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!

Bounded sets, Limits superior and convergence

  1. Feb 21, 2013 #1
    (Hey guys and gals!)
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    Given a bounded set x_n and for any y_n the following condition holds:
    [tex] \limsup_{n \rightarrow ∞}(x_n+y_n) = \limsup(x_n)+\limsup(y_n) [/tex]
    Show that x_n converges.

    2. Relevant equations

    Definition of limsup(x_n) = L:
    [tex] \forall \epsilon > 0 \mid \exists N \mid \forall n > N \mid x_n < L +\epsilon [/tex]

    3. The attempt at a solution
    I started by defining the limsups as follows:
    Let limsup(y_n) = a; limsup(x_n) = b;
    According to the given conditions limsup(x_n+y_n) = a + b(see above).
    \forall \epsilon > 0 \mid \exists N_1 \mid \forall n > N_1 \mid x_n+y_n < (a+b) + \epsilon \\
    \mbox{Taking the same Epsilon:}\\
    \exists N_2 \mid \forall n > N_2 \mid y_n < a + \epsilon \\
    n>N \mid N = \max(N_1, N_2)
    Now I arrive at the following congruent inequalities(to be subtracted by their transitive property):
    x_n+y_n < (a+b) + \epsilon \\
    y_n < a + \epsilon \Rightarrow \\
    x_n < b
    Now, I claim that since I am given that x_n is bounded, by arriving at that final inequality, I've effectively discovered its upper bound .
    But, since b is the limit superior, it is also the smallest possible, real upper bound.
    And yet, here I'm stuck.
    On the one hand, the above relation means that -b is the largest possible lower bound , or the limit inferior.
    But that means that limsup(x_n)≠liminf(x_n) which would imply that x_n does not converge.
    Where should I turn next?
    Is there perhaps a better way to look at this?
    Very thankful for your attention,
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 21, 2013 #2


    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    I would consider a specific y_n. With the right choice, it is nearly trivial.

    Your definition for limsup looks strange - every L' > L would satisfy it as well. And (-1)^n would not have the correct 1 as limsup.
  4. Feb 21, 2013 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    No, this isn't right at all. It's possible to have a sequence ##(x_n)## with a lim sup ##b## such that ##x_n > b## for all ##n##. For example, if ##x_n = 1/n##, then ##\lim \sup x_n = 0##, but ##x_n > 0## for all ##n##.
  5. Feb 21, 2013 #4
    Firstly thanks for your replies.
    If you can follow my reasoning(which I know can be sometimes tortuous), I deduced that x_n < b only after taking both x_n+y_n<(a+b)+ε & the fact that y_n < a + eps.
    jbunn, I can clearly see your example, you're absolutely right; the problem is that I obtained this inequality solely through the definition of the limsup and the given statement re x_n being bound.
    I am clearly at loss, now, as to how to proceed. Any pointer in this regard would be extremely helpful.
    Mfb, that sounds promising. Are you sure I'm allowed to take a discrete y_n(i.e. not arbitrary)?
    Obviously it occurred to me(please don't take me as quite so daft ;)) that if y_n = -x_n, then the given relation reduces to:
    limsup(x_n+y_n) = limsup(x_n+(-x_n)) = 0 = limsup(x_n)-liminf(x_n) -->limsup(x_n)=liminf(x_n) <-> x_n converges.
    But what if y_n isn't such? The proof should touch, I believe, on the general case.
    In any event, I am rightly stumped now. Do you have any suggestions?
    I would greatly appreciate any help,
    And I am grateful for your time, and useful advice,
  6. Feb 21, 2013 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Well, it does say that the condition holds for any (mathematician-speak for every) ##y_n##, so I'm sure mfb is correct: you can choose any specific ##y_n## you like to get the job done.

    Do you see where your proof implicitly uses the fact that ##(x_n)## is bounded?
  7. Feb 22, 2013 #6
    Jbun, thanks again.
    I used the condition to state that after I arrived at x_n < b, for n > N, it is the limsup that forms the eventual, smallest possible, upper bound, in other words, the
    limsup(x_n) = inf(sup(x_N, x_(N+1), ..., x_n)).
    Therefore, I had thought(as you say, mistakenly) that since x_n < b, for those n > N, x_n can construed bound by b(in that region, at least).
    If that's the case, and since I can eliminate a finite number of outlying elements of x_n(preceeding N), all of x_n, after that N, lies squarely(or equals either) between -b, and b.
    Then I considered that by writing it thus(subtracting b, taking the absolute value of both sides):
    |x_n-b| => 0, I can firmly state that for any(!) ε>0, this: |x_n-b|<ε holds, since the former conditions is true iff 0 >= x_n-b >= 0 ->|x_n-b|=0, and |x_n-b| < ε is the implicit definition of a limit of a sequence.
    The "N" in this case, would be the matching "N" to the above relation...
    Is this getting me anywhere?
    As you say, the better way is to simply take y_n=-x_n. I tried keep it as generalised as possible, without discretisation.
    Of course, if you consider it valid, then it's surely quite trivial.
    Still, what do you think?
    Is there a better method for the general case?(if at all?)
    Thanks again!
    Much beholden,
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: Bounded sets, Limits superior and convergence
  1. Limit superior (Replies: 3)