ex1sp02s

# Completely justify all your claims solution first we

This preview shows pages 3–4. Sign up to view the full content.

. Completely justify all your claims. Solution: First we prove by induction that 2 x n < 3 for any n N . For n = 1 this is given by hypothesis. Assume that 2 x n < 3 for a given n . Then 0 x n - 2 < 1, thus 0 x n - 2 < 1, so 2 x n +1 = 2 + x n - 2 < 3. Thus 2 x n < 3 for any n N , so we proved that the sequence is bounded. Next we show that the sequence is increasing. This can be done again by induction, but it is also possible to do it directly, using the bounds we obtained in the ﬁrst step. Recall that if y R , 0 y < 1, we have y y . Since we showed 2 x n < 3, we thus have 0 x n - 2 < 1, so x n - 2 x n - 2. This implies that x n +1 = 2 + x n - 2 x n , for an arbitrary n N , thus our sequence is increasing. Note also that if x 1 = 2, then x n = 2 for any n (can be shown immediately by induction), so the sequence is constant, hence trivially convergent to 2. If x 1 > 2, then all inequalities are strict, so our sequence is strictly increasing. We showed that { x n } n is bounded and increasing, so by the monotone convergence theorem, the sequence is convergent. Let’s denote the limit with L . Taking the limit as n → ∞ in the recursive relation, we get L = 2 + L - 2. Solving we get two solutions L 1 = 2 and L 2 = 3. As we noted above, if x 1 = 2, the sequence is constant 2, so the limit is 2. If x 1 > 2, then 2 < x 1 < x 2 < ... < x n < ... < 3, so the limit is the supremum of the sequence, and the supremum cannot be 2. Thus the limit is 3. 2 Observation: Another solution, perhaps even shorter, can be obtained by showing from the recursive relation that x n = 2 + ( x 1 - 2) 1 / (2 n ) , n N . Try to show this and then get the rest of the problem based on this observation (look also at the Example 2.21, page 45 textbook).

This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document
6. (20 pts) Show that a sequence { x n } n is not bounded from above if and only if there exists a subsequence { x n k } k such that x n k → ∞ as k → ∞ . (Note that you have to prove both implications.) Solution: First of all, { x n } n is bounded from above, by deﬁnition, if and only if there exists a constant M R , such that x n M, n
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

### Page3 / 4

Completely justify all your claims Solution First we prove...

This preview shows document pages 3 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document
Ask a homework question - tutors are online