2,3.....}$, so in absolute value, $(-1)^{b_k} $ is $1$.
Therefore:
$ lvert a_m - a_nrvert = lvert sum_{k = n+1}^m (-1)^{b_k} {1over k^2}rvert leq sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}. $
From here on, its not so clear to me as to how to proceed.
What should be my next steps?
calculus sequences-and-series limits cauchy-sequences
calculus sequences-and-series limits cauchy-sequences
edited Dec 9 at 10:51
Jonas Lenz
530212
530212
asked Dec 9 at 10:28
Tegernako
756
756
1
Note that (as suggested in one of the edits) the last equality in the last line should be an inequality $leq$.
– Yanko
Dec 9 at 10:50
Just saw it, fixed, thanks a lot :)
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:51
add a comment |
1
Note that (as suggested in one of the edits) the last equality in the last line should be an inequality $leq$.
– Yanko
Dec 9 at 10:50
Just saw it, fixed, thanks a lot :)
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:51
1
1
Note that (as suggested in one of the edits) the last equality in the last line should be an inequality $leq$.
– Yanko
Dec 9 at 10:50
Note that (as suggested in one of the edits) the last equality in the last line should be an inequality $leq$.
– Yanko
Dec 9 at 10:50
Just saw it, fixed, thanks a lot :)
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:51
Just saw it, fixed, thanks a lot :)
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:51
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
You're almost done. Since $frac{1}{k^2} leq frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}$ you have that
$$sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}leqsum_{k=n+1}^m left[frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}right]$$ This is a telescoping series which is equal to $frac{1}{n}-frac{1}{m}$. It converges to zero as $n,mrightarrow 0$.
Exactly! Thanks.
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:41
add a comment |
Now, use the fact that$$sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1k-frac1{k-1}=frac1n-frac1m.$$
1
I've edited my answer. Thank you.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 at 10:39
Seems like I went into paralysis by analysis trying to over-express the sum I had. Thanks!
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:40
1
Why do we need the hint? Can't we simply say that as $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ is convergent, we know that that $sum_{k=n}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ converges to $0$ as $n to infty$ which shows the claim, too.
– Jonas Lenz
Dec 9 at 10:44
1
In order to prove that, for each $varepsilon>0$, $sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<varepsilon$, if $m$ and $n$ are large enough.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 at 10:46
1
@JonasLenz I guess that is how one shows that $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ convergent.
– Yanko
Dec 9 at 10:49
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3032238%2fdetermine-if-this-specific-sequence-is-a-cauchy-sequence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You're almost done. Since $frac{1}{k^2} leq frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}$ you have that
$$sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}leqsum_{k=n+1}^m left[frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}right]$$ This is a telescoping series which is equal to $frac{1}{n}-frac{1}{m}$. It converges to zero as $n,mrightarrow 0$.
Exactly! Thanks.
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:41
add a comment |
You're almost done. Since $frac{1}{k^2} leq frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}$ you have that
$$sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}leqsum_{k=n+1}^m left[frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}right]$$ This is a telescoping series which is equal to $frac{1}{n}-frac{1}{m}$. It converges to zero as $n,mrightarrow 0$.
Exactly! Thanks.
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:41
add a comment |
You're almost done. Since $frac{1}{k^2} leq frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}$ you have that
$$sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}leqsum_{k=n+1}^m left[frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}right]$$ This is a telescoping series which is equal to $frac{1}{n}-frac{1}{m}$. It converges to zero as $n,mrightarrow 0$.
You're almost done. Since $frac{1}{k^2} leq frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}$ you have that
$$sum_{k = n+1}^m {1over k^2}leqsum_{k=n+1}^m left[frac{1}{k-1}-frac{1}{k}right]$$ This is a telescoping series which is equal to $frac{1}{n}-frac{1}{m}$. It converges to zero as $n,mrightarrow 0$.
edited Dec 9 at 10:51
answered Dec 9 at 10:35
Yanko
6,029724
6,029724
Exactly! Thanks.
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:41
add a comment |
Exactly! Thanks.
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:41
Exactly! Thanks.
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:41
Exactly! Thanks.
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:41
add a comment |
Now, use the fact that$$sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1k-frac1{k-1}=frac1n-frac1m.$$
1
I've edited my answer. Thank you.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 at 10:39
Seems like I went into paralysis by analysis trying to over-express the sum I had. Thanks!
