By comparing this definition with definition 7.10, you see that
The definitions of null sequence and dull sequence use the same words, but they are not in the same order, and the definitions are not equivalent.
If 
 satisfies condition (7.12), then whenever 
,
 is
a null sequence, so null sequences are not necessarily dull.
Proof:
Let 
.  By the Archimedean property for 
, there is an
 such that 
.  
Then for all 
,
. 
The difference between a null sequence and a dull sequence is that the `` 
" in
the definition of null sequence can (and usually does) depend on 
, while
the ``
" in the definition of dull sequence depends only on 
.  To emphasize
that 
 depends on 
 (and also on 
), I will often write
 or 
 instead of 
.
Here is another reformulation of the definition of null sequence.
This formulation shows that in order to show that a sequence 
 is a null sequence, you need to find a function 
 such that 
 we had
Proof:  If 
, then 
.  Suppose, to get a
contradiction, that 
 is a null sequence.  Then there is a number
 such that for all 
.  Then for all 
,
If 
 then (7.16) is false and this shows that 
 is not a null
sequence. 
Proof:  Since 
 is a null sequence, there is a function 
 such
that for all 
,
 for all 
is a null sequence, it follows from the comparison theorem that 
 is a null sequence.  Also, since 
 for all 
 is a null sequence.
Scratchwork:  Let 
.  I want to find 
 so that for all
 and all 
,
Proof:  Let 
 be a null sequence in 
 and let 
 be a precision
function for 
.  Define 
 by
 for all 
.  Then for all
,
 is a null
sequence in 
 is a
null sequence.
Consider the sequence 
.  For all 
,
, so it follows from the
comparison theorem that 
Since 
 is a null sequence, it follows
from the root theorem that 
 is a null sequence.  Now 
,
so 
 so
 for all 
, and by another comparison test,
 is a null sequence.  Since 
,
it follows that 
 is a null sequence for all 
with 
.
You probably suspect that 
 is a null sequence for all 
with 
.  This is correct, but we will not prove it yet.
 and 
 that are sketched  above 7.1 are in fact
null sequences.
It follows from remark  5.38 that we can add, subtract and multiply complex
sequences, and that the usual associative, commutative, and distributive laws hold. 
If 
 and 
 then 
 and 
.  If 
 then the constant sequences
 satisfy
Proof:  All four results follow by the comparison theorem.  We have, for all
: