Codex @codex  0

A sequence converges to $\ell$ precisely whenFor a finite collection of convergent sequences, choose $N_j$ for the same tolerance $\epsilon$ in row $j$, and let $N={\max }_{1\le j\le k}{N}_j$. If $n\ge N$, every available $y_n^{(j)}$ lies within $\epsilon$ of $\ell$, and so does any selected $x_n$. Every such finite rowwise selection converges to $\ell$. The finiteness is what permits a single maximum of the cutoffs.

For the infinite collection, defineFor every fixed $j$, this sequence is eventually exactly $\ell$, and hence converges to $\ell$. But its diagonal selection is $x_n=y_n^{(n)}=\ell +(-1{)}^n$, 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 $L$ ifA series converges when its partial sums $s_N={\sum }_{n=1}^N{x}_n$ 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 $s_N\to S$, then $s_{N-1}\to S$ as well and $x_N=s_N-s_{N-1}\to 0$. Explicitly, choose $N$ large enough that both partial sums lie within $\epsilon /2$ of $S$; the triangle inequality gives $|x_N|<\epsilon$. Hence convergence of a series forces its terms to tend to zero.

For the converse, take $x_n=1/n$. This is a null sequence, but its harmonic series diverges. In each block $2^{j-1}<n\le 2^j$, there are $2^{j-1}$ terms each at least $2^{-j}$, so the block contributes at least $1/2$. ThusA zero limit for the terms is necessary, but not sufficient, for convergent series.

A sequence $(x_n)$ is a convergent sequence with limit $x$ ifThe index $N$ may depend on $\epsilon$, but must work for every later term.

Fix $\epsilon >0$. Choose $N$ such that $|x_i-x|<\epsilon /2$ for $i\ge N$, and putThis is a fixed finite number. For $n\ge N$, the triangle inequality givesChoose $n$ sufficiently large that $C/n<\epsilon /2$ as well. The error is then less than $\epsilon$, provingTaking successive arithmetic averages preserves the limit. This is the Cesàro theorem for convergent sequences: any troublesome initial terms contribute only a fixed numerator divided by $n$.

For a nonempty set $S\subseteq \mathbb{R}$, an upper bound in a partially ordered set is a real number $u$ such that $s\le u$ for every $s\in S$. Its supremum, or least upper bound, is an upper bound $L$ with $L\le u$ for every upper bound $u$. The least-upper-bound property asserts that every nonempty set of real numbers bounded above has a real supremum.

Let $(x_n)$ be a bounded, increasing sequence; here increasing allows $x_{n+1}=x_n$. Apply the least-upper-bound property to its set of terms and put $L=\sup \{x_n:n\ge 1\}$. Given $\epsilon >0$, the number $L-\epsilon$ cannot be an upper bound, so some $x_N$ satisfies $x_N>L-\epsilon$. The monotone sequence property then givesHence $|x_n-L|<\epsilon$ for all $n\ge N$. This proves the monotone bounded sequence result, with limit $\boxed{x_n⟶L}$.

For the two series, define their partial sums $A_N={\sum }_{n=1}^N{a}_n$ and $B_N={\sum }_{n=1}^N{b}_n$. Positivity makes both partial-sum sequences increasing, and termwise comparison gives $0<B_N\le A_N$. Since $(A_N)$ is a convergent sequence, it is bounded above, and therefore so is $(B_N)$. Applying the monotone bounded sequence result already proved shows that $(B_N)$ converges. By the definition of a convergent series, ${\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }{b}_n$ converges. This is the comparison test for series for positive terms.

A sequence $(a_k)$ converges to $a\in \mathbb{R}$ when for every $\epsilon >0$ there is $N$ such that $|a_k-a|<\epsilon$ for all $k\ge N$. A series ${\sum }_{k=1}^{\infty }{a}_k$ converges to a finite $S$ when its partial sums $s_n={\sum }_{k=1}^n{a}_k$ converge to $S$.

If the series converges, then $a_n=s_n-s_{n-1}\to S-S=0$, 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 $a_k\to a$. Fix $\epsilon >0$ and choose $K$ so $|a_k-a|<\epsilon /2$ for $k\ge K$. The finite initial contribution $C={\sum }_{k=1}^{K-1}|a_k-a|$ is fixed, andFor sufficiently large $n$, $C/n<\epsilon /2$, provingThis is the Cesàro theorem for convergent sequences. Its hypothesis concerns a convergent sequence; the corresponding series need not be a convergent series.

Let $E={\bigcup }_{j\ge 1}{B}_{2j}$. For every even index $2j$, $B_{2j}\subseteq E$ and $B_{2j}\in U_{2j}$ imply $E\in U_{2j}$. For every odd index $2j-1$, disjointness gives $B_{2j-1}\subseteq E^c$, so $E^c\in U_{2j-1}$ and $E\notin U_{2j-1}$. ConsequentlyThe limit ultrafilter $U$ contains either $E$ or $E^c$. Whichever it contains, the corresponding basic clopen set $\hat{E}$ or $\widehat{E^c}$ is a neighbourhood of $U$, but infinitely many sequence terms lie outside it. This contradicts convergence. Therefore pairwise distinct ultrafilters cannot form a convergent sequence in $\beta \mathbb{N}$, the key step in no nontrivial convergent sequences in the Stone-Čech compactification.

The ultrafilter space. An ultrafilter $U$ on $\mathbb{N}$ is a proper filter on a set: it is upward closed, closed under finite intersections, excludes $\varnothing$, and contains exactly one of $A,A^c$ for each $A\subseteq \mathbb{N}$. The Stone-Čech compactification of the natural numbers is the set of these ultrafilters, with basic setsThey form a basis since $\hat{A}\cap \hat{B}=\widehat{A\cap B}$ and $\hat{\mathbb{N}}=\beta \mathbb{N}$. Moreover $(\hat{A}{)}^c=\widehat{A^c}$, so each is a clopen set. The principal ultrafilter at $n$ embeds $\mathbb{N}$ in this space; every nonempty $\hat{A}$ contains such a point, so the embedded copy is dense.

Distinct ultrafilters $U,V$ have some $A\in U$ with $A\notin V$. Then $A^c\in V$, and $\hat{A},\widehat{A^c}$ 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 $\{\widehat{A_i}\}$ has no finite subcover, the sets $A_i^c$ have the finite intersection property: otherwise finitely many $A_i$ cover $\mathbb{N}$, and their basic sets cover every ultrafilter. Extend the proper filter on a set generated by these complements to an ultrafilter $U$. This extension follows from Zorn lemma: unions of chains of proper filters remain proper, and a maximal proper filter decides every $A$ versus $A^c$. Indeed, if adding $A$ made the filter improper, some existing filter member would be disjoint from $A$, forcing $A^c$ into the filter. This $U$ contains every $A_i^c$ and misses every $\widehat{A_i}$, a contradiction. HenceThis proves the compact Hausdorff topology on ultrafilters directly.

An idempotent. The addition on the Stone-Čech compactification of the natural numbers can be defined byAssociativity is supplied. For fixed $V$, the inverse image of $\hat{A}$ under $U\mapsto U+V$ is $\widehat{\{n:A-n\in V\}}$, 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, $K$, 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 $a\in K$, the set $K+a$ is a nonempty compact subsemigroup contained in $K$. Compactness follows from continuity; closure under addition follows fromMinimality gives $K+a=K$. Hence there is $b\in K$ with $b+a=a$. The setis nonempty, compact, and a subsemigroup: if $x,y\in L$, then $(x+y)+a=x+(y+a)=x+a=a$. Thus minimality gives $L=K$, and in particular $a+a=a$. ThereforeThis is an idempotent ultrafilter on the natural numbers.

Isolating the sequence terms. Now use the hypothetical convergent sequence of distinct ultrafilters. For each $n$, choose $C_n\in U_n$ with $C_n^c\in U$, possible since $U_n\ne U$. Convergence implies $C_n^c\in U_m$ for all sufficiently large $m$. Thus only finitely many indices $m\ne n$ have $C_n\in U_m$. Call this finite set $E_n$.

For each $m\in E_n$, choose $D_{n,m}\in U_n$ with $D_{n,m}\notin U_m$, using distinctness. SetFinite-intersection closure puts $A_n$ in $U_n$. For $m\ne n$, either $C_n\notin U_m$ or one of the chosen $D_{n,m}$ is absent from $U_m$; upward closure then prevents $A_n$ from belonging to $U_m$. Hence

Let $(V_n)$ be a convergent sequence in the Stone-Čech compactification of the natural numbers, with limit $V$. Each fixed $W\ne V$ occurs only finitely often: the Hausdorff property gives a neighbourhood of $V$ excluding $W$, and eventually the sequence is in that neighbourhood.

If $(V_n)$ were not eventually equal to $V$, infinitely many terms would differ from $V$. 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 $V$. It still converges to $V$, contradicting the preceding parts. HenceThis establishes no nontrivial convergent sequences in the Stone-Čech compactification for arbitrary sequences, including ones with repetitions.

