Showing posts with label real numbers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label real numbers. Show all posts

6 Jun 2019

Kramer (2.x) Nature and Growth of Modern Mathematics, Section 2.x, “[selections on decimal expansions as approximating intervals of rational numbers]”, summary

 

by Corry Shores

 

[Search Blog Here. Index tabs are found at the bottom of the left column.]

 

[Central Entry Directory]

[Mathematics, Calculus, Geometry, Entry Directory]

[Edna Kramer, entry directory]

 

 

[The following is summary. I am not a mathematician, so please consult the original text instead of trusting my summarizations, which are possibly mistaken and probably inelegantly articulated. Bracketed comments and subsection divisions are my own. Proofreading is incomplete, so please forgive my mistakes.]

 

 

 

 

Summary of

 

Edna Ernestine Kramer

 

The Nature and Growth of Modern Mathematics

 

2

Mathematical Method and Main Streams Are Launched

 

2.x

[selections on decimal expansions as approximating intervals of rational numbers]

(pp.33-34)

 

 

 

 

 

Brief summary:

(2.x.1) A real number can be considered as a series of approximating intervals, getting smaller and smaller, and converging upon a particular point on the number line (and thus to an exact value), even if the decimals are nonterminating. Each new decimal, when taken along with the decimal value of one higher, creates an interval, with each one being nested within the prior one and all shrinking down to a particular point.

(p.34)

 

 

 

Contents

 

2.x.1

[Real Number Decimal Expansion as Nested, Convergent Approximating Intervals.]

 

Bibliography

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary

 

2.x.1

[Real Number Decimal Expansion as Nested, Convergent Approximating Intervals.]

 

[A real number can be considered as a series of approximating intervals, getting smaller and smaller, and converging upon a particular point on the number line (and thus to an exact value), even if the decimals are nonterminating. Each new decimal, when taken along with the decimal value of one higher, creates an interval, with each one being nested within the prior one and all shrinking down to a particular point.]

 

[Our purpose here is to understand the mathematical notion of “approximating interval” in terms of decimal expansions of real numbers. This is in the context of Cauchy sequences. As we saw in Wildberger’s Math Foundations 111, The basic nature of the Cauchy sequence is that it is an increasing series of rational numbers, but as you go down along the sequence, they tend toward a certain value progressively. So the first one will be very high for instance from the ultimate value, then some other one later will be very low (but still closer), soon one will be a little high, and another a little low. And presumably they converge upon a value. Wildberger, in Math Foundations 111.6, shows this gradual, interchanging convergence of the values with this diagram:

(Image from Wildberger, in Math Foundations 111.6. [Video page])

The green line is the value that the series of rationals are tending toward. The idea was that no matter how small an interval you choose, you will be able to find a place in the sequence after which the gaps between successive values (the space above and below the green line) will be less than that arbitrarily small interval. This implies that it is always moving toward some specific value (the green line). Wildberger also explains algorithmic techniques for decimal expansion in his in Math Foundations 92 [Video page]. At 12.25, he shows a method for obtaining a series of approximations to e. What he explains there might not, however, be a Cauchy sequence. I do not know. But it gives us the idea of a series of successive approximations with a decimal expansion that gets closer and closer to the appropriate value. Kramer speaks similarly of narrowing approximating intervals that converge upon a real number value. But her example simply gives each successive decimal point, with the interval being between that smallest decimal number and the one just larger than it, because the value being converged upon will always be found within such an interval.]

It remains to indicate that this definition makes it possible to establish a one-to-one correspondence between the real numbers and the points of a number line, that is, there must be a point for every non terminating decimal and such a decimal | for every point. Suppose, then, that a real number is defined by some nonterminating decimal which we can carry out to as many places as we please, and that the first few places are given by 2.6314 ... . The decimal gives us a sequence of rational approximations to the real number, namely, 2, 2.6, 2.63, 2.631, 2.6314, ... . In other words, the first approximation in the sequence places the real number in the interval (2, 3), and then 2.6 gives the approximating interval (2.6, 2.7), etc. Thus we have the sequence of nested intervals, (2, 3), {2.6, 2.7), (2.63, 2.64), ... , illustrated in Figure 2.9.

