MHB Comparing the sup of two sequences

  • Thread starter Thread starter OhMyMarkov
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sequences
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around proving that for two sequences \( a_n \) and \( b_n \) where \( a_n \leq b_n \) for all \( n \), the supremum of the sequences \( A_n = \sup \{a_m \; | \; m \geq n\} \) and \( B_n = \sup \{b_m \; | \; m \geq n\} \) satisfies \( A_n \leq B_n \). A proof by contradiction is proposed, assuming \( A_n > B_n \) and leading to a contradiction based on the definitions of the supremum. Concerns are raised about cases where the supremum might not be an element of the sequence, using the example of a converging sequence like \( 3, 3.14, 3.1415, \dots \). The discussion highlights the need to consider the behavior of suprema in relation to the sequences involved. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of rigor in handling cases where the supremum is not directly represented in the sequence.
OhMyMarkov
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone!

Let $a_n$ and $b_n$ be two sequences such that $a_n \leq b_n$ for all $n$. Let $A_n = \sup \{a_m \; | \; m \geq n\}$ and $B_n = \sup \{b_m \; | \; m \geq n\}$.

I want to prove that $A_n\leq B_n$. I attempted a proof by contradiction:

Assume $A_n > B_n$ for some $n$.
If $A_n = a_i$ and $B_n = b_j$ for some j, and $i$ not necessarily equal to $j$, then $a_i > b_j$. However, $b_i > a_i$, so that $A_n > B_n$ is not true.

But the thing is, what if the index $i$ is infinity, I'm not sure what to do there...Any help would be appreciated! :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
OhMyMarkov said:
Hello everyone!
Let $a_n$ and $b_n$ be two sequences such that $a_n \leq b_n$ for all $n$. Let $A_n = \sup \{a_m \; | \; m \geq n\}$ and $B_n = \sup \{b_m \; | \; m \geq n\}$.

I want to prove that $A_n\leq B_n$. I attempted a proof by contradiction:

Assume $A_n > B_n$ for some $n$.
Assume $A_n > B_n$ for some $n$.
$\left( {\exists a_j } \right)\left[ {j \geqslant n\;\& \,B_n < a_j \leqslant A_n } \right]$.

But $a_j\le b_j\le B_n$.
 
Hello Plato, thanks for your reply!

I was thinking this way, but can't I extend this to the case where the sup is not actually in the set $\{a_n\}$, like the sequence $3, 3.14, 3.1415, 3.141592, 3.14159264, \dots$. Or an other sequence.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K