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:40
1
Why do we need the hint? Can't we simply say that as $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ is convergent, we know that that $sum_{k=n}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ converges to $0$ as $n to infty$ which shows the claim, too.
– Jonas Lenz
Dec 9 at 10:44
1
In order to prove that, for each $varepsilon>0$, $sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<varepsilon$, if $m$ and $n$ are large enough.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 at 10:46
1
@JonasLenz I guess that is how one shows that $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ convergent.
– Yanko
Dec 9 at 10:49
|
show 1 more comment
Now, use the fact that$$sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1k-frac1{k-1}=frac1n-frac1m.$$
1
I've edited my answer. Thank you.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 at 10:39
Seems like I went into paralysis by analysis trying to over-express the sum I had. Thanks!
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:40
1
Why do we need the hint? Can't we simply say that as $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ is convergent, we know that that $sum_{k=n}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ converges to $0$ as $n to infty$ which shows the claim, too.
– Jonas Lenz
Dec 9 at 10:44
1
In order to prove that, for each $varepsilon>0$, $sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<varepsilon$, if $m$ and $n$ are large enough.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 at 10:46
1
@JonasLenz I guess that is how one shows that $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ convergent.
– Yanko
Dec 9 at 10:49
|
show 1 more comment
Now, use the fact that$$sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1k-frac1{k-1}=frac1n-frac1m.$$
Now, use the fact that$$sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1k-frac1{k-1}=frac1n-frac1m.$$
edited Dec 9 at 10:39
answered Dec 9 at 10:36
José Carlos Santos
150k22119221
150k22119221
1
I've edited my answer. Thank you.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 at 10:39
Seems like I went into paralysis by analysis trying to over-express the sum I had. Thanks!
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:40
1
Why do we need the hint? Can't we simply say that as $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ is convergent, we know that that $sum_{k=n}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ converges to $0$ as $n to infty$ which shows the claim, too.
– Jonas Lenz
Dec 9 at 10:44
1
In order to prove that, for each $varepsilon>0$, $sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<varepsilon$, if $m$ and $n$ are large enough.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 at 10:46
1
@JonasLenz I guess that is how one shows that $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ convergent.
– Yanko
Dec 9 at 10:49
|
show 1 more comment
1
I've edited my answer. Thank you.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 at 10:39
Seems like I went into paralysis by analysis trying to over-express the sum I had. Thanks!
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:40
1
Why do we need the hint? Can't we simply say that as $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ is convergent, we know that that $sum_{k=n}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ converges to $0$ as $n to infty$ which shows the claim, too.
– Jonas Lenz
Dec 9 at 10:44
1
In order to prove that, for each $varepsilon>0$, $sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<varepsilon$, if $m$ and $n$ are large enough.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 at 10:46
1
@JonasLenz I guess that is how one shows that $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ convergent.
– Yanko
Dec 9 at 10:49
1
1
I've edited my answer. Thank you.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 at 10:39
I've edited my answer. Thank you.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 at 10:39
Seems like I went into paralysis by analysis trying to over-express the sum I had. Thanks!
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:40
Seems like I went into paralysis by analysis trying to over-express the sum I had. Thanks!
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:40
1
1
Why do we need the hint? Can't we simply say that as $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ is convergent, we know that that $sum_{k=n}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ converges to $0$ as $n to infty$ which shows the claim, too.
– Jonas Lenz
Dec 9 at 10:44
Why do we need the hint? Can't we simply say that as $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ is convergent, we know that that $sum_{k=n}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ converges to $0$ as $n to infty$ which shows the claim, too.
– Jonas Lenz
Dec 9 at 10:44
1
1
In order to prove that, for each $varepsilon>0$, $sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<varepsilon$, if $m$ and $n$ are large enough.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 at 10:46
In order to prove that, for each $varepsilon>0$, $sum_{k=n+1}^mfrac1{k^2}<varepsilon$, if $m$ and $n$ are large enough.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 at 10:46
1
1
@JonasLenz I guess that is how one shows that $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ convergent.
– Yanko
Dec 9 at 10:49
@JonasLenz I guess that is how one shows that $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{1}{k^2}$ convergent.
– Yanko
Dec 9 at 10:49
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3032238%2fdetermine-if-this-specific-sequence-is-a-cauchy-sequence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Note that (as suggested in one of the edits) the last equality in the last line should be an inequality $leq$.
– Yanko
Dec 9 at 10:50
Just saw it, fixed, thanks a lot :)
– Tegernako
Dec 9 at 10:51