Difference between revisions of "Cauchy sequence"

From Maths
Jump to: navigation, search
(Definition)
m (Marked as stub page, added mention of equivalence relation definable on Cauchy sequences)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Definition==
+
{{Stub page|grade=A}}
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> if:
+
==[[Cauchy sequence/Definition|Definition]]==
* {{M|\foryes is simply:
+
{{:Cauchy sequence/Definition}}
* 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 (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=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.

Notes

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