For any open interval containing limsup s_n, there exists infinitely many s_n .

  • Thread starter Thread starter fmam3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Interval
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof that for any open interval containing the limit superior (limsup) of a bounded sequence (s_n) in \mathbb{R}, there exist infinitely many terms s_n within that interval. The participants clarify that using an open interval is crucial to avoid trivial cases associated with closed intervals, particularly singletons. The argument hinges on the existence of an epsilon such that (L - epsilon, L + epsilon) is contained within the interval, ensuring that the limsup can indeed be approached by infinitely many terms of the sequence.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of limit superior (limsup) in real analysis
  • Familiarity with bounded sequences in \mathbb{R}
  • Knowledge of open and closed intervals in topology
  • Basic concepts of epsilon-delta arguments in mathematical proofs
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of limit superior and limit inferior in sequences
  • Explore the implications of bounded sequences in real analysis
  • Learn about the differences between open and closed intervals in mathematical contexts
  • Investigate epsilon-delta definitions and their applications in proofs
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying real analysis, and educators looking to deepen their understanding of sequences and limits will benefit from this discussion.

fmam3
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
For any open interval containing limsup s_n, there exists infinitely many s_n...

Hi all! I'm new to this fantastic forum! Please help me with the following problem! Thanks in advance!

Homework Statement


Suppose that the sequence (s_n) is bounded in \mathbb{R}. Prove: Given any open interval containing \limsup s_n, there exists infinitely many n with s_n inside that interval.


Homework Equations


In light of the given statement, what is the issue with "open interval"? That is, does this statement hold (or not hold) if it said "closed interval" instead? And why?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A singleton is a closed interval which is not an infinite set, and thus can't contain an infinite set. Every non-singleton real interval contains an open interval, so the theorem holds for this more convoluted object. It is much easier to say open interval.
 
Call your limsup L. The point to saying the interval is open is that you then can find an epsilon such that (L-epsilon,L+epsilon) is contained in the interval. Suppose that subinterval contains only finitely many sn's. Then can L really be the limsup?
 
@Dick
I understand perfectly the (L - \varepsilon, L + \varepsilon) argument --- in fact, that was how I proved the original (unmodified) statement. But thanks for the input :)

@slider142
Ahh... I see, so the only reason of using the phrase "open interval" is to avoid trivial cases where a closed interval is a singleton / contains only one point. Great! Thanks :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K