Every convergent sequence in the Stone-Čech compactification of the natural numbers is eventually constant. If distinct ultrafilters converged, isolate each from the other sequence terms using convergence and finitely many separating clopen sets. Finite disjointification gives disjoint . The union of the even-indexed then belongs exactly to the even-indexed ultrafilters, contradicting convergence of membership in a clopen set.
No. Take . For each fixed positive integer ,
by continuity of the logarithm at . Yet , so is not a convergent sequence of real numbers. Vanishing differences at every fixed lag do not control the accumulation of many small increments.
A sequence converges to precisely when
For a finite collection of convergent sequences, choose for the same tolerance in row , and let . If , every available lies within of , and so does any selected . Every such finite rowwise selection converges to . The finiteness is what permits a single maximum of the cutoffs.
For the infinite collection, define
For every fixed , this sequence is eventually exactly , and hence converges to . But its diagonal selection is , which has two distinct subsequential limits and does not converge. A moving row index can always choose the exceptional entry before that row reaches its eventual behavior.
A real sequence converges to a finite limit if
A series converges when its partial sums form a convergent sequence with a finite limit. These are different conditions: a series concerns accumulated terms, whereas sequence convergence concerns the terms themselves.
If , then as well and . Explicitly, choose large enough that both partial sums lie within of ; the triangle inequality gives . Hence convergence of a series forces its terms to tend to zero.
For the converse, take . This is a null sequence, but its harmonic series diverges. In each block , there are terms each at least , so the block contributes at least . Thus
A zero limit for the terms is necessary, but not sufficient, for convergent series.
A sequence is a convergent sequence with limit if
The index may depend on , but must work for every later term.
Fix . Choose such that for , and put
This is a fixed finite number. For , the triangle inequality gives
Choose sufficiently large that as well. The error is then less than , proving
Taking successive arithmetic averages preserves the limit. This is the Cesaro theorem for convergent sequences: any troublesome initial terms contribute only a fixed numerator divided by .
For a nonempty set , an upper bound in a partially ordered set is a real number such that for every . Its supremum, or least upper bound, is an upper bound with for every upper bound . The least-upper-bound property asserts that every nonempty set of real numbers bounded above has a real supremum.
Let be a bounded, increasing sequence; here increasing allows . Apply the least-upper-bound property to its set of terms and put . Given , the number cannot be an upper bound, so some satisfies . The monotone sequence property then gives
Hence for all . This proves the monotone bounded sequence result, with limit .
For the two series, define their partial sums and . Positivity makes both partial-sum sequences increasing, and termwise comparison gives . Since is a convergent sequence, it is bounded above, and therefore so is . Applying the monotone bounded sequence result already proved shows that converges. By the definition of a convergent series, converges. This is the comparison test for series for positive terms.
A sequence converges to when for every there is such that for all . A series converges to a finite when its partial sums converge to .
If the series converges, then , so its terms tend to zero. The converse is false: the harmonic series has terms tending to zero but diverges.
For the arithmetic averages, suppose . Fix and choose so for . The finite initial contribution is fixed, and
For sufficiently large , , proving
This is the Cesaro theorem for convergent sequences. Its hypothesis concerns a convergent sequence; the corresponding series need not be a convergent series.
Let . For every even index , and imply . For every odd index , disjointness gives , so and . Consequently
The limit ultrafilter contains either or . Whichever it contains, the corresponding basic clopen set or is a neighbourhood of , but infinitely many sequence terms lie outside it. This contradicts convergence. Therefore pairwise distinct ultrafilters cannot form a convergent sequence in , the key step in no nontrivial convergent sequences in the Stone-Čech compactification.
The ultrafilter space. An ultrafilter on is a proper filter on a set: it is upward closed, closed under finite intersections, excludes , and contains exactly one of for each . The Stone-Čech compactification of the natural numbers is the set of these ultrafilters, with basic sets
They form a basis since and . Moreover , so each is a clopen set. The principal ultrafilter at embeds in this space; every nonempty contains such a point, so the embedded copy is dense.
Distinct ultrafilters have some with . Then , and are disjoint open sets separating them. Thus the space is Hausdorff.
For compactness, any open set cover can be refined to a cover by basic sets. If has no finite subcover, the sets have the finite intersection property: otherwise finitely many cover , and their basic sets cover every ultrafilter. Extend the proper filter on a set generated by these complements to an ultrafilter . This extension follows from Zorn lemma: unions of chains of proper filters remain proper, and a maximal proper filter decides every versus . Indeed, if adding made the filter improper, some existing filter member would be disjoint from , forcing into the filter. This contains every and misses every , a contradiction. Hence
This proves the compact Hausdorff topology on ultrafilters directly.
An idempotent. The addition on the Stone-Čech compactification of the natural numbers can be defined by
Associativity is supplied. For fixed , the inverse image of under is , so this translation is continuous directly from the definition. This makes a left-topological semigroup in the convention used here.
We prove the Ellis–Numakura lemma in this case. Among nonempty compact subsemigroups choose one, , minimal by inclusion. It exists by Zorn lemma: a descending chain has nonempty intersection by compactness, and that intersection is again a compact subsemigroup. For , the set is a nonempty compact subsemigroup contained in . Compactness follows from continuity; closure under addition follows from
Minimality gives . Hence there is with . The set
is nonempty, compact, and a subsemigroup: if , then . Thus minimality gives , and in particular . Therefore
This is an idempotent ultrafilter on the natural numbers.
Isolating the sequence terms. Now use the hypothetical convergent sequence of distinct ultrafilters. For each , choose with , possible since . Convergence implies for all sufficiently large . Thus only finitely many indices have . Call this finite set .
For each , choose with , using distinctness. Set
Finite-intersection closure puts in . For , either or one of the chosen is absent from ; upward closure then prevents from belonging to . Hence
Let be a convergent sequence in the Stone-Čech compactification of the natural numbers, with limit . Each fixed occurs only finitely often: the Hausdorff property gives a neighbourhood of excluding , and eventually the sequence is in that neighbourhood.
If were not eventually equal to , infinitely many terms would differ from . They could not take only finitely many distinct values, because each such value occurs only finitely often. Recursively select a subsequence of pairwise distinct terms, all different from . It still converges to , contradicting the preceding parts. Hence
This establishes no nontrivial convergent sequences in the Stone-Čech compactification for arbitrary sequences, including ones with repetitions.
The sum is nonempty because and are nonempty. It is a bounded set: if and , then .
To prove that it is a closed set, let be a convergent sequence with . By the Heine-Borel theorem, is a compact set, so has a convergent subsequence . Then
Since is closed, , and hence . Therefore is nonempty, closed and bounded, so .
Part (i) also shows that the odd subsequence is increasing and the even subsequence is decreasing. Each odd term is below the adjacent even term, so both are bounded monotone sequences and therefore have limits. Part (ii) says their difference tends to zero, so those limits coincide. Interlacing the two subsequences proves that has that common limit.