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
: