ΘρϵηΠατπ

Converges in Rn
A sequence (xn):ℕ1→ℝn is said to converge to a∈ℝn if for every ϵ∈ℝ+ there is an integer N such that for all k≥N we have ‖xk−a‖<ϵ and in this case we write limk→∞⁡xk=a
Convergence iff Limit gets arbitrarily Close to a Point
limk→∞⁡xk=a⟺limk→∞⁡‖xk−a‖=0
A Sequence in Rn Converges to a Point iff Each Component Converges
Suppose that we have the sequence (xk):ℕ1→ℝn, then limk→∞⁡xk=a⟺limk→∞⁡xk,i=ai for i∈[1,…,n]
Cauchy in Rn
We say that a sequence (xk):ℕ1→ℝn is cauchy if for every ϵ∈ℝ+ there is an N∈ℕ1 such that for all k,l≥n we have ‖xl−xk‖<ϵ
Complete Set in ℝn
Given S⊆ℝn is complete if every cauchy sequence of points in S converges to a point in S.
Less Than or Equal to Iff Less Than Or Equal to With Epsilon
For any x,y∈ℝ the statement x≤y is equivalent to ∀ϵ∈ℝ+,x<y+ϵ

⟹ Suppose that x≤y then let ϵ∈ℝ+ thus we know that x≤y<y+ϵ so then x<y+ϵ.

⟸ Suppose the latter, we'll prove the former, but for the sake of contradiction, assume that x>y, but then we know that y≤y+(x−y2)≤x but on the other hand by considering ϵ=x−y2 we see that x<y+(x−y2) this is a contradiction because we cannot have α≤x and α>x at the same time. Thus we must have x≤y

Note that the same holds for strict inequalities because x<y⟹x≤y

Closed Balls are Complete
Show that for any p∈ℝn and r∈ℝ+, that B(p,r) is complete.

Suppose that (an):ℕ1→B(p,r) converges to some point c, we'll prove that c∈B(p,r). To show that c∈B(p,r) one has to prove that ‖p−c‖≤r.

Since (an)→c, we know: ∀ϵ∈ℝ+,∃N∈ℕ1, st ∀n∈ℕ1,n≥N⟹‖an−c‖<ϵ

Focusing on the last inequality we also have that ‖p−c‖≤‖p−c‖+‖an−c‖<ϵ+r Thus we can conclude that for any ϵ∈ℝ+ we have ‖p−c‖<ϵ+r, therefore we have ‖p−c‖<r as needed.

ℝn is Complete
Every cauchy sequence in ℝn converges to a point in ℝn
If a Sequence in ℝn Converges, Then their Norms Converge
limn→∞⁡xn=a⟹limn→∞⁡‖xn‖=‖a‖
Suppose the former, let ϵ∈ℝ+ therefore we obtain an N′∈ℕ1 such that ‖xn−a‖<ϵ for any n≥N′, take N=N′ recall that we need to show that for any k≥N we have that |‖xn‖−‖a‖|<ϵ, but due to the reverse triangle inequality we have |‖xn‖−‖a‖|≤‖xn−a‖<ϵ we get exactly what we needed.

We can observe that the converse is false, simply by taking xn=ei for all n∈ℕ1 and then for any ek where i≠k we have that limn→∞⁡‖ei‖=‖ek‖ simply because the norm of the one-hot vectors is always one, but clearly ei≠ek.