Difference between revisions of "Cauchy sequence"
From Maths
m |
m (Marked as stub page, added mention of equivalence relation definable on Cauchy sequences) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | {{Stub page|grade=A}} | ||
==[[Cauchy sequence/Definition|Definition]]== | ==[[Cauchy sequence/Definition|Definition]]== | ||
{{:Cauchy sequence/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]]== | ==Relation to [[Convergence (sequence)|convergence]]== | ||
* [[Every convergent sequence is Cauchy]] and | * [[Every convergent sequence is Cauchy]] and | ||
Line 8: | Line 11: | ||
* [[Convergence of a sequence]] | * [[Convergence of a sequence]] | ||
* [[Completeness]] | * [[Completeness]] | ||
− | + | * [[Equivalence of Cauchy sequences]] | |
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
<references group="Note"/> | <references group="Note"/> | ||
Line 14: | Line 17: | ||
<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