"Show $\{x_n\}$ is cauchy if $x_n = \frac{3+n}{\beta + n}$ and $\beta >10$"
I don't get the correct intuition behind $\beta >10$. I tried to solve the problem like this instead. $$\frac{3+n}{\beta +n}=\frac{n}{n+10}+\frac{3}{n+10}<n+\frac{3}{n}=\frac{n^2 +3}{n}$$
and $$\frac{n^2 +3}{n}<\frac{\epsilon}{2}$$
if $$n>\frac{2}{\epsilon}(n^2 +3).$$
If this were a valid option for $N$, we could then show $n,m > N \implies d(x_n, x_m)< \epsilon$. Why doesn't this method work? I think it's because this $N$ is too small.
First off, the Cauchy criteria applies for the difference of the terms $|a_m - a_n| < \epsilon$ and not for a single term. What you did is trying to solve for $a_n < \epsilon$ only. We have: for $m , n \ge N$, $|a_m - a_n| = \dfrac{(\beta - 3)|m-n|}{mn}< \dfrac{2(\beta-3)}{N}< \epsilon \iff N > \dfrac{2(\beta -3)}{\epsilon}$. Thus we can choose the $N$ based on the last inequality. Thus $\{a_n\}$ is Cauchy.