1
$\begingroup$

If $(a_{n})_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is a sequence converging to $L$, with $a_n \geq 0$ for all $n$, how can I prove that $L \geq 0$ and that $(\sqrt{a_n})_{n=1}^{\infty}$ converges to $\sqrt{L}$.

I was under the impression that I would have to use the epsilon proof. However, I need a bound that isn't directly given here to do so. I think that I can bound it myself knowing that $a_n$ converges? Otherwise, I am confused about how to accomplish this proof. I am still new to the limits of sequences in proofs. I feel as though this should be obvious and I may be overthinking it.

Any advice and help would be greatly appreciated on how to go about this problem.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Welcome to MSE. For some basic information about writing mathematics at this site see, e.g., basic help on mathjax notation, mathjax tutorial and quick reference, main meta site math tutorial and equation editing how-to. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 12, 2022 at 3:09
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think I need more information as to why you are confused. One thing you can do is note that $\sqrt{}:\mathbb R^{+} \to \mathbb R^{+}$ is continuous and therefore you are actually done. $\endgroup$
    – fleablood
    Commented Aug 12, 2022 at 3:35
  • $\begingroup$ @fleablood I think I am just unaware of how to write out the proof. I understand that in a limit of the sequence it is true that: lim($a_n$) = L then lim(C$a_n$) = CL. I assume that this problem would be the same but with a square root. I just don't know how I would show that or the approach to prove it. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 12, 2022 at 3:52
  • $\begingroup$ It's a standard delta epsilon proof try to tell us how you would set it up and tell us where you begin to have trouble. We can't really tell you how to do the proofs from scratch but we can help you if you show us how you try to do them. $\endgroup$
    – fleablood
    Commented Aug 12, 2022 at 5:42
  • $\begingroup$ Does this answer your question math.stackexchange.com/q/99345/977780 $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 12, 2022 at 6:49

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

You can treat them in two cases:

$(1) L=0$, you don't need a lower bound for $a_n$

$(2) L>0$, when $n>N$ is sufficiently large, you can have a lower bound $a_n>\frac{L}2$

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Please strive not to post more (dupe) answers to dupes of FAQs, cf. recent site policy announcement here.Instead of answering it, it would be better to look for a good duplicate target, or help the user by posting comments. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 12, 2022 at 6:50
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, thank you, should I delete it? @SouravGhosh $\endgroup$
    – MathFail
    Commented Aug 12, 2022 at 14:16
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know. But it's low quality question. So you could delete. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 12, 2022 at 14:38
1
$\begingroup$

Let's suppose that $L<0$. Then, $-L>0$ and for $\epsilon=-L>0$ we would have that there is $n_{0}\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that for every $n\ge n_{0}$ we would have that: $a_n-L\leq |a_n-L|< -L$ and thus $a_n<0$ for $n\ge n_{0}$ a contradiction. Hence, we conclude that $L\ge 0$. As for the second part, maybe this slightly abstract usage of the definition will help you understand how to get there.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Please strive not to post more (dupe) answers to dupes of FAQs, cf. recent site policy announcement here.Instead of answering it, it would be better to look for a good duplicate target, or help the user by posting comments. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 12, 2022 at 6:51

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .