Are Sequence Definitions for Bounded Sequences Adequate for Proving Boundedness?

  • Thread starter Thread starter christianrhiley
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bounded Sequence
christianrhiley
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Definitions: Let {x[n]} be a bounded sequence in Reals.
We define {y[k]} and {z[k]} by
y[k]=sup{x[n]: n \geq k}, z[k]=inf{x[n]: n \geq k}

Claim: (i) Both y[k] and z[k] are bounded sequences
(ii){y[k]} is a decreasing sequence
(iii){z[k]} is an increasing sequence

Proof: (i) suppose y[k] and z[k] are not bounded. this implies x[n] is unbounded, a contradiction. therefore, we conclude that both y[k] and z[k] are bounded.
(ii)Let S[k] = {x[n]: n \geq k} and S[k+1] = {x[n]: n \geq k + 1}
S[k] is a \subset S[k+1], and if sup(S[k]) \leq sup(S[k+1]), it follows that S[k] \leq S[k+1]. We conclude that {y[k]} is decreasing.
(iii)similar to part (ii) except inf(S[k+1]) \leq inf(S[k])

Note: inf(A) \leq inf(B) and sup(B) \leq sup(A) have already been proven in an earlier exercise.

Where I Need Help: I need input regarding all three parts. I have made, at best, an informal sketch of a proof, and I would like some input on how to turn it into a rigorous proof.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you mean that B is a subset of A implies that sup(B)<=sup(A) and inf(B)>=inf(A), I really don't see the need for more 'rigor'. I think you have it.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top