Every bounded sequence hides a convergent subsequence inside it. This scene finds that subsequence by halving the interval.
The trick is to keep halving the interval. Always follow the half that holds infinitely many terms. Each halving makes the interval narrower. The points trapped inside pile onto a single value. Stringing those points together gives a convergent subsequence.
For example, thirty π§ classmates scatter across a playground. Split the playground in half and one side still holds a crowd of them. Keep halving that side and you corner a single spot.
Find two convergent subsequences of anβ=(β1)n and compute their limits.
a2kββ1,a2k+1βββ1
Bisection on the demo sequence (4 steps) β the same "halve and follow" idea.Show proof
Taking even indices, a2kβ=(β1)2k=1 for every k, so (a2kβ) is the constant sequence 1,1,1,β¦, converging to 1.
Taking odd indices, a2k+1β=(β1)2k+1=β1 for every k, so (a2k+1β) converges to β1.
Both (2k) and (2k+1) are strictly increasing index sequences, so these are genuine subsequences. The bounded sequence (β1)n was hiding more than one convergent subsequence, with different limits.
Show that (sinn) is bounded, and conclude via BolzanoβWeierstrass that a convergent subsequence exists.
Bisection on the demo sequence (6 steps) β boundedness is the key hypothesis.Show proof
β£sinnβ£β€1 for every integer n, so (sinn) is a bounded sequence.
By the BolzanoβWeierstrass theorem, a convergent subsequence (sin(nkβ)) exists (its limit is some value in [β1,1]).
The theorem only guarantees existence; it does not say which subsequence. As a numerical illustration (not a proof), terms pile up near 1: sin(35489)β0.9999990 and sin(36199)β0.9999991.
Prove that anβ=n has no convergent subsequence β showing why the boundedness hypothesis is essential.
nkββ₯kββ
The demo stays trapped in [0,1], which is why bisection works. Without boundedness this picture cannot even be drawn.Show proof
Let (nkβ) be any subsequence of (n). Its indices are strictly increasing, so nkββ₯k by induction: n1ββ₯1, and nk+1β>nkββ₯k gives nk+1ββ₯k+1.
Hence nkββ₯kββ: every subsequence is unbounded above, hence divergent.
A convergent sequence is bounded, so the unbounded (nkβ) cannot converge. Thus (n) has no convergent subsequence at all β dropping the boundedness hypothesis makes the theorem false.