The adjective nested describes the fact that each interval lies within the preceding one. We observe also that the lengths of successive intervals are. 1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001, ... . Since we are considering a nonterminating decimal, the nest of intervals will ultimately contain an interval of length 0.000 000 001 and then there will be still smaller intervals, so that interval length shrinks toward zero. As the innermost intervals get smaller and smaller, one can imagine their bounding walls approaching collision or, at any rate, getting close enough to “trap” a point of the number line. It is postulated, that is, assumed, that there is a unique point contained in all intervals of the nest. If there is such a point, we see that it must be unique, for if there were another distinct point, it would be separated from the first by some distance, 0.000 01, say. But ultimately some interval of the nest will be smaller than that number, and the first point must be contained in that very small interval. Then the second point would be too far away to be inside the interval and hence would not be contained in every interval of the nest. Since every nonterminating decimal will give rise to a sequence of nested intervals like the one described, there will always be a unique point of the number line corresponding to every real number.

(33-34, boldface and underlining are mine)

[contents]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography:

 

Kramer, Edna. The Nature and Growth of Modern Mathematics. Princeton University, 1981.

 

.

5 Jun 2019

Heyting (2.2.1) Intuitionism: An Introduction. Section 2.2.1, “[Real Number-Generators:] Definition; Relation of Coexistence”, summary

 

by Corry Shores

 

[Search Blog Here. Index-tags are found on the bottom of the left column.]

 

[Central Entry Directory]

[Mathematics, Calculus, Geometry, Entry Directory]

[Logic and Semantics, entry directory]

[Heyting, entry directory]

[Heyting’s Intuitionism: An Introduction, entry directory]

 

 

[The following is summary. I am not a mathematician, so please consult the original text instead of trusting my summarizations, which are possibly mistaken and probably inelegantly articulated. Bracketed comments and subsection divisions are my own. Proofreading is incomplete, so please forgive my mistakes.]

 

 

 

 

Summary of

 

Arend Heyting

 

Intuitionism: An Introduction

 

2.

Arithmetic

 

2.2

“Real Number Generators”

 

2.2.1

Definition; Relation of Coexistence

 

 

 

 

 

Brief summary:

(2.2.1.1) We will examine the theory of real numbers in intuitionistic mathematics by beginning with Cantor’s theory. (2.2.1.2) A Cauchy sequence is one with a series of rational numbers that progressively tend toward an ultimate value, with the gap between successive numbers narrowing upon that ultimate value. Formally:

‘A sequence {an} of rational numbers is called a Cauchy sequence, if for every natural number k we can find a natural number n = n(k), such that |an+pan| < 1/k for every natural number p.’

(16)

(2.2.1.3) We can devise an example using a sequence, namely the decimal series of π, and make a stipulation regarding some part of it, even though we may not even know if such a part of it does in fact exist. [This perhaps shows us an instance where we cannot effectively determine n(k).] (2.2.1.4) We call a Cauchy sequence of rational numbers a “real number-generator,” or just simply a “number-generator,” if that leads to no confusion. (2.2.1.5) “Two number-generators a ≡ {an} and b ≡ {bn} are identical, if an = bn for every n. We express this relation by ab.” [This perhaps means that if each nth term in both series is equal to the other, then the number-generators are identical.] (2.2.1.6) The second definition is: “The number-generators a ≡ {an} and b ≡ {bn} coincide, if for every k we can find n = n(k) such that |an+pb n+p| < 1/k for every p. This relation is denoted by a = b.” [This perhaps is to say that although the terms of the two sequences may not be identically the same, they still converge upon the same value.] (2.2.1.7) There is a theorem about coinciding number-generators, namely, that they are reflexive, symmetrical, and transitive. (2.2.1.8) Heyting remarks: “Given any number-generator a ≡ {an}, a number  generator b ≡ {bn} can be found such that a = b and that the sequence {bn} converges as rapidly as we wish. For instance, in order that |bn+pbn| < 1/n for every n and p, it suffices to take bk = an(k) for every k.” [Perhaps the idea is that for every number-generator, we can find another coinciding one, with the identical one being one option.] (2.2.1.9) We can abbreviate a number generator v = {vn} as just v, and vn (without curly brackets) would be the nth component in the sequence v. (2.2.1.10) We will define real numbers in chapter 3, after dealing with set theory, which is requisite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

 

2.2.1.1

[Introducing the Topic]

 

2.2.1.2

[Cauchy Sequences Defined]

 

2.2.1.3

[An Example]

 

2.2.1.4

[Definition 1a: The Real Number-Generator]

 

2.2.1.5

[Definition 1b: The Identity of Number Generators]

 

2.2.1.6

[Definition 2: The Coincidence of Number-Generators]

 

2.2.1.7

[A Theorem on Coinciding Number-Generators: Reflexivity, Symmetry, Transitivity]

 

2.2.1.8

[Remark: Finding Coinciding Number-Generators]

 

2.2.1.9

[Abbreviation for Number Generators]

 

2.2.1.10

[Postponing Real Numbers Until After Set Theory]

 

Bibliography

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary

 

2.2.1.1

[Introducing the Topic]

 

[We will examine the theory of real numbers in intuitionistic mathematics by beginning with Cantor’s theory.]

