Hey, everyone. I'm trying to prove the following:(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

[tex] f_n [/tex] and [tex] f_n [/tex] are real-valued function in [tex] \Omega [/tex]

[tex] \{\omega: f_n(\omega) \nrightarrow f(\omega) \} = \\

\bigcup^{\infty}_{k=1} \bigcap^{\infty}_{N=1} \bigcup^{\infty}_{n=1}

\{ \omega : | f_n(\omega) - f(\omega) | \geq 1/k \}

[/tex]

I am convinced by the proof I've made up, but it isn't formal, so I would appreciate if you could help me give it more formality.

Let's call the left side of the equality L and the right side R.

L can be written:

[tex] \exists k \in \mathbb{N} \quad \forall N \quad \exists n \geq N \quad | f_n(\omega) \nrightarrow f(\omega) | \geq 1/k

[/tex]

On the other hand, the last part of R is

[tex] \bigcap^{\infty}_{N=1} \bigcup^{\infty}_{n=1}

\{ \omega : | f_n(\omega) - f(\omega) | \geq 1/k \} [/tex]

which basically takes all the [tex] \omega [/tex] that [tex] \forall N [/tex] have

at least one [tex] n \geq N [/tex] that makes the absolute difference bigger than 1/k

If you take the union for all k, then you have the definition for being in L.

Thanks in advance,

cd

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

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!

# Non-convergence written with sets

Loading...

Similar Threads - convergence written sets | Date |
---|---|

I Convergence of a recursively defined sequence | Mar 7, 2018 |

I What is this sequence that converges to ln(x) called? | Nov 21, 2017 |

A Gamma function convergence of an integral | Oct 11, 2017 |

I Divergence/Convergence for Telescoping series | Mar 25, 2017 |

Why the definition of limit is often written | Nov 3, 2011 |

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