Proof using (P13-BIN): Without loss of generality, we assume
that
0 ≤ x1 ≤ x2 ≤ … ≤ xn ≤ … < 1.
We will construct a binary expansion for L.
A picture is helpful!
Divide the interval [0,1) into two halves.
Is there an n1 such that xn1 ≥ m0 = [1/2]
= 0.bin1?
If NO, let c1 = 0, a1 = 0 = 0.binc1, b1 = m0 = a1 + [1/2].
If YES, let c1 = 1, a1 = m0 = [1/2]
= 0.binc1, b1 = a1 +[1/2]
= 1.
In both cases, for n ≥ n1, a1 = 0.binc1 ≤ xn ≤ b1 = a1 + [1/(21)] and b1 − a1 = [1/(21)].
Next Divide the interval [a1,b1) = [0.binc1, a1 + [1/(21)]) into two halves.
Is there an n2 > n1 such that xn2 ≥ m1 = a1 + [1/(22)]?
If NO, let c2 = 0, a2 = a1 = 0.binc1c2,
b2 = m1 = a2 + [1/(22)].
If YES, let c2 = 1, a2 = m1 = 0.binc1c2,
b2 = b1 = a2 + [1/(22)].
In both cases, for n ≥ n2, a2 = 0.binc1c2 ≤ xn < b2 = a2 + [1/(22)] and b2 − a2 = [1/(22)].
By recursion (on k), if nk > nk−1, c1, …, ck, ak = 0.binc1…ck, bk = ak + [1/(2k)] have been defined so that for n ≥ nk,
ak = 0.binc1…ck ≤ xn < bk = ak +
1
2k
,
divide the interval [ak,bk) into two halves.
Is there an nk+1 > nk such that xnk+1 ≥ mk = ak + [1/(2k+1)]?
If NO, let ck+1 = 0, ak+1 = ak = 0.binc1c2…ck+1,
bk+1 = mk = ak+1 + [1/(2k+1)].
If YES, let ck+1 = 1, ak+1 = mk = 0.bin
c1c2…ck+1,
bk+1 = bk = ak+1 + [1/(2k+1)].
In both cases, nk+1 > nk, c1, …, ck, ck+1, ak+1 = 0.binc1…ckck+1, bk+1 = ak+1 + [1/(2k+1)] have been defined so that for n ≥ nk+1,
ak+1 = 0.binc1…ck+1 ≤ xn < bk+1 = ak+1 +
1
2k+1
,
Let
L
= 0.binc1 …ck …
=
lim
k → ∞
ak
=
lim
k → ∞
bk
We have that L = limn → ∞xn since for all k, and
n > nk,
0 ≤ L − xn ≤ bk − xn ≤ bk − ak ≤
1
2k
.
File translated from
TEX
by
TTH,
version 4.05. On 18 Sep 2014, 21:22.