§7 Limits of Sequences
Why this matters
Derivatives, integrals, infinite sums and continuity are all defined through limits, so this one definition carries the weight of the whole subject. The goal of this section is to replace the vague “ gets close to ” with a statement precise enough to prove things about.
Sequences
Section titled “Sequences”A sequence is a function whose domain is a set of integers of the form , where is usually or . Instead of we write , and we write the whole sequence as , as , or just . In this chapter every is a real number.
- gives .
- for gives . Its set of values is just , but the sequence itself has infinitely many terms.
- cycles through
- gives , with and .
- gives , with .
Keep the notation straight: parentheses denote a sequence and braces denote a set. Many results depend on which one you are working with.
The definition of a limit
Section titled “The definition of a limit”Informally, is the limit of if is close to for all large , not just for some of them. That is why is not a limit of : the even terms equal , but the odd terms keep jumping back to .
A sequence of real numbers converges to the real number if
We then write or , and call the limit of . A sequence that does not converge to any real number diverges.
Used in §8, §9, Theorem 9.1, §10
My notes(saved)
Some things to notice:
- By the Archimedean property, we may always take to be a positive integer.
- is an ordinary positive real number. The interesting cases are the small ones.
- Condition (1) is infinitely many statements, one for each . is allowed to depend on , and usually it must get larger as gets smaller.
Intuition
Read as a tolerance and as how long you must wait. Convergence says: name any tolerance, however strict, and from some point on every term stays within that tolerance of , forever. Equivalently, every interval contains all but finitely many terms. One useful consequence: changing, inserting or deleting finitely many terms never affects whether a sequence converges, or what its limit is. You only need to take larger.
Common pitfall“closer and closer” is not the definition
The terms of get closer to at every step, yet , not . Shrinking distance is not enough: the distance has to drop below every . Nor does the approach have to be steady. hops from one side of to the other and still converges to . Finally, may depend on but never on . “Take ” is not a valid choice.
The terms of jump between positive and negative values forever. Does the sequence converge?
It converges to . The signs flip, but shrinks, and the definition only asks that the terms end up inside every band around . Jumping across is fine as long as the jumps get small.
Try it: the ε–N game
Section titled “Try it: the ε–N game”Think of (1) as a game. Your opponent picks a band width . You must answer with an so that every point after lies inside the band . The sequence converges to exactly when you can win no matter which is chosen.
Things to try:
- For , make smaller and watch the smallest working grow, roughly like .
- For with candidate limit , no ever works once : there is always a later odd outside the band.
- Compare how fast and by looking at how large must be for the same .
Try it: the adversarial ε game
Section titled “Try it: the adversarial ε game”The widget above lets you drag ε yourself. Here the roles are fixed, as in the definition: the page is an opponent that announces an , you commit to an , and then it searches the whole tail for a point outside the band. Beat five ε in a row, down to . (The same game for functions, with in place of , is in §17.)
Then switch Who moves first? and play the swapped order, where you must name before seeing . The opponent now wins on every sequence except the constant one. This is exactly the difference between
The second statement says for every , i.e. for all . Also try the “spiky” claim: five rounds can pass while the claim is false, because the opponent only needs a single far-out spike.
Let . Writing suggests that . By Definition 7.1, this claim means: for each there is an such that
In §8 we will show that works. For that gives .
| n | sn | |sn − 3/7| |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | 0.7000 | 0.2714 |
| 3 | 0.5882 | 0.1597 |
| 4 | 0.5417 | 0.1131 |
| 5 | 0.5161 | 0.0876 |
| 6 | 0.5000 | 0.0714 |
| 40 | 0.4384 | 0.0098 |
| 400 | 0.4295 | 0.0010 |
A table of numbers can only check finitely many of these statements, so we will need proofs.
Back to Example 1:
- (proved in §8, Example 1).
- diverges, so “” is meaningless here (§8, Example 4).
