prove lim an =0 iff lim |an|=0. i have the if part, not the only if part. if lim |an| = 0 then -lim |an|=0 and -|an| <= an<= |an|. but how do you prove if lim an = 0 then lim |an| = 0

At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get our expert's

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your free account and access expert answers to this and thousands of other questions.

A community for students.

prove lim an =0 iff lim |an|=0. i have the if part, not the only if part. if lim |an| = 0 then -lim |an|=0 and -|an| <= an<= |an|. but how do you prove if lim an = 0 then lim |an| = 0

Mathematics
See more answers at brainly.com
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your free account and access expert answers to this and thousands of other questions

using the sandwich theorem there. but the converse i cant figure out
What is an in this context? a function?
a sequence

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question

Other answers:

like an = (-1)^n / n^2 for n = 1,2,3...
So basically, prove: $$\lim a_n = 0 \iff \lim |a_n| = 0$$ Correct?
How do you define a limit?
well the <= direction i can prove using sandwich theorem
for each epsilon there exists an N such that if n>N then |an - L | < e
Well, here we have |an - 0| < e, and we need to use that to prove |-an - 0| < e. These are trivially equivalent since |-an - 0| = |-an| = an.
you mean we have to prove | |an| - 0 | < e
so there are two cases
proof : Suppose lim an = 0 . This implies that for any e>0 there exists an N such that if n > N we have | an - 0 | < e
now we will show that for e* > 0 there exists an N* such that if n>N* then | |an| - 0 | < e*
ok so far?
So, suppose, to the contrary, that $$\lim a_n = 0 \implies \lim |a_n| = 0$$ is false. $$\textrm{There must therefore exist an }\varepsilon\textrm{ and }N\textrm{ such that:}$$ $$||a_N| - L| >= \varepsilon$$ But L is zero in our case, so this is equivalent to writing: $$||a_N|| > \varepsilon$$ Which in turn is equivalent to: $$|a_N| > \varepsilon$$. But this contradicts our thesis that $$\lim a_n = 0.$$ Therefore, by contradiction, the original statement is true.
let e* = e from before, and let N* = N from before in our assumption. if n> N* we have | |an| - 0| = | an - 0| < e
cant you do it directly , taking the case when an>0 and an < 0
Yea, I think this is can be done with a simple direct proof as you said.
nomo, your proof looks good
davis, theres a big wrinkle in the direct proof
well, what if an is both positive and negative
well someone tried to prove earlier this way if an>= 0 then lim |an| = lim an =0 , and if an< 0 then lim |an| = lim -an = -lim an = 0 ,
cantorset, my proof has a small mistake. It should read: $$\textrm{``For }every\;\;\varepsilon\textrm{ there is an }N\textrm{...''}$$
no what you wrote is correct
there exists an epsilon such that for all n, if n > N then | aN - L | > epsilon, the negation of the limit
the proof looks like a direct consequence of the definition of the limit
proof : Suppose lim an = 0 . This implies that for any e>0 there exists an N such that if n > N we have | an - 0 | < e . but |an - 0 | = | |an| - 0 | so we can substitute that into the hypothesis, and we get our conclusion
but your proof works as well

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question