I cant understand this liminf/sup definition

  • Thread starter Thread starter transgalactic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition
transgalactic
Messages
1,386
Reaction score
0
i got this new definition

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/5666/47016823jz1.gif

what is the meaning of n>=0 under a sup.
sup is not a limit
its only a number
we can't put index under it
what is the meaning of this indexes?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
transgalactic said:
what is the meaning of n>=0 under a sup.
sup is not a limit
its only a number
we can't put index under it
what is the meaning of this indexes?

Hi transgalactic! :smile:

Under the sup is n ≥ 0, not n -> 0.

anything with a -> (such as n -> 0) would be a limit, as you know …

anything without a -> (such as n ≥ 0) means that that is the range over which the sup is taken …

in other words, if you rewrite it inside {}, then it finishes with : n ≥ 0} :wink:
 
i can't imagine what you are saying

can you rewrite the definition
 
"sup" is a property of a set. sup_{n\ge m} {a_n} is the supremum of the set {a_m, a_{m+1}, a_{m+2}, ...}.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top