- diverges (Exercise 8.7).
- (Theorem 9.7(c)).
- (see §16 and §37).
Limits are unique
Section titled “Limits are unique”If and , then .
Proof
Let . Since , there is such that implies . Since , there is such that implies . Take any . By the Triangle Inequality,
So for every , which forces , i.e. .
∎Lean 4 proof machine-checked
theorem lim_unique {s : ℕ → ℝ} {a b : ℝ} (ha : Lim s a) (hb : Lim s b) : a = b := by by_contra hne have hpos : 0 < |a - b| := abs_pos.mpr (sub_ne_zero.mpr hne) obtain ⟨N₁, h₁⟩ := ha (|a - b| / 2) (by linarith) obtain ⟨N₂, h₂⟩ := hb (|a - b| / 2) (by linarith) have h1 := h₁ (max N₁ N₂ + 1) (by omega) have h2 := h₂ (max N₁ N₂ + 1) (by omega) have key : |a - b| ≤ |s (max N₁ N₂ + 1) - a| + |s (max N₁ N₂ + 1) - b| := by calc |a - b| = |(s (max N₁ N₂ + 1) - b) - (s (max N₁ N₂ + 1) - a)| := by ring_nf _ ≤ |s (max N₁ N₂ + 1) - b| + |s (max N₁ N₂ + 1) - a| := abs_sub _ _ _ = _ := add_comm _ _ linarithChecked against Mathlib in CI. Definitions: lean/Ross/Defs.lean.
Reading alongside Abbott
Abbott’s Section 2.2 uses the same definition. It also restates it in terms of neighbourhoods: when every interval centred at contains all but finitely many terms. That version is worth keeping in mind; it is the one that generalizes to metric spaces (§13).
Practice: fill in the gaps
Section titled “Practice: fill in the gaps”The scratch work is done; the formal proof runs forwards. The gaps are the algebra, the choice of , and the inequality that connects them.
Fill in the gaps: lim (3n+1)/(n+2) = 3
This is the skeleton of the proof. In each gap choose the option that makes the argument work, then check.
- Let and let . First, .
- Choose . This depends only on , not on .
- Now let . Then , since .
- So for every , which is the definition of .
Check your understanding
Section titled “Check your understanding”Take the quiz (3 questions)
When does fail to converge to ?
Negate Definition 7.1 one quantifier at a time: “for each ” becomes “for some ”, “there exists ” becomes “for every ”, and “ implies” becomes “some has”.
In Definition 7.1, what does depend on?
Smaller usually needs a larger . Try it in the ε–N game above.
Which sequence converges?
once . The sequence keeps jumping between , and is unbounded.
Exercises
Section titled “Exercises”Write out the first five terms of the following sequences.
Solution
Used in Exercise 7.2
My attempt(saved)
For each sequence in Exercise 7.1, determine whether it converges. If it converges, give its limit. No proofs are required.
Solution
- converges to
- converges to
- converges to
- diverges
For (d), the sequence cycles through
My attempt(saved)
For each sequence below, determine whether it converges and, if it converges, give its limit. No proofs are required.
Hint
For rational functions of , divide the numerator and denominator by the highest power of in the denominator. For (q), compare consecutive terms: .
Solution
Converge: (a) , (b) , (c) , (d) , (f) , (i) , (j) , (m) , (o) , (p) , (q) , (r) , (s) , (t) .
Diverge: (e), (g), (h), (k), (l), (n).
My attempt(saved)
Give examples of
- a sequence of irrational numbers whose limit is a rational number;
- a sequence of rational numbers whose limit is an irrational number.
Solution
(a) .
(b) Let be the decimal expansion of cut off after digits: .
My attempt(saved)
Determine the following limits. No proofs are required, but show any relevant algebra.
- where
Hint
For (a), first show by multiplying and dividing by the conjugate .
Solution
(a) .
(b) .
(c) .
Used in Exercise 8.8