 

[ditto]

INT. Yes, but at the next station, that of real numbers, we enter a totally different landscape. As in the classical mathematics, so in intuitionism different equivalent theories of real numbers are possible [L. E. J. Brouwer 1919A, p. 3; A. Heyting 1935]. I shall briefly expound Cantor’s theory, which has some advantages for our purpose.

(16)

BROUWER, L. E. J.

1919A. Begründung der mengenlehre unabhängig vom logischen satz vom ausgeschlossenen Dritten. Zweiter Teil. Verhandelingen Akad. Amsterdam 12, N° 7.

(123)

HEYTING, A.

1935. Intuitionistische wiskunde. Mathematica B (Leiden) 4, p. 72–82, 123–136; 5, p. 62–80, 105–112; 7, p. 129-141.

(128)

[contents]

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.2.1.2

[Cauchy Sequences Defined]

 

[A Cauchy sequence is one with a series of rational numbers that progressively tend toward an ultimate value, with the gap between successive numbers narrowing upon that ultimate value. Formally:

‘A sequence {an} of rational numbers is called a Cauchy sequence, if for every natural number k we can find a natural number n = n(k), such that |an+pan| < 1/k for every natural number p.’

(16)]

 

[(It gets technical, and I will need to build from more basic ideas that we have addressed previously. Let me first give the quotation, and we will break it down as best as I can, but you are advised to consult a real mathematician here.

Let us suppose that the theory of rationals, including their order relations, has been developed. A sequence {an} of rational numbers is called a Cauchy sequence, if for every natural number k we can find a natural number n = n(k), such that |an+pan| < 1/k for every natural number p. This must be so understood, that, given k, we are able to determine effectively n(k).

(16)

And we begin with the first line:

Let us suppose that the theory of rationals, including their order relations, has been developed.

So we are assuming that we have an idea of rational numbers (which are ones that can be expressed as an integer over an integer. See Wildberger, Math Foundations 13, 01.30.] And we also have an idea of their ordering, which may be the idea of sequence that we get next.

A sequence {an} of rational numbers is called a Cauchy sequence, if for every natural number k we can find a natural number n = n(k), such that |an+pan| < 1/k for every natural number p.

First we need to understand what a “sequence {an}” is. I am not entirely certain, but it would seem to be, at this early stage, a series of increasing rational numbers. (It may be something like the series Wildberger calculates in Math Foundations 92, 12.25.) Such sequences can have any sort of series on increasing integers, but we will talk about a particular kind, called Cauchy sequences. We discussed them already in Wildberger, Math Foundations 111, sections 111.1-111.8, and I will try to convert that as best as I can to what is given here. The basic nature of the Cauchy sequence is that it is an increasing series of rational numbers, but as you go down along the sequence, they tend toward a certain value progressively and interchangingly. So the first one will be very high for instance from the ultimate value, then next will be very low (but still closer), soon one will be a little high, the next a little low. And presumably they converge upon a value. Wildberger, in Math Foundations 111.6, shows this gradual, interchanging convergence of the values with this diagram:

The green line is the value that the series of rationals are tending toward. The idea was that no matter how small an interval you choose, you will be able to find a place in the sequence after which the gaps between successive values (the space above and below the green line) will be less than that arbitrarily small interval. This implies that it is always moving toward some specific value (the green line). So let us go very slowly here through the definition.

A sequence {an} of rational numbers is called a Cauchy sequence, if for every natural number k ...

The new concept here is the natural number k. But as we will see, it will function ultimately as the arbitrarily small value that we mentioned above. We obtain it by dividing k by one, as we learn soon enough. So the idea is that no matter how large you make k (and ultimately, no matter how small an interval you choose), the sequence will continue by narrowing between that gap, starting from some place within the sequence. Let us continue:

A sequence {an} of rational numbers is called a Cauchy sequence, if for every natural number k we can find a natural number n = n(k),

I am not entirely certain, but it seem that this n is like the N in Wildberger’s diagram:

It signifies the nth item in the sequence. Maybe n = n(k) is like a function saying that to the k value there corresponds a place along the sequence that fulfills the stipulations to come. But I am not sure. Yet, if that were the case, then the formula would make sense for me. To continue:

A sequence {an} of rational numbers is called a Cauchy sequence, if for every natural number k we can find a natural number n = n(k), such that |an+pan| < 1/k for every natural number p.

