Results 1 to 2 of 2

Math Help - HEINE iff CAUCHY

  1. #1
    Member
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    From
    Israel
    Posts
    158

    HEINE iff CAUCHY

    So I uploeded a picture of a theorem and it's proof, I understood the first part, however the second part I didn't understand why he just chose 1/n and wrote
    |xn-a|<1/n, I mean from what I understand he did it so he could use the sandwich theorem and show that 0<|xn-a|<1/n , 1/n converges to 0 , zero converges to 0 and there fore xn-a converges to zero and we get xn-->a, but because we assumed the that it is not continuous at a we got the sequence {f(xn)} doesn't converge to f(a).

    But was it necessary to just assume |xn-a|<1/n ?
    Firstly, if we just assume that for every xn that converges to a (in the range of the domain of the function), and we have the contrapositive of the continuity and therefore we get that f(xn) doesn't converge to f(a) and that's enough to prove without assuming |xn-a|<1/n... Isn't it? Or am I missing something here?

    Secondly, I think assuming that |xn-a|<1/n is problematic because in this case we are talking about a specific situation that is when
    |xn-a|<1/n . When we prove don't we have to talk about all sequences that converges to a, In other words, we need to prove for every sequence in general and not a specific situation when the sequence is smaller than 1/n. Because we are talking about the sequences only that are smaller than 1/n.

    Appreciate if someone can give me feedback, I am clearly missing something here...
    Thank you in advance.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails HEINE iff CAUCHY-q7.png  
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,614
    Thanks
    1582
    Awards
    1

    Re: HEINE iff CAUCHY

    Frankly, I don't think that the proof can be improved upon. One must fully understands what it means for f not to be continuous at a.


    Please note there is one \varepsilon  > 0. But corresponding to any \delta  > 0 there is at least one

    That is the reason that we can be assured that x_n exists for each \frac{1}{n}.

    EDIT: it should be
    Last edited by Plato; February 8th 2014 at 07:02 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. cauchy
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 28th 2011, 04:33 PM
  2. Heine-Borel Theorem
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: October 19th 2010, 01:29 PM
  3. [SOLVED] Subsequence of a Cauchy Sequence is Cauchy
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: September 30th 2010, 01:29 AM
  4. Proving compactness without using Heine-Borel Thm
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 11th 2009, 05:55 PM
  5. Cauchy
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 25th 2007, 08:25 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum