I Clarification of a line in a proof

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr Davis 97
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Line Proof
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.
 
A sphere as topological manifold can be defined by gluing together the boundary of two disk. Basically one starts assigning each disk the subspace topology from ##\mathbb R^2## and then taking the quotient topology obtained by gluing their boundaries. Starting from the above definition of 2-sphere as topological manifold, shows that it is homeomorphic to the "embedded" sphere understood as subset of ##\mathbb R^3## in the subspace topology.
Back
Top