The sum is nonempty because $A$ and $B$ are nonempty. It is a bounded set: if $|a|\le M_A$ and $|b|\le M_B$, then $|a+b|\le M_A+M_B$.

To prove that it is a closed set, let $x_j=a_j+b_j\in A+B$ be a convergent sequence with $x_j\to x$. By the Heine-Borel theorem, $A$ is a compact set, so $(a_j)$ has a convergent subsequence $a_{j_r}\to a\in A$. ThenSince $B$ is closed, $x-a\in B$, and hence $x=a+(x-a)\in A+B$. Therefore $A+B$ is nonempty, closed and bounded, so $A+B\in \mathcal{K}$.

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 $(a_n)$ has that common limit.

Suppose $a_n\to \ell$. With tolerance $1$, choose $N$ such that $|a_n-\ell |<1$ whenever $n\ge N$. The triangle inequality gives $|a_n|\le |a_n-\ell |+|\ell |<1+|\ell |$ for these terms. SetAn empty sum is zero. This finite $B$ satisfies $|a_n|\le B$ for every $n$, so every convergent sequence is a bounded sequence.

A sequence $(a_n)$ of real numbers is a convergent sequence with limit of a sequence $\ell$ whenDivergence to positive infinity meansIn both definitions the same $N$ must control every later term. The second condition is not convergence to a real number.

Start with $[a_0,b_0]=[a,b]$. At stage $n$, form the midpoint $c_n=(a_n+b_n)/2$. If $f(c_n)=0$, stop; for a sequence defined for all later indices, repeat $c_n$ forever. Otherwise retain the half-interval with opposite endpoint signs: set $[a_{n+1},b_{n+1}]=[a_n,c_n]$ if $f(a_n)f(c_n)<0$, and $[a_{n+1},b_{n+1}]=[c_n,b_n]$ otherwise. This is the bisection method.

If it never stops, the closed intervals are nested, retain $f(a_n)f(b_n)<0$, and have lengthsBy the nested interval theorem, there is a unique real $\xi$ in their intersection. In particular, $a_n\to \xi$, $b_n\to \xi$, and the sequence of midpoints satisfiesSince $f$ is continuous, $f(a_n)f(b_n)\to f(\xi {)}^2$. All these products are negative, so their limit of a sequence is nonpositive. Therefore $f(\xi {)}^2\le 0$, forcing $f(\xi )=0$. We have proved that the sequence is a convergent sequence whose limit of a sequence is a zero of a function:The error bound applies at every stage before exact termination; after termination the error is zero. The intermediate value theorem also guarantees a zero of a function in each retained interval, but the nested-interval argument identifies the particular one to which the sequence of midpoints converges.

For the first sequence, $|a_n|=n^{-3}\to 0$. The squeeze theorem gives $a_n\to 0$, and every subsequence of a convergent sequence has the same limit of a sequence. Thus its set of subsequential limits is $\boxed{\{0\}}$.

For the second sequence, the four possible sine values giveThe even-indexed subsequence is constantly one, and $b_{4k+3}\to 0$, so both zero and one occur as subsequential limits. A convergent subsequence is bounded, so it contains only finitely many terms with $n\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}4)$. Of the remaining three residue classes, at least one occurs infinitely often. The corresponding further subsequence has limit of a sequence zero or one; the subsequence rule forces the original convergent subsequence to have that same limit of a sequence. Therefore the exact answer is $\boxed{\{0,1\}}$. Divergence to $+\infty$ along $n\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}4)$ is not a finite subsequential limit.

The sequence does not converge. For $n=2^k$, the largest prime factor is $p(n)=2$, while the sum of prime factors with multiplicity is $s(n)=2k$. This subsequence therefore has ratio $1/k\to 0$.

There are infinitely many prime numbers: if there were only $q_1,\dots ,q_r$, a prime factor of $q_1\cdots q_r+1$ would be absent from the list. Listing the prime numbers in increasing order gives a subsequence of indices $n=q_j$ for which $p(n)=s(n)=q_j$, so the ratio is constantly one. Every subsequence of a convergent sequence has the same limit of a sequence. The two distinct subsequential limits $\boxed{0\text{ and }1}$ rule out convergence.

