In the last article, we mentioned that some rules for limit calculation carry through to improper convergent sequences, and some don't. For instance, if a sequence (improperly) converges to and a second sequence (properly) converges to , one cannot make any statement about the convergence of their product!
Solution
Part 1: For instance, with and , there is , and
Part 2: For instance, with and , there is , and
Part 3: For instance, with and , there is , and
Part 4: For instance, with and , there is , and
Part 5: For instance, with and , there is , and is bounded and diverges
Part 6: For instance, with and , there is , and is unbounded, but does not converge improperly
Rules for computing limits of improperly converging sequences
[Bearbeiten]
Which calculation rules for limits of convergent sequences can be carried over to improper convergence? The answer is: almost all of them, but only if certain conditions hold!
Suppose that is a sequence with . What will happen to the product ? The case definitely causes trouble, meaning that we cannot make any statement about convergence or divergence of the product.
Case 1: . Intuitively, so we expect . This assertion only needs to be mathematically proven:
Let be given. Since we can find an with for all . Analogously, since there is an with for all . Whenever we therefore have
So, indeed .
Case 2: . Intuitively, so we expect . What we need to show for a mathematical proof is:
So let again be given. Since there is an with for all . Analogously, since there is an with for all . Now, for all we have
And indeed there is .
Case 3: . Intuitively, so we again make a guess . The proof could be done as the two examples above. However, this time we will vary it a bit, to make it not too boring:
Let be given. Since , for each there is an with for all . We set . Then there is : , which especially includes . Since there is some with for all . Now for we have
And hence .
Case 4: . Here, .
Those four cases can also be concluded into one statement. We introduce a practical extension of the real numbers: To the set , we add the elements which leads to the bigger set .
Let again be a sequence with . What can we say about the limit of a sum ? For finite , the limit will stay unchanged, as intuitively . Similarly . The critical case is , as is not well-defined. In fact, this case does not allow for any statement about convergence or divergence of the sum . As an example,
- For and there is .
- For and there is .
We therefore exclude the case and consider all other cases:
Case 1: . We expect Mathematically, we need to prove:
Let be given. Since there is an with for all . Analogously, since there is an with for all . Hence, for all we have
And indeed .
Case 2: . We also expect . Mathematically, we need to prove:
Let be given. Since for each we can find an with for all . This includes the case . Hence, for all . Since there is also an with for all . Hence, for any we have
And we get the desired result .
Both cases can be concluded in a theorem:
This rule is also quite intuitive: Let be a sequence with for all and or , then formally converges to and should hence be a null sequence. Is this really mathematically true?
Case 1: . We need to show
Let be given. Since for any there is an , such that there is . Hence, there is
So.
Case 2: .
Exercise
Prove that in this case, again converges to 0.
We conclude these findings in a theorem:
The question is now: can we define a "converse of the inversion rule" which holds under more special assumptions? The sequence is not diverging to or because it keeps changing presign, so there is a subsequence of it converging to and a subsequence converging to . We can avoid this by forbidding a change of presign in . It should also not be too bad if the change of presign is allowed again on finitely many elements, since a manipulation on finitely many elements never changes convergence properties.
Case 1: Let be a sequence with , all sequence elements being and all but finitely many sequence elements being positive. Then, intuitively . For a mathematical proof, we need to show that
Let be given. Since is a null sequence, for we can find an with for all . Since almost all elements of are positive, there is an with for all . Therefore for all . So we get .
Case 2: Let now v , all sequence elements being but this time, almost all of them are negative.
Exercise
Prove, that in this case .
The converse of the inversion rule is also concluded into a theorem.
The inversion rule is an example of a quotient of sequences and wit constant . Now, we generalize to quotients of any sequences and with for all .
First, we consider . At this point, we exclude the cases , since is ill-defined. Let . Then, formally . To verify this mathematically, we need to show
Let be given. Since there is convergence , the sequence must be bounded, i.e. there is a with for all . Now since , the inversion rule implies . So there is an with for all . Hence, there is:
And we have convergence .
The case and also leads to by the same argument.
We conclude
Next, we let the enumerator diverge as . The case again leads to the ill-defined expression and will not be not considered at this point.
Case 1: . Here, we assert . :
Let be given. Since converges to , there must be an , such that for all . Since there is also an with for all . Hence, for all , there is:
So we have convergence .
Case 2: with almost all being positive. Here, we assert . A mathematical proof requires showing
Let be given. Since converges to and almost all elements are positive, there must be an with for all . Since there is also an with for all . So for all , there is:
And again, we have convergence .
Solution
Case 1: . We need to prove:
Let be given. Since converges to , there is an , such that for all . Since there is an with for all . Hence, for all there is:
So we have convergence .
Case 2: and almost all are negative. Again, we need to show:
Let be given. Since converges to and almost all elements are negative, there is an with for all . Since there is an with for all . Hence, for all there is:
And again, we have convergence .
All 4 cases are concluded in a theorem
Intuitively, if is given and some "smaller" sequence diverges to , then also the "bigger" must tend to . This should still hold true if " is bigger than " almost everywhere. Mathematically, we need to show
So let be given. Since there is an with for all . Since for all but finitely many there is an with for all . So indeed, .
We conclude this in a theorem:
Of course, a similar statement holds true for and . Then also . This can easily seen by considering the sequences and .