Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

From decreasing sequences to decreasing functions

  1. May 12, 2006 #1
    Hello.

    I know this:

    If (a_n) is a bounded below decreasing sequence, then

    lim (a_n) = inf { a_n / n = 1,... }
    n->oo

    How to translate this to real functions ?

    I mean, I have read that:

    lim (sup { f(x) / 0< |x-a|< e}) =
    e->0

    inf { sup {f(x) / 0< |x-a|< e} / e > 0}

    and i suppose it has something to do with the previous but I fail to see how.

    Can you help me?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 13, 2006 #2
    For starters, consider sup { f(x) / 0< |x-a|< e} as a function of e. It is defined only for e > 0. It is bounded from below by f(a). Also, it is decreasing as [tex]e \rightarrow 0[/tex]. Let me know if this is enough help.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2006
  4. May 13, 2006 #3
    Thanks for answering.

    Lets say g: R+ -> R: g(e) = sup { f(x) / 0< |x-a| < e}.

    But I fail to see why f(a) is an inferior bound of { g(e) / e > 0}.:confused: :confused:

    "a" is not even in the dominion of f.
     
  5. May 13, 2006 #4
    That may or may not be so. However you bring up a valid point, f(a) is not necessarily a lower bound for g(e) even if it exists. My solution needs the following modification.

    If g(e) is not bounded from below in any neighborhood of 0, then lim sup = inf sup = [tex]-\infty[/tex]. If g(e) is bounded from below in some neighborhood of 0, then use that bound instead of f(a) in my previous suggestion. Either way lim sup = inf sup.
     
  6. May 15, 2006 #5
    Let see...

    We have g(e) = sup { f(x) / 0 < |x-a| < e }.

    Let's suppose that there exist E and M such that if e belongs to the open interval (0, E) then g(e) < M. This fact, plus the increasing condition of function g, implies that M is a lower bound of A = { g(e) / e > 0}. Then A has an infimum, "w".

    Let be d>0. By definition of infimum, there exists and e_1 which belongs to A and g(e_1) < w + d.
    Being g an increasing function, we have, for all e of the interval (0, e_1), g(e_1) >= g(e). So for all e of (0, e_1):

    w + d > g(e_1) >= g(e) >= w > w - d, therefore | g(e) - w | < d.

    This means that

    limit g(e) = w = inf A = inf {g(e) / e > 0}.
    e->0+


    Is this okay, jimmysnyder??
     
  7. May 15, 2006 #6
    I'm sorry, I did not read past this part of your message. In my message, I was assuming that there exist E and m such that if e belongs to the open interval (0, E) then g(e) > m.

    I want to take advantage of the fact that as e approaches 0, g(e) is nonincreasing. That is, if 0 < e' < e, then
    { f(x) / 0 < |x-a| < e' } is a subset of { f(x) / 0 < |x-a| < e }.
    Therefor g(e') is less than or equal to g(e).
     
  8. May 15, 2006 #7
    I did not mention that the function g was an increasing one (or better, nondecreasing) but its definition implies this, because g(e) = sup { f(x) / 0 < |x-a| < e}.

    Jimmysnyder, could you read my previous post? I think it is all right but may be you can confirm this...

    There is a mistake at mi previous post!! It must say: M < g(e).
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2006
  9. May 15, 2006 #8
    Well I read a little more but it still has problems.
    M is a lower bound of A = {g(e) / 0 < e < E}.

    However, I don't think any of this is necessary. Just use the fact that g(e) is bounded from below in (0,E) and nonincreasing as e approaches 0. Apply the same reasoning as in the sequential version. Q.E.D.
     
  10. May 15, 2006 #9
    That is ok, thanks for your help!
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: From decreasing sequences to decreasing functions
Loading...