Difference between revisions of "Cauchy sequence"

From Maths
Jump to: navigation, search
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 [ilmath](X,d)[/ilmath] and a sequence [ilmath](x_n)_{n=1}^\infty\subseteq X[/ilmath] is said to be a Cauchy sequence[1][2] if:

  • [ilmath]\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][/ilmath][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. Note that in Krzysztof Maurin's notation this is written as [math]\bigwedge_{\epsilon>0}\bigvee_{N\in\mathbb{N} }\bigwedge_{m,n>\mathbb{N} }d(x_n,x_m)<\epsilon[/math] - which is rather elegant
  2. It doesn't matter if we use [ilmath]n\ge m>N[/ilmath] or [ilmath]n,m\ge N[/ilmath] because if [ilmath]n=m[/ilmath] then [ilmath]d(x_n,x_m)=0[/ilmath], it doesn't matter which way we consider them (as [ilmath]n>m[/ilmath] or [ilmath]m>n[/ilmath]) for [ilmath]d(x,y)=d(y,x)[/ilmath] - I use the ordering to give the impression that as [ilmath]n[/ilmath] goes out ahead it never ventures far (as in [ilmath]\epsilon[/ilmath]-distance}}) from [ilmath]x_m[/ilmath]. This has served me well

References

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