Clarification of a line in a proof

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr Davis 97
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Line Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a specific line in a proof related to sequences of nonnegative numbers and their limits. Participants seek clarification on the validity of an equality involving supremums and averages of subsequences, particularly under the condition that ##M>N##.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the equality ##\displaystyle \sup \{\frac{1}{n} (s_{N+1} + \cdots + s_n) ~|~ n>M \} = \frac{n-N}{n}\sup \{s_n ~|~ n > N \}## and seeks justification for its truth.
  • Another participant suggests that while it is possible to establish an inequality ##\displaystyle \sup \{\frac{1}{n} (s_{N+1} + \cdots + s_n) ~|~ n>M \} \leq \frac{n-N}{n}\sup \{s_n ~|~ n > N \}##, they ask if there is information available to demonstrate the reverse inequality.
  • A third participant expresses doubt about the equality, proposing that it might actually be an error and should be ##\leq## instead, although they note that this does not invalidate the overall proof since it is part of a series of inequalities.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of the equality in question. There are competing views regarding whether the equality holds or if it should be an inequality.

Contextual Notes

The discussion references a specific context from a solution document, indicating that the understanding of the equality may depend on prior information not fully provided in the thread.

Mr Davis 97
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
44
This comes from a line of a proof in my book, and I need help resolving why the equality is true. Suppose that ##M>N##. Why is it true that ##\displaystyle \sup \{\frac{1}{n} (s_{N+1} + \cdots + s_n) ~|~ n>M \} = \frac{n-N}{n}\sup \{s_n ~|~ n > N \}##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mr Davis 97 said:
This comes from a line of a proof in my book, and I need help resolving why the equality is true. Suppose that ##M>N##. Why is it true that ##\displaystyle \sup \{\frac{1}{n} (s_{N+1} + \cdots + s_n) ~|~ n>M \} = \frac{n-N}{n}\sup \{s_n ~|~ n > N \}##?
It's hard to tell without seeing what came before. You can set up a string of inequalities to show that ##\displaystyle \sup \{\frac{1}{n} (s_{N+1} + \cdots + s_n) ~|~ n>M \} \leq \frac{n-N}{n}\sup \{s_n ~|~ n > N \}##. Do you have any information to show ##\geq##?
 
tnich said:
It's hard to tell without seeing what came before. You can set up a string of inequalities to show that ##\displaystyle \sup \{\frac{1}{n} (s_{N+1} + \cdots + s_n) ~|~ n>M \} \leq \frac{n-N}{n}\sup \{s_n ~|~ n > N \}##. Do you have any information to show ##\geq##?
Here is the context of the solution: https://math.berkeley.edu/~talaska/old-104/hw06-sol.pdf

My issue is in the bottom half of the first page.

For further context, the problem is

Let ##(s_n)## be a sequence of nonnegative numbers, and for each ##n## define ##\sigma_n = 1/n(s_1 + s_2 + · · · + s_n)##. Show ##\lim \inf s_n \le \lim \inf \sigma_n \le \lim \sup \sigma_n \le \lim \sup s_n##.
 
Mr Davis 97 said:
Here is the context of the solution: https://math.berkeley.edu/~talaska/old-104/hw06-sol.pdf

My issue is in the bottom half of the first page.

For further context, the problem is

Let ##(s_n)## be a sequence of nonnegative numbers, and for each ##n## define ##\sigma_n = 1/n(s_1 + s_2 + · · · + s_n)##. Show ##\lim \inf s_n \le \lim \inf \sigma_n \le \lim \sup \sigma_n \le \lim \sup s_n##.
I think the = sign is an error. It should be ##\leq##. It doesn't invalidate the proof because it is in a string of inequalities anyway.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K