I don't understand this definition of upper semi-continuity

[moxy]

Defn: f: I → ℝ is upper semi-continuous at x_0 \in I if f(x_0) ≥ \limsup{f(x_0)}.

The book goes on to say that "clearly" this is equivalent to saying,

For any ε > 0 there exists a neighborhood U of x_0, relative to I such that f(x) < f(x_0) + ε , \forall x \in U.

However, this isn't clear to me. Can someone please explain why these statements are equivalent?

 

[lurflurf]

It is quite clearly equivalent. What definition of lim sup are you using? If it is not a epsilon-delta definition that may be why it is not obvious. Try writing the lim sup using epsilon-delta.
Informally we might say
f is upper semi-continuous if f(x+h) is not more than a little bigger that f(x)
f is lower semi-continuous if f(x+h) is not more that a little less than f(x)
f is continuous if f(x+h) is not more than a little different than f(x)

As the name implies semi-continuous if like half continuous

 

[moxy]

Gah. So in the first inequality, limsup f(x₀) := lim_x-->x0 (sup f(x))?

limsup_x-->x0 f(x) = L if for all ε>0 there exists δ>0 such that
f(x) < L + ε
whenever |x - x₀| < δ

So, if we take limsup f(x) = L and f is usc at x₀
==> f(x₀) ≥ L

And by the defn of limsup, for any ε>0,
==> L > f(x) - ε

Then f(x₀) ≥ L > f(x) - ε
==> f(x₀) + ε > f(x)Clearly I'm having a lot of trouble with neighborhoods and limsups/liminfs. They haven't quite sunk in yet, I guess.

Thank you for your help!