Let us first notice the 1/k. This we said was like the arbitrarily small number. We also now have p. It will serve the function of saying that no matter where you go after that nth term in sequence, the differences between any two successors will be less than that arbitrarily small value. Let us break that down:

|an+pan|

In the first place, we are finding an absolute value. It is like the gap or distance between two successive values. Suppose p is 1. That means we are dealing with the n value and its successor. The gap between them will be less than the arbitrary value.

|an+pan| < 1/k

Now, since in a Cauchy sequence the gap narrows, that means any gap further down the sequence will have to be smaller than that first one and thus smaller than the arbitrarily small value. So no matter how large the p (that is, no matter how far along the series you choose to go after that point), the gap between successive values will fit within the arbitrarily small interval.)]

Let us suppose that the theory of rationals, including their order relations, has been developed. A sequence {an} of rational numbers is called a Cauchy sequence, if for every natural number k we can find a natural number n = n(k), such that |an+pan| < 1/k for every natural number p. This must be so understood, that, given k, we are able to determine effectively n(k).

(16)

[contents]

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.2.1.3

[An Example]

 

[We can devise an example using a sequence, namely the decimal series of π, and make a stipulation regarding some part of it, even though we may not even know if such a part of it does in fact exist. [This perhaps shows us an instance where we cannot effectively determine n(k).]]

 

[(I do not comprehend this example, so please consult the quotation below. I am guessing wildly that the example is to illustrate the previous sentence, “This must be so understood, that, given k, we are able to determine effectively n(k),” by showing a case where the corresponding n term cannot be found, at least currently. Sorry, please see for yourself.)]

Example. The sequence a ≡ {2n} is a Cauchy sequence. Let the sequence b ≡ {bn} be defined as follows : If the nth digit after the decimal point in the decimal expansion of π is the 9 of the first sequence 0123456789 in this expansion, bn = 1, in every other case bn = 2n. b differs from a in at most one term, so b is classically a Cauchy sequence, but as long as we do not know whether a sequence 0123456789 occurs in π, we are not able to find n such that |bn+pbn| < 1/2 for every p; we have no right to assert that b is a Cauchy sequence in our sense.

(16)

[contents]

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.2.1.4

[Definition 1a: The Real Number-Generator]

 

[We call a Cauchy sequence of rational numbers a “real number-generator,” or just simply a “number-generator,” if that leads to no confusion.]

 

[ditto]

Definition  1. A Cauchy sequence of rational numbers is a real number-generator. Where no confusion is possible, we shall speak briefly of a number-generator.

(16)

[contents]

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.2.1.5

[Definition 1b: The Identity of Number Generators]

 

[“Two number-generators a ≡ {an} and b ≡ {bn} are identical, if an = bn for every n. We express this relation by ab.” [This perhaps means that if each nth term in both series is equal to the other, then the number-generators are identical.]]

 

[I am not certain, but the next idea I am supposing is the following. We will now define the identity between number generators. We will say if each nth term in each series (so the first item in the first sequence, along with the first item in the other, then the second item in the first sequence, along with the second item in the other, etc.) are the same for both sequences, then they are identical, which we write as using ≡: “]

Two number-generators a ≡ {an} and b ≡ {bn} are identical, if an = bn for every n. We express this relation by ab. The following notion of coincidence is more important.

(16)

[contents]

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.2.1.6

[Definition 2: The Coincidence of Number-Generators]

 

[The second definition is: “The number-generators a ≡ {an} and b ≡ {bn} coincide, if for every k we can find n = n(k) such that |an+pb n+p| < 1/k for every p. This relation is denoted by a = b.” [This perhaps is to say that although the terms of the two sequences may not be identically the same, they still converge upon the same value.]]

 

[I do not understand the following definition for the coincidence of number-generators, but I wonder, guessingly, if it is the following. In the identity of generators, each nth term needed to be equal for each sequence. But perhaps now we will have two sequences that may not have the same series of terms, but still converge upon the same value. Yet it is probably something else. There also seems to be the idea that, after a certain point, their corresponding nth terms will always fall within a gap smaller than any arbitrarily given one. So maybe the idea is that eventually the pairings will coincide even if they did not begin that way. I am guessing wildly.)]

Definition 2. The number-generators a ≡ {an} and b ≡ {bn} coincide, if for every k we can find n = n(k) such that |an+pb n+p| < 1/k for every p. This relation is denoted by a = b.

