Limit superior & limit inferior of a sequence

  • Thread starter Thread starter kingwinner
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit Sequence
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of limit superior and limit inferior of a sequence in the context of real analysis. Participants are examining theorems related to the convergence of sequences and the relationships between limit superior, limit inferior, and the limit of a sequence.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to prove theorems regarding limit superior and limit inferior, particularly focusing on the definitions and implications of these concepts. There are questions about the validity of certain definitions and how to rigorously establish theorems 1 and 2.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered hints and partial proofs, while others express confusion about specific steps in the proofs. There is ongoing exploration of the relationships between theorems and definitions, with no explicit consensus reached on the proofs themselves.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the need for clarity on definitions and theorems, and there is an acknowledgment of the complexity involved in proving theorems related to limits. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding the foundational definitions of limit superior and limit inferior.

kingwinner
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Fact:
Let a=lim sup an.
Then for all ε>0, there exists N such that if n≥N, then an<a+ε

Theorem 1:
If lim an = a exists, then lim sup an = lim inf an = a.
n->∞

Theorem 2:
If lim sup an = lim inf an = a, then
lim an exists and equals a.
n->∞

Homework Equations


N/A

The Attempt at a Solution


I was trying to see why theorems 1 & 2 are true.
How can we prove these rigorously?

I wrote down all the definitions, but still I don't know how to prove theorems 1 and 2.

Let an be a sequence of real numbers. Then by definition, an->a iff
for all ε>0, there exists an integer N such that n≥N => |an - a|< ε.

Also, lim sup an is defined as
lim sup{an: n≥N}
N->∞
(similarly for lim inf)

Any help is much appreciated! :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kingwinner said:

Homework Statement


Fact:
Let a=lim sup an.
Then for all ε>0, there exists N such that if n≥N, then an<a+ε
For Theorem 2 you also need:
Let a= lim inf an.
Then for all ε> 0 there exists N such that if n≥N, then an> a-ε
Theorem 1:
If lim an = a exists, then lim sup an = lim inf an = a.
n->∞
If the sequence converges to a, the every subsequence converges to a so the set of all "subsequential limits" is simply {a}.

Theorem 2:
If lim sup an = lim inf an = a, then
lim an exists and equals a.
n->∞
Since a= lim sup an and lim inf an, you have both of the above so that, for any ε> 0 there exist N such that if n≥ N then a-ε< an< a+ε.

Homework Equations


N/A

The Attempt at a Solution


I was trying to see why theorems 1 & 2 are true.
How can we prove these rigorously?

I wrote down all the definitions, but still I don't know how to prove theorems 1 and 2.

Let an be a sequence of real numbers. Then by definition, an->a iff
for all ε>0, there exists an integer N such that n≥N => |an - a|< ε.

Also, lim sup an is defined as
lim sup{an: n≥N}
N->∞
(similarly for lim inf)

Any help is much appreciated! :)
 
1) About theorem 1, I haven't seen the version of the definition that you gave for lim sup and lim inf. My version of the definition is sipmly:
lim sup an is defined as
lim [sup{an: n≥N}]
N->∞

lim inf an is defined as
lim [inf{an: n≥N}]
N->∞

How can we prove theorem 1 directly by using these definitions (and the definition of "limit")?



2) Suppose a=lim sup an= lim inf an.
Then for all ε>0, there exists N1 such that if n≥N1, then an<a+ε
and for all ε> 0 there exists N2 such that if n≥N2, then an> a-ε
Should I take N=max{N1,N2}? so that n≥N => an<a+ε and an> a-ε, i.e. |an -a|< ε, and therefore an->a.
I think in general we should assume that N1 and N2 may be different (i.e. not necessarily the same N). Is this the correct way to prove theorem 2?


Can somebody help me, please?
Any help is much appreciated! :)
 
Last edited:
Here are some hints for proving Theorem 1:

1. I'll assume that you're working over the real numbers, not the extended reals where values of + or - infinity are allowed.

2. Show (or simply observe, since it's easy) that lim inf [itex]a_n \leq[/itex] lim sup [itex]a_n[/itex].

3. Show that |[itex]a_n[/itex] - a| < [itex]\epsilon[/itex] implies that [itex]a_n[/itex] < a + [itex]\epsilon[/itex].

4. What, then, can you say about lim sup [itex]a_n[/itex] in terms of a and [itex]\epsilon[/itex]?

5. What does the relation in #4 imply about lim sup [itex]a_n[/itex] and a?

6. Using similar arguments, derive an analogous relation between lim inf [itex]a_n[/itex] and a.

7. Use the observation in #2 above to finish the proof.

HTH

Petek
 
Thanks for your hints, but still I don't know how to prove theorem 1 (I have no idea how to prove 2,4,5).

Here is a proof of theorem 1 from my notes:
an->a
=> for all ε>0, there exists N such that if n≥N => |an-a|<ε
So n≥N => a-ε < an < a+ε
=> for all N' ≥N, a-ε ≤ sup{an: n ≥ N' } ≤ a+ ε
Thus, sup{an: n≥N} -> a as N->∞
==============================

But I really have absolutely no idea why the last two lines (highlighted in blue) are true. What is the point of introducing N' ? And why is it true that for all N' ≥N, a-ε ≤ sup{an: n ≥ N' } ≤ a+ ε?

Could someone please explain?
 
for all n≥N, a-ε < an < a+ε
=> for all N' ≥N, a-ε ≤ sup{an: n ≥ N' } ≤ a+ ε[/color]

Why is this implication true? (particularly the lower bound)

Help...I am totally confused. Could someone kindly explain?
Any help is much appreciated! [I'm dying on this proof :( ]
 
kingwinner said:
for all n≥N, a-ε < an < a+ε
=> for all N' ≥N, a-ε ≤ sup{an: n ≥ N' } ≤ a+ ε[/color]

Why is this implication true? (particularly the lower bound)

Help...I am totally confused. Could someone kindly explain?
Any help is much appreciated! [I'm dying on this proof :( ]

I'll try to explain this. To simplify the notation, define

[itex]V_{N'}[/itex] = {[itex]a_n[/itex]: n [itex]\geq[/itex] N'}

and

[itex]v_{N'}[/itex] = sup {[itex]V_{N'}[/itex]}

Then [itex]V_1 \supseteq V_2 \supseteq V_3 \supseteq ...[/itex], and
[itex]v_1 \geq v_2 \geq v_3 \geq ...[/itex]

(The second string of inequalities follows from the rule that if S and T are subsets of the reals and S [itex]\supseteq[/itex]T, then sup S [itex]\geq[/itex] sup T, which you should have already covered in your class.)

Now, using the above notation, we have to show that

[itex]a - \epsilon \leq v_{N'} \leq a + \epsilon[/itex]

For the right inequality, we have that [itex]a_n < a + \epsilon[/itex], so [itex]a + \epsilon[/itex] is an upper bound for [itex]V_{N'}[/itex]. Since [itex]v_{N'}[/itex] is the least upper bound for these sets, it follows that [tex]v_{N'} \leq a + \epsilon[/itex], as required.<br /> <br /> To get the left inequality, argue as above, but use inf instead of sup. Define [itex]u_{N'}[/itex] = inf {[itex]a_{N'}: N' \geq N[/itex]}. Show that [itex]a - \epsilon \leq u_{N'}[/itex] similar to the above. Finally, observe that inf [itex]u_{N'} \leq[/itex]sup [itex]v_{N'}[/itex] and you get the left inequality.<br /> <br /> HTH<br /> <br /> Petek[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K