MHB Help with finding the sup and inf

  • Thread starter Thread starter Saitama
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The set S is defined as S={1-(-1)^n/n: n∈ℕ}, and the discussion revolves around finding its infimum and supremum. It is established that the set can be divided into two subsets based on the parity of n, leading to S1 for even n and S2 for odd n. The supremum of S is determined to be 2, occurring at n=1, while the infimum is found to be 1/2, occurring at n=2. Participants emphasize the importance of writing a clear proof to support these findings, illustrating the behavior of the sequence through examples. The conclusion confirms that the infimum is 1/2 and the supremum is 2.
Saitama
Messages
4,244
Reaction score
93
Problem:
Let $\displaystyle S=\left\{1-\frac{(-1)^n}{n}:n\in \mathbb{N}\right\}$. Find $\inf S$ and $\sup S$.

Attempt:
I know the problem is quite easy and the answers are very obvious but I need help with writing down a proof for it and I am really bad at writing such proofs.

The best I could come up with was to divide the given set into two subsets. First set comprises of elements (I am not sure if this is the right word) when $n=2k$ ($S_1$) and the other for $n=2k-1$ ($S_{2n-1}$) for $k\in\mathbb{N}$. i.e
$$S_1=\left\{1-\frac{1}{2k}:k\in \mathbb{N}\right\}$$
and
$$S_2=\left\{1+\frac{1}{2k-1}:k\in\mathbb{N}\right\}$$
Now it is obvious that $\sup S$ is in $S_2$ and $\inf S$ is in $S_1$. It is easy to see that both $\sup S$ and $\inf S$ occur when $k=1$.

But how do I write down a "proof"? :confused:

Any help is appreciated. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Pranav!

I would write:

Proof
$$\forall n \in \mathbb N: 1-\frac{(-1)^2}{2} \le 1 - \frac{(-1)^n}{n} \le 1 - \frac{(-1)^1}{1}$$
Equalities are achieved for $n=1$ respectively $n=2$.
Therefore $\inf S = \frac 12$ and $\sup S = 2$.
 
Pranav said:
Problem:
Let $\displaystyle S=\left\{1-\frac{(-1)^n}{n}:n\in \mathbb{N}\right\}$. Find $\inf S$ and $\sup S$.

Attempt:
I know the problem is quite easy and the answers are very obvious but I need help with writing down a proof for it and I am really bad at writing such proofs.

The best I could come up with was to divide the given set into two subsets. First set comprises of elements (I am not sure if this is the right word) when $n=2k$ ($S_1$) and the other for $n=2k-1$ ($S_{2n-1}$) for $k\in\mathbb{N}$. i.e
$$S_1=\left\{1-\frac{1}{2k}:k\in \mathbb{N}\right\}$$
and
$$S_2=\left\{1+\frac{1}{2k-1}:k\in\mathbb{N}\right\}$$
Now it is obvious that $\sup S$ is in $S_2$ and $\inf S$ is in $S_1$. It is easy to see that both $\sup S$ and $\inf S$ occur when $k=1$.

But how do I write down a "proof"? :confused:

Any help is appreciated. Thanks!

For starters, sometimes a supremum is called the "least upper bound", which is the smallest value that can be used as a ceiling for your sequence, and sometimes an infemum is called the "greatest lower bound", which is the largest value that can be used as the floor.

For starters, I would write $\displaystyle \begin{align*} 1 - \frac{ \left( -1 \right) ^n }{n} = 1 + \frac{\left( -1 \right) ^{n+1}}{n} \end{align*}$

I also like to write down a few terms to determine the behaviour of the function. To do this, a start is to write down the first few terms of the sequence. For simplicity I'll leave out the +1...

$\displaystyle \begin{align*} \left\{ \frac{ \left( -1 \right) ^{n + 1}}{n} \right\} = \left\{ 1, -\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{3}, -\frac{1}{4}, \dots \right\} \end{align*}$

It should be obvious that the terms decrease in magnitude (mainly because $\displaystyle \begin{align*} \frac{1}{n + 1} < \frac{1}{n} \end{align*}$. Thus the supremum of this is 1 and the infemum is $\displaystyle \begin{align*} -\frac{1}{2} \end{align*}$.

So for your sequence $\displaystyle \begin{align*} \left\{ 1 + \frac{ \left( -1 \right) ^{n + 1}}{n} \right\} \end{align*}$ has a supremum of 2 and an infemum of $\displaystyle \begin{align*} \frac{1}{2} \end{align*}$.
 
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 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K