(16)

[contents]

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.2.1.7

[A Theorem on Coinciding Number-Generators: Reflexivity, Symmetry, Transitivity]

 

[There is a theorem about coinciding number-generators, namely, that they are reflexive, symmetrical, and transitive.]

 

[ditto (For the meanings of these terms, see for instance Graham Priest’s Introduction to Non-Classical Logic sections 21.8.2 and 21.8.3, or section 9.2.6.)]

Theorem. The relation of coincidence between number-generators is reflexive, symmetrical and transitive. The easy proof is well-known.

(16)

[contents]

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.2.1.8

[Remark: Finding Coinciding Number-Generators]

 

[Heyting remarks: “Given any number-generator a ≡ {an}, a number  generator b ≡ {bn} can be found such that a = b and that the sequence {bn} converges as rapidly as we wish. For instance, in order that |bn+pbn| < 1/n for every n and p, it suffices to take bk = an(k) for every k.” [Perhaps the idea is that for every number-generator, we can find another coinciding one, with the identical one being one option.]]

 

[(I do not get the next point, but I will guess it is the following. For any number-generator, we can find another one that coincides with the first, with one possibility being an identical one. See the quotation please.)]

Remark. Given any number-generator a ≡ {an}, a number | generator b ≡ {bn} can be found such that a = b and that the sequence {bn} converges as rapidly as we wish. For instance, in order that |bn+pbn| < 1/n for every n and p, it suffices to take bk = an(k) for every k.

(16-17)

[contents]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.2.1.9

[Abbreviation for Number Generators]

 

[We can abbreviate a number generator v = {vn} as just v, and vn (without curly brackets) would be the nth component in the sequence v.]

 

[ditto]

If, in the following, a number-generator is denoted by one letter, v say, it will be silently understood that it can also be denoted by {vn}, so that vn is the nth component of the sequence v.

(17)

[contents]

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.2.1.10

[Postponing Real Numbers Until After Set Theory]

 

[We will define real numbers in chapter 3, after dealing with set theory, which is requisite.]

 

[ditto]

As the notion of a real number presupposes the fundamental notions of set theory, I postpone the definition of a real number (as a set of coincident number-generators) till chapter III.

(17)

[contents]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography:

 

Heyting, Arend. Intuitionism. An Introduction. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1956.

 

.

4 Jun 2019

Wildberger (111.1-111.8) Math Foundations, 111.1-111.8: “Defining Cauchy Sequences]”, summary

 

by Corry Shores

 

[Search Blog Here. Index tabs are found at the bottom of the left column.]

 

[Central Entry Directory]

[Mathematics, Calculus, Geometry, Entry Directory]

[Norman Wildberger, entry directory]

[Wildberger, Math Foundations, entry directory]

 

[The following is summary of Wildberger’s video lecture. You will find that he is a supremely talented teacher. Any mistakes are my own, as I am not a mathematician. Bracketed comments are my own and are not to be trusted.]

 

 

 

 

Norman J. Wildberger

 

Course Series

 

Math Foundations

 

Math Foundations B (80-149)

 

Real Numbers and Limits

 

111

“Real numbers and Cauchy sequences of rationals (I)”

[youtube page]

 

111.1-111.8

(00.08-10.07)

“Defining Cauchy Sequences]”

 

 

 

 

 

Brief summary:

(111.1) We will examine and criticize the thinking behind Cauchy sequences. (111.2) Cauchy was a brilliant and prolific mathematician who founded complex analysis, among other things. (111.3) We look now at a Cauchy sequence. We will examine the formal definition given in analysis texts. (Wildberger claims that this definition does not quite logically work.) [The basic idea seems to be the following. What is a Cauchy sequence? It is a series of increasing rational numbers (that  progressively tend toward some determinate value), such that no matter how small of a value we choose, there will always be a place in that series after which the differences between any two such values will be less than that arbitrarily small, chosen number. In other words, they converge upon a limit.]

‘A sequence S1, S2, S3 of say, rational numbers is a Cauchy sequence precisely when for all ε greater than zero there is an N, a natural number, with the property [N] or such that if little n or little m are bigger than or equal to N, then the difference between Sn minus Sm is less than ε. In words, what it means is that a Cauchy sequence is a sequence that has the property that after a certain point, all the elements in the sequence are close to each other. And a little bit more precisely, it means that no matter what level of tolerance ε you choose, as long as it is a positive level of tolerance, that there is some point that you can get to, denoted by this capital N, so that for all elements of the sequence past that point, the difference between any two of them is within ε.’

