13

We were given a challenge by our calculus professor and I've been stuck on it for a while now.

Show that the set of subsequence limits of $A_n=\sin(n)$ is $[-1, 1]$ (another way to phrase this would be: $\forall r\in [-1,1]$ there exists a subsequence of $A_n=\sin(n)$ that converges to $r$).

What would be a good way to start?

Roy Sht
  • 1,339

2 Answers2

3

Following Qiaochu hint, I'll try to elaborate a bit.

Note: This is a complete rewrite of the proof to fix a flaw pointed out by Qiaochu and make it overall clearer.

First some notation. Let $S^1 = [0, 2\pi)$ with 0 and $2\pi$ identified. For two points $a, b \in S^1$ we'll denote by $a \oplus b = a + b \mod 2\pi$ (and likewise for $\ominus$) and let $A_n = \{n \mod 2\pi\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$. Also denote by $U_{\varepsilon}(p)$ a punctured $\varepsilon$-neighborhood of $p \in S^1$.

Our strategy will be to show that $\{A_n\}$ has at least one limit point in $S^1$. From this we will conclude that 0 is also a limit point and finally we will use this fact to show that every point in $S_1$ is a limit point of $A_n$ (this means that $\{A_n\}$ is dense in S^1). Having established this, we will use continuity of $\sin$ to finally resolve the problem.


Proof

As a preparation we will note the relation $A_{n+m} = A_n \oplus A_m \quad (1)$. As a corollary of this we have that the sequence $\{A_n\}$ is injective (for if not, there would exist $n, m \in \mathbb{N}, k \in \mathbb{Z} \quad n>m$ such that $A_n = A_m$ and so $n - m = 2 k \pi$, a contradiction with irrationality of $\pi$). This implies simple but crucial fact that the image of the sequence contains infinitely many points.

Now, to establish the density of ${A_n}$ in $S^1$ we will first show that there exists at least one limit point $p \in S^1$. This is established by a standard argument: consider intervals $I = [0, \pi]$ and $J = [\pi, 2\pi]$ and take the one which contains infinitely many points of $\{A_n\}$ (if both do, take the "bottom" one, i.e. $I$). Call this interval $I_0$. Now again divide it in two intervals of same length and let $I_1$ be the one with infinitely many points. Continue in this way to obtain an infinite sequance of intervals $I_0 \supset I_1 \supset \cdots$. Then the set $K = \cap_{n=0}^{\infty} I_n$ is non-empty (this should be covered in standard calculus course, I hope) and any point $p \in K$ is surely a limit point (by construction of $\{I_n\}$).

Thanks to the above we now know that for each $\varepsilon > 0$ there exist infinitely many points in $U_\varepsilon(p)$, i.e. infinitely many $n, m \quad n > m$ such that $|A_n - A_m - 2k\pi| < 2\varepsilon$ for some $k \in \mathbb{Z}$. But from (1) we get that $|A_{n-m} - 2k\pi| < 2\varepsilon$. Because we identify 0 and $2\pi$ in $S^1$ we can see that these differences are concentrated around 0. Therefore we have shown that 0 is also a limit point.

Now we will show that every $p \in S^1$ is a limit point. Suppose we are given $\varepsilon > 0$. We just take any $A_k$ from $U_{\varepsilon}(0)$ and note that for $l = \lfloor {p \over A_k} \rfloor$ we have $A_{lk} \in U_{\varepsilon}(p)$.

To conclude the answer we will show that any $r \in [-1, 1]$ is indeed a limit point of $\{\sin(n)\}$. Take $s = \arcsin (r) \mod 2\pi$. Then by the above, we know that $s$ is a limit point of $\{A_n\}$ so there is a subsequence $\{A_{n_k}\} \to s$ and observe by continuity of $\sin$ that $\{\sin(A_{n_k})\} = \{\sin(n_k)\} \to sin(s) = r$.

Marek
  • 6,196
  • You don't need Bolzano-Weierstrass, and the last line of the argument is wrong. – Qiaochu Yuan Nov 07 '10 at 22:32
  • Thank you for pointing that out. I now see that it suffices to use the injectivity of the sequence to obtain the desired approximation property. – Marek Nov 07 '10 at 23:22
  • Thanks for the detailed answer, unfortunately I don't think I've learned the required material to understand your solution. – daniel.jackson Nov 08 '10 at 09:16
  • @Marek: The last line of the argument is still wrong. – Qiaochu Yuan Nov 08 '10 at 10:23
  • I am aware of that Qiaochu. But I wonder what I should do? Rewrite the solution completely? Or post new answer with correct solution? I am not sure what the policy is, being new to the site. – Marek Nov 08 '10 at 11:32
  • @daniel.jackson: The argument (flawed but that can be fixed) is just about epsilon-delta gymnastics and properties of sequencies, which I thought you should understand, being a calculus student. If this is not so, please let me know, and I'll try to explain it more clearly (also, I'll of course fix the problem Qiaochu mentioned). – Marek Nov 08 '10 at 11:37
  • @Marek: We haven't learned what's a dense sequence. – daniel.jackson Nov 08 '10 at 15:46
  • @Marek: rewriting the solution is fine. – Qiaochu Yuan Nov 08 '10 at 15:53
  • @daniel.jackson: sorry for that. I used the term just as the terminology, you don't need to know any properties of dense sets. But just that you know, a set $A \subset B$ is dense in $B$, if points of $B$ can be approximated by points of $A$ to arbitrary precision (informally speaking). E.g. $\mathbb{Q}$ is dense in $\mathbb(R)$. This is esentially also what your problem is about. – Marek Nov 08 '10 at 19:01
  • @Marek: 1) the step where you claim that A_{lk} is in U_e(p) is still wrong, or at least I do not understand how you are justifying it. In any case as I have said, you do not need to use compactness at all; the argument is one or two lines. 2) You may not be aware of this, but in America (which I am guessing is where daniel.jackson is from) "calculus" is not the same as "real analysis." We don't generally talk about compactness or the finite intersection property in our calculus courses, so even the parts of this argument which are valid aren't likely to be helpful to the OP at all. – Qiaochu Yuan Nov 08 '10 at 19:09
  • Well, by homomorphism property we have A_{lk} = A_k + ... + A_k = lA_k (if you assume epsilon << p and A_k > 0 but you can always take such A_k), so this should be completely obvious. One of us must be missing something. By the way I realize that there might be (a lot) simpler proof, but this is the only thing I came up with.
  • – Marek Nov 08 '10 at 19:37
  • @Qiaochu: 2) Very interesting, that never occurred to me. But I assume that the most important points of topology aren't omitted (at least in disguised form). One doesn't have to mention normed vector spaces to discuss properties of |.| norm, etc. So in the same vein, intersection of intervals could be covered even without any mention of compactness, right? Just wondering :-) – Marek Nov 08 '10 at 19:43
  • @Marek: 1) all that tells you is that A_{lk} is in U_{le}(0). 2) No, calculus students generally don't learn any topology. All most calculus students get is the intermediate value theorem. – Qiaochu Yuan Nov 08 '10 at 19:46
  • That too, but that's not important. Consider p = 2.17, e = 0.2 and A_k = 0.1. Then l = 21, A_kl = 2.1 and its surely in U_e(p). The same construction works in general. 2) I see. Thank you for pointing that out, I'll try to keep it in mind.
  • – Marek Nov 08 '10 at 20:07
  • @Marek: ah! My apologies. – Qiaochu Yuan Nov 08 '10 at 20:13