0

I am aware that there are other posts discussing the same proposition. However, I would like to get feedback on my particular solution, which I have not been able to find on the forum. Thank you :)


We can construct a monotone subsequence given any sequence.

We will try to construct two monotone subsequences simultaneously, one increasing and one decreasing. One will be completed, the other will not.

Consider any sequence $(x_n).$

Start the following process with $n = 1$ (the first element in the sequence).

PROCESS: Look at $x_n.$ Either there exists an element $x_{n'}$ later in the sequence that satisfies $x_n \leq x_{n'},$ or there does not.

  1. If there does not exist such an element after $x_n,$ then all elements $x_{n'}$ after $x_n$ satisfy $x_{n'} < x_n.$ Add $x_n$ as the next element in the monotone decreasing sequence. Wipe clean the monotone increasing sequence under construction, and look at $x_{n+1}$ and start over.

  2. If there does exist such an element $x_{n'}$ after $x_n,$ then add the element as the next element in the monotone increasing subsequence. Now, consider $x_{n'},$ and start over.

Notice that if there is a monotone increasing subsequence, then eventually Condition 2 will eventually be everlastingly satisfied and will sequentially construct a monotone increasing subsequence.

If there is no monotone increasing subsequence, every attempt at sequentially constructing a monotone increasing sequence will eventually fail, arriving at an peak element $x_p,$ after which there is no element greater or equal to it (that is, there is no element that appears after it in the sequence that satisfies the monotone increasing condition), and Condition 1 will be satisfied infinitely many times, therein sequentially constructing a monotone decreasing subsequence.

3 Answers3

2

(1). If $\lim_{n\to \infty}a_n=a$ then $(a_n)_n$ has a monotone sub-sequence $(a_{f(n)})_n.$ Proof: Let $C=\{n:a_n=a\}.$ Let $P=\{n:a_n>a\}$ and $Q=\{n:a_n<a\}.$

$\quad$ (i). If $C$ is infinite let $f:\Bbb N\to C$ be the unique strictly increasing bijection.

$\quad$ (ii). If $C$ is finite and $P$ is infinite let $f(1)=\min P$ and let $f(n+1)=\min \{j>f(n): a< a_j< a_{f(n)}\}.$

$\quad$ (iii). If $S$ and $P$ are finite let $f(1)=\min Q$ and let $f(n+1)=\min \{j>f(n):a_{f(n)}<a_j<a\}.$

(2). A bounded sequence $(b_n)_n$ has a convergent sub-sequence $(b_{g(n)})_n.$ Proof: Suppose $\{b_n:n\in \Bbb N\}\subset [l,u].$

Let $[l_1,u_1]=[l,u]$ and let $g(1)=1.$

For convenience, for any $n$ let $m_n=(l_n+u_n)/2.$

Now if $\{n:b_n\in [l_n,m_n]\}$ is infinite let $[l_{n+1},u_{n+1}]=[l_n,m_n];$ otherwise let $[l_{n+1},u_{n+1}]=[m_n,u_n].$ And in either case let $g(n+1)=\min \{j>g(n):b_j\in [l_{n+1},u_{n+1}]\}.$

Observe that $|b_{g(n)}-b_{g(n+1)}|\le u_n-l_n=2^{1-n}(u-l)$, which implies that $(b_{g(n)})_n$ is a Cauchy sequence.

(3). Let $b_n=\arctan x_n \in (-\pi/2,\pi/2).$ By (2) there exists a convergent sub-sequence $(b_{g(n)})_n$ and by (1), with $a_n=b_{g(n)},$ the sequence $(b_{g(n)})_n$ has a monotone sub-sequence $(b_{g(f(n))})_n.$ Since $\tan $ is a monotone function on the domain $(-\pi/2,\pi/2),$ therefore $$(\tan b_{g(f(n))})_n=(x_{g(f(n))})_n$$ is monotone.

1

This is indeed, in essence, the standard proof for this fact.

