Proving the Lemma for Bounded Sets in Real Analysis

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a lemma related to the limits superior of bounded sequences in real analysis, specifically showing that limsup(s_n + t_n) is less than or equal to limsup(s_n) + limsup(t_n).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the initial hint from a textbook regarding the supremum of sums of sequences and question the application of supremum to infinite sets.
  • Some participants suggest focusing on the characterization of limsup and exploring the properties of supremum in relation to sums of sets.
  • There are attempts to clarify misunderstandings about the definitions and properties of supremum and limsup.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing guidance on how to approach the problem. There is a recognition of the need to prove a related lemma before tackling the main problem. Multiple interpretations of the problem and its components are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express confusion regarding the definitions and properties of supremum, particularly in relation to finite versus infinite sets. The original poster is encouraged to focus on foundational aspects before progressing to the main lemma.

steelphantom
Messages
158
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Show that limsup(s_n + t_n) <= limsup(s_n) + limsup(t_n) for bounded sequences (s_n) and (t_n).

Homework Equations




The Attempt at a Solution


My book gives a hint that says to first show that sup{s_n + t_n : n > N} <= sup{s_n : n > N} + sup{t_n : n > N}. I'm not really even sure how to do that. Any ideas? Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
steelphantom said:
My book gives a hint that says to first show that sup{s_n + t_n : n > N} <= sup{s_n : n > N} + sup{t_n : n > N}. I'm not really even sure how to do that. Any ideas? Thanks!

Hi steelphantom! :smile:

sup{} can really only apply to a finite set, so I think the book must mean show that sup{s_n + t_n : n < N} ≤ sup{s_n : n < N} + sup{t_n : n < N}.

Can you do that? :smile:
 
?? What makes you say the "sup" only applies to a finite set? If, for example, sn= 1/n, Then sup{sn: n> N} is 1/N.
 
tiny-tim, what do you mean by "sup{} can really only apply to a finite set"? For instance, sup{[0,1]}=1, yet [0,1] is an infinite set.

steelphantom, ok, so clearly the book wants you to use the characterizations of limsup

[tex]\limsup_{n\rightarrow +\infty}x_n=\lim_{N\rightarrow+\infty}\left(\sup_{n> N}x_n\right)[/tex]

Following the hint of the book, try to show that more generally, for A, B two sets of real numbers,

[tex]\sup(A+B)\leq \sup(A)+\sup(B)[/tex]

Let [itex]\{a_n+b_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}[/itex] be a sequence in A+B converging to sup(A+B) [show such a sequence must exist if you haven't done it already]. Then clearly, [itex]a_n\leq\sup(A)[/itex] and [itex]b_n\leq\sup(B)[/itex] for all n, hence... (you finish)
 
quasar987 said:
tiny-tim, what do you mean by "sup{} can really only apply to a finite set"? For instance, sup{[0,1]}=1, yet [0,1] is an infinite set.

steelphantom, ok, so clearly the book wants you to use the characterizations of limsup

[tex]\limsup_{n\rightarrow +\infty}x_n=\lim_{N\rightarrow+\infty}\left(\sup_{n> N}x_n\right)[/tex]

Following the hint of the book, try to show that more generally, for A, B two sets of real numbers,

[tex]\sup(A+B)\leq \sup(A)+\sup(B)[/tex]

Let [itex]\{a_n+b_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}[/itex] be a sequence in A+B converging to sup(A+B) [show such a sequence must exist if you haven't done it already]. Then clearly, [itex]a_n\leq\sup(A)[/itex] and [itex]b_n\leq\sup(B)[/itex] for all n, hence... (you finish)

Thanks for the help! Let's see if I got it...

limsup(a_n + b_n) = sup(A + B) = lim(a_n + b_n) = lim(a_n) + lim(b_n). Since (a_n), (b_n) are <= sup(A), sup(B), respectively, then so are lim(a_n) and lim(b_n). So we have limsup(a_n + b_n) <= sup(A) + sup(B). But we have sup(A) = sup(a_n) = limsup(a_n) and sup(B) = sup(b_n) = limsup(b_n).

Finally, we get limsup(a_n + b_n) <= limsup(a_n) + limsup(b_n).

Is this correct, or am I assuming too much? Thanks again.
 
You are assuming way too much and complicating things way too much. And I also think you'Re confusing the problems at hand.

First concentrate on proving the little lemma I outlined for you (namely, for A, B two arbitrary sets of real numbers, [itex]\sup(A+B)\leq \sup(A)+\sup(B)[/itex]), and then worry about solving your problem involving limsups of the sequence s_n and t_n.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K