Sequence Converges iff Every Subsequences Converge to the Same Limit | Real Analysis

preview_player
Показать описание
A sequence converges to a limit L if and only if every subsequence converges to L. We prove this wonderful result about subsequences in real analysis in today's video lesson! First we prove that if a sequence converges to a limit, then all of its subsequences converge to that same limit. To do this, we need only consider an arbitrary subsequence, and use the fact that the original sequence converges to finish things up. Then we need to prove if every subsequence converges to the same limit that the original sequence does as well. This is trivial because every sequence is a subsequence of itself.

#realanalysis #math

★DONATE★

Thanks to Robert Rennie and Barbara Sharrock for their generous support on Patreon!

Follow Wrath of Math on...

Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

You are literally the best analysis teacher around. So simple, direct and well-explained!
Thank you!!!

ranimahassen
Автор

Literally saved my life. I've been watching your Real Analysis playlist in preparation for my exam tomorrow. Thank you so much for the videos!! Very helpful.

chisae_
Автор

Imagine the difficulty of learning this first handed with English being your second language, it's like listening to a puzzle.

michaelyu
Автор

You have some of the best videos on analysis. Every theorem follows a motivating example; every result is presented in the right order with enough justification. If you write a book i’ll pre-order instantly.

Btw, at 2x speed you sound like Jesse Eisenberg

farhanniazi
Автор

I can’t visualise the part where k> N1 then k> N is assumed. Isnt N1 < N. theoretically, k< N

sambitgarai
Автор

Almost got lost in those notations. Thanks a lot for clarification.

nonentity
Автор

Very nice :) !
Is this the Bolzano - wierstrass theorem?

ThePhysicsMathsWizard
Автор

7:13 loool that´s a great little proof

manuelkarner
Автор

What stops us from taking finite subsequences, can't subsequences be finite? If not can you please point me to some resource mentioning the same, else if they can be finite how does this proof follow for finite subsequences.

vaibhavoutat
Автор

does anybody know what's the name of the song at the end?, i really liked the video by the way :)

abrilarellano
Автор

Im so confused. If the sequence (a_n) converges to a then there exists some N in the naturals s.t. when n > N |a_n - a| < epsilon. Ok I get that, thats simple. But how does this imply every subsequence converges to a? If I take the first two values in the original sequence as my new subsequence for example (or any subsequence thats indices are less then N)?

kennethnavarro
Автор

not to nitpick but ank need not be an infinite sequence or even have terms with indices bigger than K, so what you showed doesnt prove what you set out to prove. I guess I am nitpicking but its important to note.

kushagrasinghal
Автор

This is the "freshman's proof" - can you come up with a proof that involves the Choice Function?

NorceCodine