Since ε is arbitrarily small, do the inequalities hold?

In summary, we are given the statement "if ##a\le x_n\le b\quad \forall n\in\mathbb{N}## then ##\limsup x_n\le b,\quad \liminf x_n\ge a##" and we are asked to prove it. To do so, we define ##\beta =\operatorname{lim inf}_{n \to \infty} x_n## and ##\alpha = \operatorname{lim sup}_{n \to \infty} x_n##. We then use the definition of limit points to show that for any ##\varepsilon >0##, there exists subsequences of integers ##\{n_k\}##
  • #1
yucheng
232
57
####
If ##b \leq x_n \leq c## for all but a finite number of n, show that ##b \leq \operatorname{lim inf}_{n \to \infty} x_n## and ##\operatorname{lim sup}_{n \to \infty} x_n \leq c_n##
(Buck, Advanced Calculus, Section 1.6, Exercise 24)

Let ##\beta =\operatorname{lim inf}_{n \to \infty} x_n## and ##\alpha = \operatorname{lim sup}_{n \to \infty} x_n##. Let ##\varepsilon## be any number greater than 0. Since ##\beta## and ##\alpha## are limit points, there exists subsequences of integers ##\{n_k\}## and ##\{n_i\}##, both infinite, such that ##|x_{n_k}-\beta| \leq \varepsilon## and ##|x_{n_i}-\alpha| \leq \varepsilon## Then, ##-\varepsilon \geq x_{n_k}-\beta \leq \varepsilon## and ##-\varepsilon \geq x_{n_i}-\alpha \leq \varepsilon##. From this, we get $$b \leq x_{n_k} \leq \beta + \varepsilon$$ and $$\alpha - \varepsilon \leq x_{n_i} \leq c$$ Since ##\varepsilon## is arbitrarily small, is it true that the inequalities above become ##b \leq \beta## and ##\alpha \leq c##
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
yucheng said:
Since ##\beta## and ##\alpha## and limit points, ##|x_n-\beta| \leq \varepsilon## and ##|x_n-\alpha| \leq \varepsilon##
Did you mean "are"? For which n is that supposed to hold? You didn't specify. What is ##\varepsilon##?
In general alpha and beta can be different, so they cannot both be the limit of the sequence.

Focus on one side, the other one is completely analogous.
 
  • #3
mfb said:
Did you mean "are"? For which n is that supposed to hold? You didn't specify. What is ##\varepsilon##?
In general alpha and beta can be different, so they cannot both be the limit of the sequence.

Focus on one side, the other one is completely analogous.

I apologize for my inaccurate language. Let me fix my post.
 
  • #4
I prefer the following definition
$$\limsup x_n=\lim_{n\to\infty}\sup_{k\ge n}\{x_k\}.$$
With this the assertion is clear
 
  • #5
wrobel said:
I prefer the following definition
$$\limsup x_n=\lim_{n\to\infty}\sup_{k\ge n}\{x_k\}.$$
With this the assertion is clear

Would you clarify which assertion? And what do you mean by ##\operatorname{sup_{k \geq n}}## (specifically ##k \geq n##)? Thanks!
 
Last edited:
  • #6
yucheng said:
Would you clarify which assertion?
the assertion you are supposed to prove:
if ##a\le x_n\le b\quad \forall n\in\mathbb{N}## then ##\limsup x_n\le b,\quad \liminf x_n\ge a##
yucheng said:
And what do you mean by (specifically )?
$$\sup_{k\ge n}\{x_k\}=\sup\{x_n,x_{n+1},\ldots\}$$
 

1. What does it mean for ε to be arbitrarily small?

When we say that ε is arbitrarily small, it means that ε can be any positive number that is as close to 0 as we want it to be. In other words, ε can be infinitely close to 0, but it will never actually reach 0.

2. Why is it important for ε to be arbitrarily small in this context?

In mathematics, we often use the concept of limits to describe the behavior of a function as its input approaches a certain value. In this case, the inequalities are being evaluated at a limit as ε approaches 0. By making ε arbitrarily small, we can get a better understanding of the behavior of the function at this limit.

3. How do we know that the inequalities will hold for all values of ε?

Since ε can be infinitely close to 0, we can think of it as representing all possible values that are close to 0. Therefore, if the inequalities hold for ε = 0, they will also hold for all values of ε that are close to 0. This is known as the "squeeze theorem" in mathematics.

4. Can we choose a specific value for ε or does it have to be arbitrarily small?

In this context, ε must be arbitrarily small. This means that we cannot choose a specific value for ε, as it must be able to approach 0 from any direction. However, in other contexts, we may be able to choose a specific value for ε depending on the problem at hand.

5. Are there any limitations to using ε as a variable in this way?

While using ε as a variable to represent arbitrarily small values is a common practice in mathematics, it is important to note that it is just a convention and not a formal mathematical symbol. This means that it should be used with caution and in the appropriate context. Additionally, it is important to clearly define what we mean by "arbitrarily small" in order to avoid any confusion or misunderstandings.

Similar threads

  • Math Proof Training and Practice
2
Replies
67
Views
8K
  • Math Proof Training and Practice
3
Replies
100
Views
7K
  • Math Proof Training and Practice
Replies
33
Views
7K
  • Differential Equations
Replies
1
Views
775
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
716
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Math Proof Training and Practice
3
Replies
77
Views
10K
  • Math Proof Training and Practice
2
Replies
56
Views
7K
  • Math Proof Training and Practice
2
Replies
61
Views
9K
  • Math Proof Training and Practice
Replies
28
Views
5K
Back
Top