Difference between revisions of "Cauchy sequence"

From Maths
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 1: Line 1:
==Definition==
+
==[[Cauchy sequence/Definition|Definition]]==
Given a [[Metric space|metric space]] {{M|(X,d)}} and a [[Sequence|sequence]] {{M|1=(x_n)_{n=1}^\infty\subseteq X}} is said to be a ''Cauchy sequence''<ref name="FA">Functional Analysis - George Bachman and Lawrence Narici</ref><ref name="KMAPI">Krzysztof Maurin - Analysis - Part I: Elements</ref> if:
+
{{:Cauchy sequence/Definition}}
* {{M|\forall\epsilon > 0\exists N\in\mathbb{N}\forall n,m\in\mathbb{N}[n\ge m> N\implies d(x_m,x_n)<\epsilon]}}<ref group="Note">Note that in [[Krzysztof Maurin's notation]] this is written as {{MM|1=\bigwedge_{\epsilon>0}\bigvee_{N\in\mathbb{N} }\bigwedge_{m,n>\mathbb{N} }d(x_n,x_m)<\epsilon}} - which is rather elegant</ref><ref group="Note">It doesn't matter if we use {{M|n\ge m>N}} or {{M|n,m\ge N}} because if {{M|1=n=m}} then {{M|1=d(x_n,x_m)=0}}, it doesn't matter which way we consider them (as {{M|n>m}} or {{M|m>n}}) for {{M|1=d(x,y)=d(y,x)}} - I use the ordering to give the impression that as {{M|n}} goes out ahead it never ventures far (as in {{M|\epsilon}}-distance}}) from {{M|x_m}}. This has served me well</ref>
+
==Relation to [[Convergence (sequence)|convergence]]==
In words it is simply:
+
* [[Every convergent sequence is Cauchy]] and
* For any arbitrary distance apart, there exists a point such that any two points in the sequence after that point are within that arbitrary distance apart.
+
* [[In a complete metric space every Cauchy sequence converges]]
 +
{{Todo|Flesh this out}}
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
 +
* [[Convergence of a sequence]]
 
* [[Completeness]]
 
* [[Completeness]]
  

Revision as of 13:59, 5 December 2015

Definition

Given a metric space (X,d) and a sequence (xn)n=1X is said to be a Cauchy sequence[1][2] if:

  • ϵ>0NNn,mN[nm>Nd(xm,xn)<ϵ][Note 1][Note 2]

In words it is simply:

  • For any arbitrary distance apart, there exists a point such that any two points in the sequence after that point are within that arbitrary distance apart.

Relation to convergence


TODO: Flesh this out


See also

Notes

  1. Jump up Note that in Krzysztof Maurin's notation this is written as ϵ>0NNm,n>Nd(xn,xm)<ϵ - which is rather elegant
  2. Jump up It doesn't matter if we use nm>N or n,mN because if n=m then d(xn,xm)=0, it doesn't matter which way we consider them (as n>m or m>n) for d(x,y)=d(y,x) - I use the ordering to give the impression that as n goes out ahead it never ventures far (as in ϵ-distance}}) from xm. This has served me well

References

  1. Jump up Functional Analysis - George Bachman and Lawrence Narici
  2. Jump up Analysis - Part 1: Elements - Krzysztof Maurin