Proving Properties of Lim Sup: Sequences and Limits

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bashyboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Properties
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
1 replies · 2K views
Bashyboy
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement



The limit superior of a sequence ##(a_n)## is defined as ##\overline{\lim}_{n \to \infty} a_n = \lim_{n \to \infty} \sup \{a_k ~|~ k \ge n \}##. Letting ##L = \overline{\lim}_{n \to \infty} a_n##, I am asked to prove the following:

(i) For each ##N## and for each ##\epsilon > 0##, there exists some ##k > N## such that ##a_k \ge L - \epsilon##.

(ii) For each ##\epsilon > 0##, there is some ##N## such that ##a_k \le L + \epsilon## for all ##k > N##.

(iii) ##\overline{\lim}_{n \to \infty} ca_n = c \overline{\lim}_{n \to \infty} a_n##

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



(iii) is rather easy to prove: it just follows from the fact that ##\sup(cA) = c \sup (A)## and ##\lim_{n \to \infty} c x_n = c \lim_{n \to \infty} x_n## for ##c \ge 0##, so I will move on to the first and second part

Let ##\epsilon > 0## and ##N \in \Bbb{N}##. Since ##L = \overline{\lim}_{n \to \infty} a_n##, then there exists a ##K \in \Bbb{N}## such that ##| \sup \{a_k ~|~ k \ge n \} - L | < \epsilon## for every ##n \ge K## or ##L - \epsilon < \sup \{a_k ~|~ k \ge n \} < \epsilon + L## for every ##n \ge K##.. On the one hand, we get ##a_k \le \sup \{a_k ~|~ k \ge n \} < \epsilon + L## for every ##k \ge K##, which proves part (ii). However, I don't see how to prove part (i). Also, as you may have noticed, I can only get strict inequality in part (ii).
 
on Phys.org
To prove part (i), assume it is false, so that there is some ##\epsilon>0## and positive integer ##N## such that ##\forall k>N:\ a_k<L-\epsilon##.

Can you get an upper bound for lim sup of the sequence from that, that is less than ##L##? If so, that's the contradiction we need.