Ok, so I would like to formally settle this one. I have a sequence of sets [itex]C_{N}^{n}\subset\mathbb{R} ^{n}, N\in\mathbb{Z} ^{+}[/itex] defined as follows(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

[tex]C_{N}^{n}:=\left\{ \left( x_{1}, ..., x_{n}\right) \in\mathbb{R} ^{n}: \sum_{j=1}^{n} x_{j}^{2N} \leq n \right\} [/tex]

I would like to prove that [itex]C_{N}^{n}\rightarrow\mbox{ The Hypercube with verticies at } (\pm 1, ..., \pm 1) \mbox{ as }N\rightarrow \infty[/itex] (through integer values.)

I have done some study of limits of sequences of sets: most fruitful has been Measure Theory, by Halmos, in which the limit of a sequence of sets is defined as the set [itex]A = \liminf A_{n} = \limsup A_{n}[/itex], where the upper and lower limits of a sequence of sets [itex]\left\{ A_{n} \right\} [/itex] are defined by

[tex]\liminf A_{n} = \bigcup_{j=1}^{\infty} \bigcap_{k=j}^{\infty} A_{k}[/tex]

and

[tex]\limsup A_{n} = \bigcap_{j=1}^{\infty} \bigcup_{k=j}^{\infty} A_{k}[/tex]

But, I hadn't heard of that when I started playing with the above sets. It is easy to see that, as "limit equations," the following are tennable:

[tex]Q^{n}:=\left\{ \left( x_{1}, ..., x_{n}\right) \in\mathbb{R} ^{n}: \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty} \sum_{j=1}^{n} x_{j}^{2N} \leq n \right\}= \mbox{ The Hypercube with verticies at } (\pm 1, ..., \pm 1) [/tex]

and, in fact, the sets

[tex]Q_{d}^{n}:=\left\{ \left( x_{1}, ..., x_{n}\right) \in\mathbb{R} ^{n}: \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty} \sum_{j=1}^{n} x_{j}^{2N} \leq n-d \right\}[/tex]

possess that property of describing precisely the d-dimensional content (less lower dimensional boundaries) of the hypercube with verticies at [itex](\pm 1, ..., \pm 1) [/tex]; that is to say that the sets [itex]Q_{0}^{n},Q_{1}^{n},...,Q_{n-2}^{n},Q_{n-1}^{n},\mbox{ and }Q_{n}^{n}[/itex] describe the vertices, edges..., ridges, facets, and hypervolume of said n-dimensional hypercube, respectively. And since [itex]Q_{i}^{n}\cap Q_{k}^{n}=\emptyset, \mbox{ for }j\neq k[/itex], and [itex] \bigcup_{k=1}^{n} Q_{k}^{n} = Q^{n}[/itex] the above sets provide a strataification of said hypercube.

So my quesion is: "Is the later "limit equation" interpetation given consistent with the notion of limits of sequences of sets given by Halmos?"

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Limit of a sequence of sets: hypercubes.

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

Loading...

Similar Threads for Limit sequence sets | Date |
---|---|

I Proof of series`s tail limit | Mar 16, 2017 |

B Definition of the limit of a sequence | Jul 27, 2016 |

I General questions about limits of sequences | Apr 7, 2016 |

Infinite series as the limit of its sequence of partial sums | Jan 24, 2016 |

Convergent limits for sequences: please help picture terms | Jan 26, 2014 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**