From 5dec0574bd016dc46379579d70ec77ae628b3b22 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ceciliachan1979 <75919064+ceciliachan1979@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 10:33:41 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] Some updates --- Exams/Rutgers-Analysis/midterm.cecilia.tex | 39 ++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) diff --git a/Exams/Rutgers-Analysis/midterm.cecilia.tex b/Exams/Rutgers-Analysis/midterm.cecilia.tex index 973d679..58c97fd 100644 --- a/Exams/Rutgers-Analysis/midterm.cecilia.tex +++ b/Exams/Rutgers-Analysis/midterm.cecilia.tex @@ -12,11 +12,12 @@ \date{February 2024} \begin{document} +\maketitle \section*{Course Information} The course homepage is \href{https://math.rutgers.edu/academics/undergraduate/courses/955-01-640-311-introduction-to-real-analysis-i}{Introduction to Real Analysis I}. The midterm pdf link is \href{https://math.rutgers.edu/images/test-311-10-2016.pdf}{here}. -\section*{Problem 1} +\section*{Problem 1 (ok)} \subsection*{Part 1} True, because otherwise the real number would be the disjoint union of two countable sets. \subsection*{Part 2} @@ -102,25 +103,27 @@ \section*{Problem 4} Note that when $ L $ is designed to be the larger root of $ x^2 - x - 4 $, so when $ x > L $, $ x^2 - x - 4 > 0 $, and so we have: -\begin{eqnarray*} - x^2 - x - 4 &> 0 \\ +\begin{align*} + x^2 - x - 4 &> 0 & \text{ By the geometry of the graph} \\ x^2 &> x + 4 \\ - x &> \sqrt{4 + x} -\end{eqnarray*} + x &> \sqrt{4 + x} & \text{ Because $ x > 0 $ and square root is increasing } \\ +\end{align*} Since $ a_1 = 4 > L $, the iteration will be decreasing. It is obviously bounded below by 0, so a limit exists. -Suppose the limit exists, then +Next, we have: -\begin{eqnarray*} - & & \lim_{n \to \infty} a_n \\ - &=& \lim_{n \to \infty} \sqrt{4 + a_{n-1}} \\ - &=& \sqrt{4 + \lim_{n \to \infty} a_{n-1}} \\ -\end{eqnarray*} +\begin{align*} + & \lim_{n \to \infty} a_n \\ + =& \lim_{n \to \infty} \sqrt{4 + a_{n-1}} \\ + =& \sqrt{\lim_{n \to \infty} 4 + a_{n-1}} & \text{ by the continuity of the square root function} \\ + =& \sqrt{4 + \lim_{n \to \infty} a_{n-1}} \\ + =& \sqrt{4 + \lim_{n \to \infty} a_{n}} \\ +\end{align*} So it must be a root of $ x = \sqrt{4 + x} $, and apparently it must be greater than 0, so it must be $ L $. -\section*{Problem 5} +\section*{Problem 5 (ok)} \subsection*{Part a} The use of L'Hopital's rule is justified by the $ \frac{\infty}{\infty} $ form of the limit. We have: \begin{eqnarray*} @@ -138,7 +141,7 @@ \subsection*{Part b} &=& \frac{1}{4} \end{eqnarray*} -\section*{Problem 6} +\section*{Problem 6 (ok)} $ \lim_{x_0 \to 0} f(x) = 2 $ implies for any $ \epsilon > 0 $, there exists $ \delta > 0 $ such that $ 0 < |x - x_0| < \delta $ implies $ |f(x) - 2| < \epsilon $. In particular, for $ \epsilon = 1 $, there exists $ \delta > 0 $ such that $ 0 < |x - x_0| < \delta $ implies $ |f(x) - 2| < 1 $. Note that $ 0 < | x - x_0| < \delta $ is the same as $ x \in (x_0 - \delta, x_0 + \delta) $, and $ |f(x) - 2| < 1 $ is the same as $ f(x) \in (1, 3) $, in particular, $ f(x) > 1 $. @@ -146,16 +149,16 @@ \section*{Problem 6} The fact that $ x_0 $ is an accumulation point implies some $ x $ will exist in the given set. It is not strictly necessary because otherwise the statement would simply be vacuously true. \section*{Problem 7} -The Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem states that every bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence. The sequence $ \{a_n\} $ is bounded, so it has a convergent subsequence $ \{a_{n_k}\} $. +The Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem states that every bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence; in other words, if a sequence $ \{ a_n \} $ is bounded, then it has a convergent subsequence $ \{ a_{n_k} \} $. We can prove that by showing a monotone subsequence exists, because then the sequence of monotone and bounded, so it must converge. -Assuming the sequence has a monotonic increasing suffix, then we can take that suffix. +Assuming the sequence has a monotonic increasing subsequence, then we can take that subsequence. -Otherwise it must have a maximum, so we can take that point. The rest of the sequence is not monotonically increasing either, so we can build the sequence inductively. +Otherwise it must have a maximum, so we can take that point. The rest of the sequence is not does not have a monotonic increasing subsequence either, so we can define the subsequence inductively by keep taking the maximum of the rest. -By definition, this sequence is monotonically decreasing. +By definition, this subsequence is monotonically decreasing. -So we know there exists a monotonic subsequence, and it is also bounded, so it must converge. +So we know there exists a monotonic subsequence, and it is also bounded, so it must converges. \end{document}