(01.42)

This is a classical definition with serious problems; nonetheless, it is the foundation of the idea that real numbers are actually Cauchy sequences of rationals. (111.4) The reason that the notion of a Cauchy sequence is logically flawed is a similar reason as that for the limit of an arbitrary sequence being a number A. What is problematic so far is that we have not yet defined what a sequence is. (111.5) We wonder, why is this definition important? What role does it play in constructing the real numbers, supposedly? There is a important key fact or theorem. [It says, basically, that a Cauchy sequence is one where a series of rational numbers tend toward a limit.]

‘If S1, S2, S3 is a sequence of rational numbers, with the limit of Sn = A a rational number, then this sequence is a Cauchy sequence. So if we have a sequence of rational numbers which actually does have a limit, in the classical sense of the limit that we defined in the last few videos, then that sequence is a Cauchy sequence. So sequences with limits are Cauchy sequences.’

(04.08)

(111.6) There is a standard proof of this theorem (although Wildberger does not think it is adequate.) [The basic point here seems to be that we can take that ε value (for which the differences between successive values after some point remain smaller than ε) and divide that ε in two, placing one half above the limit value and one half below it, creating a band range of values surrounding equally the limit value. The proof shows that once the terms enter into that band, they stay within it.

‘The idea is that once the terms of the sequence, whatever a sequence is, are within ε of 2 of this limit A, then they are within ε of each other.’

(4.52)

This can be explained with a diagram.

‘Here we have a sequence, S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, etc.’ [pointing to the the first six blocks in series.] ‘So the values of the sequence are here on the y-axis. So S1 is whatever this value is,’ [pointing to the corresponding place on the y-axis for the first block] ‘S2 is this value, S3, is this value. And here is the value A,’ [pointing to the green line], ‘which we are assuming this limit is. So this sequence goes to A. Now, because it goes to A, we know that if we say choose some band, and let us choose the band to be ε over 2,’ [pointing to the band between dashed red lines], ‘where ε is that number given to us in the Cauchy sequence definition. So if we are given ε, then first of all we calculate ε over 2, and then we find an N’ [points to the N], ‘so that past that point, the sequence will be within ε over 2 of A, so between A plus ε over 2 and A minus ε over 2. So in this case here, the sequence is bouncing around, but let’s say that N = 5 and beyond, the sequence then manages to stay within this band around the value A. Well in that case, the difference between the values of the sequence of any two values beyond this N will necessarily be less than ε, because the total width of this band from top to the bottom is ε over 2 plus ε over 2, which is epsilon. So the argument is that any two of these sequence elements past this point N will be within at most ε of each other.’

(5.15-07.02)

(111.7) This can be said in a more mathematically precise way. [It seems to say that no matter how small the ε interval, there will be a place along the sequence after which the values will fall in the ε region either above or below the limit value toward which the sequence is tending.]

‘Given an ε greater than 0, find N, a natural number, so that if n is bigger than or equal to N, then Sn minus A, in absolute value, is less than ε over 2. We can do that, this is possible, since we are assuming that the limit of the sequence Sn is some value A.’

(07.06)

(111.8) This theorem can be formulated in terms of a triangle inequality. [It seems to say that for any two places past the natural number (selected because after it the numbers stay within the arbitrarily small selected ε value that surrounds the limit value), the difference between those values will be less then their total distances away from the limit, and thus they will remain within that ε value, which is equal to the top half of the band added to the bottom half of the band. This is the standard proof that Cauchy sequences are ones with a limit, and this implies that the sequence of values, pairwise, get closer and closer to that limit value.]

‘So if we believe this, then if n and m are bigger than or equal to N, in other words, beyond this value 5 in this example, then if we look at the difference between Sn and Sm, so Sn minus Sm in absolute value, this is less than or equal to the absolute value of Sn minus A plus the absolute value of A minus Sm. This is a triangle inequality, so a basic fact about inequalities. So that if you have two numbers Sn and Sm, say on the number line, then that separation is less than or equal to, well if you pick any number A whatsoever anywhere and you can look at the separation between Sn and A and between A and Sm, the sum of those two has to be bigger than or equal to the separation between Sn and Sm. So that’s the triangle inequality, basic fact about inequalities. And now we are assuming that n and m are past this point N. So from what we have assumed up here, we know that Sn minus A is going to be less ε over 2, this is less than ε over 2. And similarly A minus Sm, which in absolute value is the same as Sm minus A, is also less than ε over 2. And so the sum of these 2 is less than ε over 2 plus ε over 2, which is ε, showing that, yes, once little n and little m are bigger than this capital N that we have found, then the difference between any of two of these elements is less than ε. So that is the standard proof that shows that sequences with a limit are Cauchy sequences. That is an important fact to remember. If a sequence does have a limit, then it is Cauchy sequence. So if a sequence has a limit, it implies something about the sequence itself independent of the limit. The existence of that limit implies that the sequence elements themselves will be, pairwise, getting closer and closer to each other.

