diff options
author | Holden Rohrer <hr@hrhr.dev> | 2022-11-12 14:43:58 -0500 |
---|---|---|
committer | Holden Rohrer <hr@hrhr.dev> | 2022-11-12 14:43:58 -0500 |
commit | 24f8c733a6082ad815009d53f418d44b382a2dfc (patch) | |
tree | 489974fdc64a3c298d227392508ede0d610531d1 /lacey/hw4ii.tex | |
parent | 369080e25495e7be9997d51e92a9b552eb197072 (diff) |
Diffstat (limited to 'lacey/hw4ii.tex')
-rw-r--r-- | lacey/hw4ii.tex | 110 |
1 files changed, 110 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/lacey/hw4ii.tex b/lacey/hw4ii.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e69f9da --- /dev/null +++ b/lacey/hw4ii.tex @@ -0,0 +1,110 @@ +\font\bigbf=cmbx12 at 24pt +\newfam\bbold +\font\bbten=msbm10 +\font\bbsev=msbm7 +\font\bbfiv=msbm5 +\textfont\bbold=\bbten +\scriptfont\bbold=\bbsev +\scriptscriptfont\bbold=\bbfiv +\def\bb#1{{\fam\bbold #1}} +\input color + +\newcount\pno +\def\tf{\advance\pno by 1\smallskip\bgroup\item{(\number\pno)}} +\def\endtf{\egroup\medskip} +\def\false{\centerline{TRUE\qquad{\color{blue} FALSE}}} +\def\true{\centerline{{\color{blue} TRUE}\qquad FALSE}} + +\newcount\qno +\long\def\question#1{\ifnum\qno=0\else\vfil\eject\fi\bigskip\pno=0\advance\qno by 1\noindent{\bf Question \number\qno.} {\it #1}} + +\def\intro#1{\medskip\noindent{\it #1.}\quad} +\def\proof{\intro{Proof}} +\def\endproof{\leavevmode\hskip\parfillskip\vrule height 6pt width 6pt +depth 0pt{\parfillskip0pt\medskip}} + +\let\bu\bullet + +{\bigbf\centerline{Holden Rohrer}\bigskip\centerline{MATH 4317\qquad +HOMEWORK \#4, Part II}} + +\question{Give an example of each of the following, or argue that such a +request is impossible.} + +\item{a.} A sequence that has a subsequence that is bounded but contains +no subsequence that converges. + +\intro{Disproof} +This is impossible. +Let $(a_n)$ be a sequence bounded by $M.$ + +We will show by contradiction that for any $\epsilon > 0,$ there must be +a susbequence $(a_{\phi(n)})$ such that $|a_n-l|<\epsilon$ for some $l.$ + +First, we break the interval $[-M,M] \supseteq \{a_n\}$ into the +partition $$[-M,-M+\epsilon)\cup +[-M+\epsilon,-M+2\epsilon)\cup\cdots\cup [M-\epsilon,M] = +S_1\cup S_2\cup\cdots\cup S_n.$$ +For contradiction, we assume that there is no subsequence meeting the +Cauchy criterion for $\epsilon.$ + +This means $(a_n)\cap S_i$ is finite for all $S_i$ because otherwise +these would be subsequences satisfying the Cauchy Criterion for +$\epsilon.$ +$$S_1\cup\ldots\cup S_n = [-M,M],$$ +so $[-M,M]\cap (a_n) = (a_n)$ has a length less than or equal to the sum +of lengths across $S_i\cap (a_n),$ which makes it finite, but the +sequence is infinite, giving a contradiction. + +\endproof + +\vfil\eject +\item{b.} A sequence that does not contain $0$ or $1$ as a term but +contains subsequences converging to each of these values. + +\proof +Let $$a_n = 1/2 + (-1)^n{n\over 2(n+1)}.$$ +\endproof + +\vfil\eject +\item{c.} A sequence that contains subsequences converging to every +point in the infinite set $\{1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5,\ldots\},$ and no +subsequences converging to points outside of this set. + +\intro{Disproof} +Such a sequence would necessarily contain a subsequence converging to +$0.$ + +Let $\epsilon > 0.$ +We can easily choose some element in the set $0<s = 1/n < \epsilon/2.$ +Then, because we have a subsequence converging to this point, for some +$N,$ we get $$|a_N - s| < \epsilon/2 \Longrightarrow s-\epsilon/2 < a_N +< s+\epsilon/2.$$ +We already know $0 < s < \epsilon/2,$ so $|s-\epsilon/2| < \epsilon/2 < +|s+\epsilon/2| < \epsilon,$ and $|a_N| < +\max\{|s-\epsilon/2|,|s+\epsilon/2|\} < \epsilon,$ showing that we must +have a subsequence converging to $0.$ +\endproof + +\vfil\eject +\item{d.} A sequence that contains subsequences converging to every +point in the infinite set below, and no subsequences converging to +points outside of this set. + +$$\{2^{-m} + 2^{-n} : 1\leq m < n\} = \bigcup_{m=1}^\infty \{2^{-m} + +2^{-m-1}, 2^{-m}+2^{-m-2},\ldots\}.$$ + +\intro{Disproof} +For a very similar reason as (c), we cannot have such a sequence +containing such subsequences without containing their limit point $0$ +(and possibly others). + +We will dispense with the long $\epsilon$ proof and simply note that we +must have some $m$ such that $2^{-m+1}<\epsilon/4,$ and +$2^{-m}+2^{-{m+1}} = 3(2^{-m+1})<3\epsilon/4,$ and choosing a point +$a_N$ from +our sequence within $\epsilon/4$ because of the subsequence already +established, we again get an $a_N<\epsilon,$ showing it converges to +$0,$ which is outside the set. + +\bye |