Examples of taking limits of intervals

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter nasshi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    intervals Limits
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
4 replies · 3K views
nasshi
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
I guess I've fallen through some of the cracks in the plethora of definitions I've learned, or I just never had enough examples of taking limits of intervals. Anyways, which is true, and why?

[tex]$\cap^{\infty}_{n=1}(0,\frac{1}{2^{n-1}}]=0?$[/tex]
[tex]$\cap^{\infty}_{n=1}(0,\frac{1}{2^{n-1}}]=\varnothing?$[/tex]
I think the first.

However, if I were to write the following instead:
[tex]$\lim _{n \rightarrow \infty} \cap_{n}(0,\frac{1}{2^{n-1}}]=\varnothing$[/tex],
would I be correct?

If not, why?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


nasshi said:
I guess I've fallen through some of the cracks in the plethora of definitions I've learned, or I just never had enough examples of taking limits of intervals. Anyways, which is true, and why?

[tex]$\cap^{\infty}_{n=1}(0,\frac{1}{2^{n-1}}]=0?$[/tex]
[tex]$\cap^{\infty}_{n=1}(0,\frac{1}{2^{n-1}}]=\varnothing?$[/tex]
I think the first.
No, the first doesn't even make sense- on the left you have a set and on the right you have a number. If you meant
[tex]\cap^{\infty}_{n=1}(0,\frac{1}{2^{n-1}}]=\{ 0 \}[/tex]
That would make sense (both sides of the equation are sets) but would also be incorrect. The notation (0, x] means "all points between 0 and x, including x but not 0". 0 is not in any of those intervals and so cannot be in their intersection. It is the second that is correct.


However, if I were to write the following instead:
[tex]$lim _{n \rightarrow \infty} \cap^{n}_{k=1}(0,\frac{1}{2^{n-1}}]=\varnothing$[/tex],
would I be correct?

If not, why?

Thanks.
Yes, the second is just definition of
[tex]$\cap^{\infty}_{n=1}[/tex]
and is exactly the same as the second of your first two equations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


HallsofIvy,

I'm trying to show that for [tex]F_{n} \subset F_{n+1}[/tex] for all n (they're sigma-algebras), that [tex]\cap ^{\infty}_{i=1}F_{i}[/tex] may not be a sigma algebra. Counter example is what the exercise says.

I was thinking of a sequence of intervals that never include 0. But I didn't know how to properly express it such that the intersection never included 0. I didn't want to include any epsilons, but I it seems I have to. Here's what I have now.

[tex]\cap^{\infty}_{n=1}(0,1-\frac{1}{2^{n-1}}+\varepsilon][/tex]

Will that suffice, or is there a better example?
 


nasshi said:
HallsofIvy,

I'm trying to show that for [tex]F_{n} \subset F_{n+1}[/tex] for all n (they're sigma-algebras), that [tex]\cap ^{\infty}_{i=1}F_{i}[/tex] may not be a sigma algebra. Counter example is what the exercise says.

I was thinking of a sequence of intervals that never include 0. But I didn't know how to properly express it such that the intersection never included 0. I didn't want to include any epsilons, but I it seems I have to. Here's what I have now.

[tex]\cap^{\infty}_{n=1}(0,1-\frac{1}{2^{n-1}}+\varepsilon][/tex]

Will that suffice, or is there a better example?
I don't understand what you are trying to do. A sigma algebra is a collection of sets (that is closed under unions and complements). You are saying that you want to give an example of a collection of sigma algebras whose intersection is not a sigma algebra but your example is a single collection of sets (NOT a sigma algebra) and you are taking the intersection of the sets in that single collection of sets.
 


As far as I know you don't have to think that intersection as a limit just because the [tex]\infty[/tex] symbol appears.
Whenever you have a NOT EMPTY collection of sets [tex]\cal A[/tex] (for a collection of sets I mean a set [tex]\cal A[/tex] whose elements are sets themselves... for istance, given a set [tex]A[/tex], the set [tex]{\cal P}(A)[/tex] of the subsets of [tex]A[/tex] is a collection of sets) you can define the [tex]\bigcap {\cal A}[/tex] as the following set.

[tex]\bigcap {\cal A} = \left\{ x \in Y\, |\,\, \forall X \in {\cal A}, \ x \in X \right\}[/tex]

where [tex]Y[/tex] is any element of the collection of sets(that is non empty).

The definition do not depend on the choice of Y and you don't require any idea of convergence or limit.
 
Last edited: