Can someone with the book ready to hand explain how he proves the converse? He just says taking , we thus find a sequence......
Sometimes he's a little too presuming of the reader's perception.
I think you mean q instead of F(p). So essentialy that is chosen since 1/n-> 0 (allowing x_n to be arbitarily close to 0) and x_n consists of all 'rogue' values of x is so far as they make F(x) more than epsilon away from q. Is this correct?