1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A new definition to bolzano weirshtrass law regarding liminf that i cant understand

  1. Jan 18, 2009 #1
    if a sequence Y_n is bounded
    then there is sub sequence Y_r_n which satisfies
    lim inf Y_n<=lim Y_r_n
    as n->+infinity

    i didnt here of that definition before
    the only definition i know about liminf is that it the supremum of all the infimums of the sequence

    using the definition i know

    this one
    Code (Text):

    lim inf Y_n<=lim Y_r_n
    as n->+infinity
     
    doesnt make any sense
    ??
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 18, 2009 #2

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Re: a new definition to bolzano weirshtrass law regarding liminf that i cant understa

    The usual statement of the Bolzano-Weierstrasse property is that any bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence. In order that you can talk about "lim Y_r_j" that must be true. Since there exist at least one convergent subsequenc, the set of subsequential limits is non-empty and since the sequence itself is bounded the set of subsequential limits is bounded and has both sup and inf. That is, liminf and limsup for the sequence exist as finite numbers (if {a_n} is unbounded below, some texts say the liminf is "negative infinity" in order to always have a liminf). Since the limit of the sequence Y_r_j is one of the subsequential limits, obviously it must be larger than or equal to the liminf, which is a lower bound on the subsequential limits.
     
  4. Jan 18, 2009 #3
    Re: a new definition to bolzano weirshtrass law regarding liminf that i cant understa

    thanks i understood that

    so one the one hand liminf is the largest lower bound of all the limits of all the subsequences
    and on the other hand its the supremum of the infimums of every subsequence

    on a bounded sequence.
     
  5. Jan 18, 2009 #4

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Re: a new definition to bolzano weirshtrass law regarding liminf that i cant understa

    "Infimum" is, by definition, the largest of all lower bounds. I'm not sure I like the phrasing "supremum of the infimums of every subsequence" but I think that is the basic idea.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: A new definition to bolzano weirshtrass law regarding liminf that i cant understand
Loading...