Difference between revisions of "Cauchy sequence"
From Maths
(Created page with "==Definition== Given a metric space {{M|(X,d)}} and a sequence {{M|1=(x_n)_{n=1}^\infty\subseteq X}} is said to be a ''Cauchy sequence''<ref name...") |
m (Marked as stub page, added mention of equivalence relation definable on Cauchy sequences) |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | == | + | {{Stub page|grade=A}} |
− | + | ==[[Cauchy sequence/Definition|Definition]]== | |
− | * {{ | + | {{:Cauchy sequence/Definition}} |
− | + | ==Notes== | |
− | * | + | * There is an [[equivalence relation]] which can be defined on ''Cauchy sequences'' - see ''[[Equivalence of Cauchy sequences]]'' |
+ | ==Relation to [[Convergence (sequence)|convergence]]== | ||
+ | * [[Every convergent sequence is Cauchy]] and | ||
+ | * [[In a complete metric space every Cauchy sequence converges]] | ||
+ | {{Todo|Flesh this out}} | ||
+ | ==See also== | ||
+ | * [[Convergence of a sequence]] | ||
+ | * [[Completeness]] | ||
+ | * [[Equivalence of Cauchy sequences]] | ||
+ | ==Notes== | ||
+ | <references group="Note"/> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
− | {{Definition|Functional Analysis|Metric Space|Real Analysis}} | + | {{Definition|Functional Analysis|Metric Space|Real Analysis|Topology}} |
Latest revision as of 21:10, 20 April 2016
Stub grade: A
This page is a stub
This page is a stub, so it contains little or minimal information and is on a to-do list for being expanded.
Definition
Given a metric space (X,d) and a sequence (xn)∞n=1⊆X is said to be a Cauchy sequence[1][2] if:
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.
Notes
- There is an equivalence relation which can be defined on Cauchy sequences - see Equivalence of Cauchy sequences
Relation to convergence
TODO: Flesh this out
See also
Notes
- Jump up ↑ Note that in Krzysztof Maurin's notation this is written as ⋀ϵ>0⋁N∈N⋀m,n>Nd(xn,xm)<ϵ - which is rather elegant
- Jump up ↑ It doesn't matter if we use n≥m>N or n,m≥N 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
- Jump up ↑ Functional Analysis - George Bachman and Lawrence Narici
- Jump up ↑ Analysis - Part 1: Elements - Krzysztof Maurin