(07.46-10.07)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

 

111.1

[Introduction to the Topic]

 

111.2

[Brief Bio of Cauchy]

 

111.3

[The Formal Definition of Cauchy Sequences]

 

111.4

[A Problem with the Definition]

 

111.5

[A Theorem about Cauchy Sequences Tending Toward a Limit]

 

111.6

[The Standard Proof of That Theorem]

 

111.7

[A More Mathematically Precise Formulation of the Theorem]

 

111.8

[The Theorem in Terms of a Triangle Inequality]

 

Bibliography

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary

[Mostly identical to the brief summary above.]

 

111.1

[Introduction to the Topic]

 

[We will examine and criticize the thinking behind Cauchy sequences.]

 

(00.08-00.34)

 

[Wildberger says that

In today’s video we are going to look at Cauchy sequences, and we are going to start investigating why real numbers as “equivalence classes” of Cauchy sequences is really a very flawed idea.

]

[contents]

 

 

 

 

 

 

111.2

[Brief Bio of Cauchy]

 

[Cauchy was a brilliant and prolific mathematician who founded complex analysis, among other things.

]

 

(00.35-01.07)

 

[ditto]

[contents]

 

 

 

 

 

 

111.3

[The Formal Definition of Cauchy Sequences]

 

[We look now at a Cauchy sequence. We will examine the formal definition given in analysis texts. (Wildberger claims that this definition does not quite logically work.) [The basic idea seems to be the following. What is a Cauchy sequence? It is a series of increasing rational numbers (that  progressively tend toward some determinate value), such that no matter how small of a value we choose, there will always be a place in that series after which the differences between any two such values will be less than that arbitrarily small, chosen number. In other words, they converge upon a limit.]

‘A sequence S1, S2, S3 of say, rational numbers is a Cauchy sequence precisely when for all ε greater than zero there is an N, a natural number, with the property [N] or such that if little n or little m are bigger than or equal to N, then the difference between Sn minus Sm is less than ε. In words, what it means is that a Cauchy sequence is a sequence that has the property that after a certain point, all the elements in the sequence are close to each other. And a little bit more precisely, it means that no matter what level of tolerance ε you choose, as long as it is a positive level of tolerance, that there is some point that you can get to, denoted by this capital N, so that for all elements of the sequence past that point, the difference between any two of them is within ε.’

(01.42)

This is a classical definition with serious problems; nonetheless, it is the foundation of the idea that real numbers are actually Cauchy sequences of rationals.]

 

(01.08-03.08)

 

[ditto]

[contents]

 

 

 

 

 

 

111.4

[A Problem with the Definition]

 

[The reason that the notion of a Cauchy sequence is logically flawed is a similar reason as that for the limit of an arbitrary sequence being a number A. What is problematic so far is that we have not yet defined what a sequence is.

]

 

(03.09-03.52)

 

[ditto]

[contents]

 

 

 

 

 

 

111.5

[A Theorem about Cauchy Sequences Tending Toward a Limit]

 

[We wonder, why is this definition important? What role does it play in constructing the real numbers, supposedly? There is a important key fact or theorem. [It says, basically, that a Cauchy sequence is one where a series of rational numbers tend toward a limit.]

‘If S1, S2, S3 is a sequence of rational numbers, with the limit of Sn = A a rational number, then this sequence is a Cauchy sequence. So if we have a sequence of rational numbers which actually does have a limit, in the classical sense of the limit that we defined in the last few videos, then that sequence is a Cauchy sequence. So sequences with limits are Cauchy sequences.’

(04.08)]

 

(03.53-04.40)

 

[ditto]

[contents]

 

 

 

 

 

 

111.6

[The Standard Proof of That Theorem]

 

[There is a standard proof of this theorem (although Wildberger does not think it is adequate.) [The basic point here seems to be that we can take that ε value (for which the differences between successive values after some point remain smaller than ε) and divide that ε in two, placing one half above the limit value and one half below it, creating a band range of values surrounding equally the limit value. The proof shows that once the terms enter into that band, they stay within it.]

‘The idea is that once the terms of the sequence, whatever a sequence is, are within ε of 2 of this limit A, then they are within ε of each other.’

(4.52)

This can be explained with a diagram.

