Limit definition and infinitely often

adnaps1
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Limit definition and "infinitely often"

If we have a sequence of real numbers x_{n} converging to x, that means \forall \epsilon > 0, \exists N such that |x_n - x| < \epsilon, \forall n \geq N.

So, can we say P (|x_n - x| < \epsilon \ i.o.) = 1 because for n \geq N, |x_n - x| < \epsilon always holds?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


adnaps1 said:
So, can we say P (|x_n - x| < \epsilon \ i.o.) = 1

Is that notation suppose to denote a probability? It doesn't define a probability until you establish a scenario that specifies at least one random variable and its probability distribution. Are you thinking of "picking an x_i at random"? Or did you mean the x_i to be a sequence of real valued random variables instead of a sequence of real numbers? (If the x_i are random variables, you have to use a different definition of limit than the one you gave.)
 


Yes, the notation P(\cdot) was supposed to denote a probability, and I want the x_i to be a sequence of real numbers, not random variables. But I understand what you're saying. I cannot talk about probabilities without having a random variable.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top