I am trying to understand a step in the following proof of completeness of $L^p$ in Stein-Shakarchi's Functional Analysis. (See the proof on page 5 of the link or at the end of this post.)
At the beginning of the proof, it is said that
Let $\{f_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ be a Cauchy sequence in $L^p$, and consider a subsequence $\{f_{n_k}\}_{k=1}^\infty$ of $\{f_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ with the following property $\|f_{n_{k+1}}-f_{n_k}\|\le 2^{-k}$ for all $k\geq 1$.
Question: Why can the sequence be considered as it is?
On a YouTube video, it explains about a similar subsequence.
I still don't understand why for $n,m>n_k$ $\Vert f_{n}-f_{m}\Vert_p\implies \Vert f_{n_k}-f_{n_{k+1}}\Vert_p$, thus an increasing subsequence. Why is it justified to make $n$ to depend on $k$, $n_k$?



The authors mention at the beginning of the proof that
It is said clearly there (see also a snapshot at the end) that
[Added for elaboration.]
There exists an integer $N(2^{-1})>0$ such that for all $n,m\geq N(2^{-1})$, $$ \|f_{n}-f_{m}\|\leq 2^{-1}\tag{1}. $$ There exists an integer $N(2^{-2})>N(2^{-1})$ such that for all $n,m\geq N(2^{-2})$, $$ \|f_{n}-f_{m}\|\leq 2^{-2}\tag{2}. $$ There exists an integer $N(2^{-3})>N(2^{-2})$ such that for all $n,m\geq N(2^{-3})$, $$ \|f_{n}-f_{m}\|\leq 2^{-3}\tag{2}. $$ ... so on and so forth.
Now, let $n_1=N(2^{-1})$, $n_2=N(2^{-2})$, $n_3=N(2^{-3})$, $\cdots$.
Since $n_1,n_2\geq N(2^{-1})$, we have by (1) $$ \|f_{n_2}-f_{n_1}\|\leq 2^{-1}. $$
Since $n_2,n_3\geq N(2^{-2})$, we have by (2) $$ \|f_{n_3}-f_{n_2}\|\leq 2^{-2}. $$
Since $n_3,n_4\geq N(2^{-3})$, we have by (3) $$ \|f_{n_4}-f_{n_3}\|\leq 2^{-3}. $$
... so on and so forth.
The following is a snapshot of the beginning of the proof for completeness of $L^1$ in Stein-Shakarchi's Book III (page 70 Theorem 2.2).