I am taking an introductory course in real analysis. It is very different from most math courses I have taken prior.
So far, everything presented has made intuitive sense to me. But, when it comes time to produce a water-tight proof, my issue is converting intuition into mathematics. I am never sure when a sentence explaining my reasoning could be replaced with mathematics to provide a more rigorous argument.
For example!
Suppose I have a sequence $\{a_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ such that $a_{1}=1$ and $a_{n+1}=\frac{1}{6}(a_{n}+2)$.
I'm interested in showing that it has a limit. So, I set off to show that it is monotone and bounded. I've shown that it is monotone decreasing and am confident with how I've done that, so will spare the details. But now, I wish to say something like:
Observe that for all $n\geq1$, $a_{n}>0$. As $\{a_{n}\}$ is monotone decreasing, and bounded below by zero, it must converge.
I'm not convinced this is the best way to say what I want to say. I feel like I'm skipping steps (feels hand-wavey to me).
I've been in this situation a few times so far this semester and thought I'd post to get some insight on turning my intuition into mathematics, in this particular instance and if possible also in general - this is the trouble I'm having. I do not want a full solution to the example above, but I would appreciate the insight mentioned.
Thank you for your time!
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/29450/self-contained-proof-that-sum-limits-n-1-infty-frac1np-converges-for/29466#29466
– amcalde Apr 05 '16 at 12:42