1

There's a flaw at this part of the argument:

Notice that if there is a monotone increasing subsequence, then eventually Condition 2 will eventually be everlastingly satisfied and will sequentially construct a monotone increasing subsequence.

Consider this sequence for $n\geq2$:

$$\frac{(-1)^n}{n}=\frac12,-\frac13,\frac14,-\frac15,\frac16,-\frac17,\frac18,-\frac19,\ldots$$

There is a monotonically increasing subsequence: $-\frac13,-\frac15,-\frac17,\ldots$. However, your algorithm fails to find it. Instead, it steps through each value of $n$, wiping clean the increasing sequence under construction at every other step.

I'm not sure whether or not this sort of counterexample completely dooms your "greedy" algorithm, but it's false as stated.

Chris Culter
  • 26,806
  • Hi, Chris. I don't see how it will fail to find that subsequence. Once $\frac{-1}{3}$ is found, it will find $\frac{-1}{5},$ and then $\frac{-1}{7}$ and so on. Notice that condition 2 does specify that the element greater than the current element must be the very next element. – Rafael Vergnaud Jan 28 '19 at 23:34
  • "Look at $x_n.$ Either there exists an element $x_{n'}$ later in the sequence that satisfies $x_n \leq x_{n'},$ or there does not." – Rafael Vergnaud Jan 28 '19 at 23:39
  • "If there does exist such an element $x_{n'}$ after $x_n,$ then add the element as the next element in the monotone increasing subsequence. Now, consider $x_{n'},$ and start over." – Rafael Vergnaud Jan 28 '19 at 23:39
  • Having arrived at $\frac{-1}{3},$ there will be a later element in the sequence that is greater or equal to $\frac{-1}{3}.$ It will add that element, and then start the process over by looking at that element. And so on – Rafael Vergnaud Jan 28 '19 at 23:40
  • @RafaelVergnaud It's not a well-defined process if you don't specify any way to know which $n'$ is going to be selected. You might as well write "Let $n'$ be the index that gives me the result I'm hoping for." – Chris Culter Jan 28 '19 at 23:42
  • I disagree. That's beside the point. Either there exists one or there doesn't. If there does not, the algorithm proceeds. If there DOES exist one, then select one. It's arbitrary which one that ONE is, as long as it is one of them. It need even be $\frac{-1}{3}, \frac{-1}{5}, ...$ It could be $\frac{-1}{3}, \frac{-1}{9}, ...$ – Rafael Vergnaud Jan 28 '19 at 23:43
  • If you allow the algorithm to select any one that it wants, then it can fail, because it might select $\frac14$. You need some way to prevent that from happening, and it's unclear whether that's possible. – Chris Culter Jan 28 '19 at 23:45
  • Chris, it will not select $\frac{1}{4}.$ Notice that condition 2 only works if there exists an element that is greater or equal to it. If there is one (or several), the algorithm specifies to choose one them. – Rafael Vergnaud Jan 28 '19 at 23:47
  • It selects any one that it wants AMONG the elements that satisfy the condition. – Rafael Vergnaud Jan 28 '19 at 23:47
  • Start with $x_3=-\frac13$. Does there exist a later element that is greater? Yes, all of them. Choose one of them arbitrarily. Okay, we choose $x_4=\frac14$. Does there exist a later element that is greater? No. Wipe clean and look at $x_5=-\frac15$. Does there exist a later element that is greater? Yes, all of them. Choose one of them arbitrarily. Okay, we choose $x_6=\frac16$. ... – Chris Culter Jan 28 '19 at 23:52
  • Fair enough lol. – Rafael Vergnaud Jan 28 '19 at 23:53
  • I didn't take a closer look at your sequence. – Rafael Vergnaud Jan 28 '19 at 23:53
  • Nice catch, Chris! – Rafael Vergnaud Jan 28 '19 at 23:53
  • Thanks, no prob! – Chris Culter Jan 29 '19 at 00:01
  • Hey, Chris. Would you mind going over the short proof I attempted for the same proposition below (it was submitted as an answer). Regardless, thanks for your input and patience. – Rafael Vergnaud Jan 29 '19 at 04:01