Non-convergence written with sets

  • Thread starter cuak2000
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Sets
In summary, the conversation discusses the proof of two real-valued functions f_n and f_n in a certain region \Omega. The left side of the equality is denoted as L and the right side as R. The conversation then goes on to clarify that there is an error in the definition of R, and provides a corrected version. Finally, it is concluded that the condition for an omega to belong to R is the same as the condition for it to belong to L.
  • #1
cuak2000
8
0
Hey, everyone. I'm trying to prove the following:

[tex] f_n [/tex] and [tex] f_n [/tex] are real-valued function in [tex] \Omega [/tex]

[tex] \{\omega: f_n(\omega) \nrightarrow f(\omega) \} = \\
\bigcup^{\infty}_{k=1} \bigcap^{\infty}_{N=1} \bigcup^{\infty}_{n=1}
\{ \omega : | f_n(\omega) - f(\omega) | \geq 1/k \}


[/tex]

I am convinced by the proof I've made up, but it isn't formal, so I would appreciate if you could help me give it more formality.
Let's call the left side of the equality L and the right side R.
L can be written:

[tex] \exists k \in \mathbb{N} \quad \forall N \quad \exists n \geq N \quad | f_n(\omega) \nrightarrow f(\omega) | \geq 1/k
[/tex]

On the other hand, the last part of R is
[tex] \bigcap^{\infty}_{N=1} \bigcup^{\infty}_{n=1}
\{ \omega : | f_n(\omega) - f(\omega) | \geq 1/k \} [/tex]

which basically takes all the [tex] \omega [/tex] that [tex] \forall N [/tex] have
at least one [tex] n \geq N [/tex] that makes the absolute difference bigger than 1/k
If you take the union for all k, then you have the definition for being in L.
Thanks in advance,

cd
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
There's something wrong with your R. You take an intersection over N=1 to infty, but the index N does not appear in the collection over which the intersection is taken. You probably meant

[tex]\bigcup^{\infty}_{k=1} \bigcap^{\infty}_{N=1} \bigcup^{\infty}_{n=N}
\{ \omega : | f_n(\omega) - f(\omega) | \geq 1/k \}[/tex]

and then you are already done, since the condition for omega to belong to this one and to to LHS are the same, namely

[tex] \exists k \in \mathbb{N} \quad \forall N \quad \exists n \geq N \quad | f_n(\omega) \nrightarrow f(\omega) | \geq 1/k
[/tex]
 

1. What is non-convergence written with sets?

Non-convergence written with sets refers to a mathematical concept where a sequence of sets does not converge to a specific limit. This means that the sets in the sequence do not approach a common value or become infinitely close to each other.

2. How is non-convergence written with sets represented mathematically?

Non-convergence written with sets is represented using the notation "lim sup An ≠ lim inf An", where An is the sequence of sets. This means that the limit superior (the largest possible limit) of the sequence is not equal to the limit inferior (the smallest possible limit).

3. What does it mean for a sequence of sets to not converge?

If a sequence of sets does not converge, it means that the sets in the sequence do not approach a common value or become infinitely close to each other. This can happen for various reasons, such as the sets being disjoint, or the size of the sets increasing without bound.

4. What are some real-world applications of non-convergence written with sets?

Non-convergence written with sets has applications in various fields such as analysis, topology, and probability. For example, in probability theory, non-convergence can occur when studying the behavior of random variables, and in topology, it is used to define the concept of a limit point.

5. How is non-convergence written with sets different from non-convergence written with real numbers?

Non-convergence written with sets and non-convergence written with real numbers are two different concepts. Non-convergence written with real numbers refers to a sequence of numbers that does not have a limit, while non-convergence written with sets refers to a sequence of sets that does not have a common limit. In other words, non-convergence written with sets is a more general concept than non-convergence written with real numbers.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
926
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
6
Views
675
Replies
4
Views
284
Replies
5
Views
377
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
302
Replies
0
Views
314
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Calculus
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top