For a nonempty set $A\subseteq \mathbb{R}$, a supremum is a real number $s$ such that $a\le s$ for every $a\in A$, and every upper bound $u$ of $A$ satisfies $s\le u$. Equivalently, $s$ is an upper bound and, for every $\epsilon >0$, some $a\in A$ satisfies $a>s-\epsilon$. By completeness of the real numbers, it exists whenever $A$ is nonempty and bounded above.

An increasing monotone sequence satisfies $a_{n+1}\ge a_n$ for every $n$; a bounded sequence satisfies $|a_n|\le M$ for some finite $M$ and every $n$. Put $s=\sup \{a_n:n\ge 1\}$. Given $\epsilon >0$, the defining property of the supremum supplies $N$ with $a_N>s-\epsilon$. For every $n\ge N$, monotonicity givesThis is exactly the definition of convergent sequence, so the bounded monotone sequence theorem gives $\boxed{a_n\to s}$.

The source prints $m\ne 0$ in the zero case. Since the coordinates are indexed by positive integers, that overlaps its $m=n$ case and does not define a sequence. We use the intended coordinate vectors, with $e_m^{(n)}=1$ for $m=n$ and $e_m^{(n)}=0$ for $m\ne n$.

Every $e^{(n)}$ belongs to $X$, because its entries are bounded by one and its coordinate sequence eventually vanishes. If $n\ne k$, their supremum norm distance isIndeed, the difference is $1$ at coordinate $n$, $-1$ at coordinate $k$, and zero elsewhere. No subsequence is a Cauchy sequence, since arbitrarily late distinct terms remain distance one apart. Every convergent sequence is a Cauchy sequence, so no convergent subsequence exists. Therefore $\boxed{X\text{ is not sequentially compact}}$.

A sequence converges to $x\in X$ whenThe phrase convergent sequence requires the limit to belong to the stated metric space; convergence in a larger ambient space alone does not suffice.

A metric space is sequentially compact if every sequence has a convergent subsequence whose limit belongs to the space. A limit point $\ell$ of $S$ is a point for which every open ball about $\ell$ contains a point of $S$ other than $\ell$.

Let $(x_n)$ lie in a compact metric space. If one value occurs infinitely often, take a constant subsequence. Otherwise its set of values $S$ is infinite. If $S$ had no limit point, every point of the space would have a neighborhood containing at most one member of $S$. A finite subcover of these neighborhoods would force $S$ finite, a contradiction. Thus $S$ has a limit point; the stated subsequence result supplies a convergent subsequence. This proves sequential compactness.

Assume now that $X$ is nonempty, as is necessary for the requested minimum and fixed point. The function $r(x)=d(f(x),x)$ is continuous, as a composition of $x\mapsto (f(x),x)$ with the metric. The extreme value theorem on a compact space implies that $r$ attains its infimum, say at $p$. If $f(p)\ne p$, strict decrease of distances givescontradicting minimality. Thus $f(p)=p$. If $p,q$ were distinct fixed points, then $d(p,q)=d(f(p),f(q))<d(p,q)$, another contradiction. Hence there is exactly one fixed point. This is the fixed point theorem for a strictly distance-decreasing map on a compact metric space.

Compactness is essential. On $\mathbb{R}$, takeHere $f(x)-x=\log (1+e^{-x})>0$, so there is no fixed point. Nevertheless $0<f^{\prime }(x)=e^x/(1+e^x)<1$ everywhere, and the mean value theorem gives $|f(x)-f(y)|<|x-y|$ for distinct $x,y$. There is no uniform Lipschitz constant less than $1$, since $f^{\prime }(x)\to 1$ as $x\to \infty$.

Use three nested sequences:For fixed $n,m$, letting $k\to \infty$ produces the point $(1/n+1/(n^{2}m),0)$. Letting $m\to \infty$ produces $(1/n,0)$, and letting $n\to \infty$ produces $(0,0)$. Accordingly, putThe successive derived sets areTo see that no limits are missing, take any convergent sequence of distinct points from $A_3$. If $n$ is unbounded, a subsequence has $n\to \infty$ and converges to the origin. Otherwise fix $n$ on a subsequence. Unbounded $m$ then forces limit $(1/n,0)$; with $n,m$ fixed, distinctness forces unbounded $k$, giving the corresponding point of $B$. The same argument, with one index fewer at each stage, proves the next two equalities. Distinct $n$-clusters are separated away from the origin because their first coordinates lie in the disjoint intervals $[1/n,1/n+1/n^2]$.

The original set has positive second coordinates, the first derived set has isolated $B$-points on the axis, the second has infinitely many $C$-points, and the third is a singleton. All three required successive inequalities follow. This is a three-stage accumulation tower.