‘Here we have a sequence, S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, etc.’ [pointing to the the first six blocks in series.] ‘So the values of the sequence are here on the y-axis. So S1 is whatever this value is,’ [pointing to the corresponding place on the y-axis for the first block] ‘S2 is this value, S3, is this value. And here is the value A,’ [pointing to the green line], ‘which we are assuming this limit is. So this sequence goes to A. Now, because it goes to A, we know that if we say choose some band, and let us choose the band to be ε over 2,’ [pointing to the band between dashed red lines], ‘where ε is that number given to us in the Cauchy sequence definition. So if we are given ε, then first of all we calculate ε over 2, and then we find an N’ [points to the N], ‘so that past that point, the sequence will be within ε over 2 of A, so between A plus ε over 2 and A minus ε over 2. So in this case here, the sequence is bouncing around, but let’s say that N = 5 and beyond, the sequence then manages to stay within this band around the value A. Well in that case, the difference between the values of the sequence of any two values beyond this N will necessarily be less than ε, because the total width of this band from top to the bottom is ε over 2 plus ε over 2, which is epsilon. So the argument is that any two of these sequence elements past this point N will be within at most ε of each other.’

(5.15-07.02)]

 

(04.41-07.02)

 

[ditto]

[contents]

 

 

 

 

 

 

111.7

[A More Mathematically Precise Formulation of the Theorem]

 

[This can be said in a more mathematically precise way. [It seems to say that no matter how small the ε interval, there will be a place along the sequence after which the values will fall in the ε region either above or below the limit value toward which the sequence is tending.]

‘Given an ε greater than 0, find N, a natural number, so that if n is bigger than or equal to N, then Sn minus A, in absolute value, is less than ε over 2. We can do that, this is possible, since we are assuming that the limit of the sequence Sn is some value A.’

(07.06)]

 

(07.03-07.45)

 

[ditto]

[contents]

 

 

 

 

 

 

111.8

[The Theorem in Terms of a Triangle Inequality]

 

[This theorem can be formulated in terms of a triangle inequality. [It seems to say that for any two places past the natural number (selected because after it the numbers stay within the arbitrarily small selected ε value that surrounds the limit value), the difference between those values will be less then their total distances away from the limit, and thus they will remain within that ε value, which is equal to the top half of the band added to the bottom half of the band. This is the standard proof that Cauchy sequences are ones with a limit, and this implies that the sequence of values, pairwise, get closer and closer to that limit value.]

‘So if we believe this, then if n and m are bigger than or equal to N, in other words, beyond this value 5 in this example, then if we look at the difference between Sn and Sm, so Sn minus Sm in absolute value, this is less than or equal to the absolute value of Sn minus A plus the absolute value of A minus Sm. This is a triangle inequality, so a basic fact about inequalities. So that if you have two numbers Sn and Sm, say on the number line, then that separation is less than or equal to, well if you pick any number A whatsoever anywhere and you can look at the separation between Sn and A and between A and Sm, the sum of those two has to be bigger than or equal to the separation between Sn and Sm. So that’s the triangle inequality, basic fact about inequalities. And now we are assuming that n and m are past this point N. So from what we have assumed up here, we know that Sn minus A is going to be less ε over 2, this is less than ε over 2. And similarly A minus Sm, which in absolute value is the same as Sm minus A, is also less than ε over 2. And so the sum of these 2 is less than ε over 2 plus ε over 2, which is ε, showing that, yes, once little n and little m are bigger than this capital N that we have found, then the difference between any of two of these elements is less than ε. So that is the standard proof that shows that sequences with a limit are Cauchy sequences. That is an important fact to remember. If a sequence does have a limit, then it is Cauchy sequence. So if a sequence has a limit, it implies something about the sequence itself independent of the limit. The existence of that limit implies that the sequence elements themselves will be, pairwise, getting closer and closer to each other.

(07.46-10.07)]

 

(07.46-10.07)

 

[ditto]

[contents]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography:

 

Wildberger, Norman J. (2014). “Real numbers and Cauchy sequences of rationals (I) | Real numbers and limits Math Foundations 111.”  Part 111 of the course series:  Math Foundations. Video.

 

Youtube page for this video.:

https://youtu.be/6JjPA3msnbo

 

Course Youtube Playlist:

Math Foundations A (1-79)

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5A714C94D40392AB

Math Foundations B (80-149)

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIljB45xT85DpiADQOPth56AVC48SrPLc

Math Foundations C (150 - )

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIljB45xT85AYIeGfDQwHM8i6PQEDnnTI

 

Norman J. Wildberger, youtube channel:

[njwildberger]

Insights into Mathematics

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXl0Zbk8_rvjyLwAR-Xh9pQ