Relationship between Sup and Limsup of Sequences

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AxiomOfChoice
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relationship Sequences
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The relationship between the supremum (sup) and the limit superior (limsup) of a countably infinite sequence {x_n} is defined clearly: limsup equals sup if and only if there exists a subsequence converging to sup. In general, sup is always greater than or equal to limsup, and both concepts are only well-defined when the sequence is bounded above. For example, in the sequence 1, 1/2, 1/3, ..., the supremum is 1 while the limsup approaches 0, illustrating this relationship effectively.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of supremum and limit superior in mathematical analysis
  • Familiarity with sequences and subsequences
  • Knowledge of bounded sets in real analysis
  • Basic concepts of convergence in sequences
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of bounded sequences in real analysis
  • Learn about convergence and limit points in sequences
  • Explore examples of sequences to practice calculating sup and limsup
  • Review mathematical texts that discuss superior and inferior numbers
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of real analysis, and anyone interested in the properties of sequences and their limits will benefit from this discussion.

AxiomOfChoice
Messages
531
Reaction score
1
So if you have a countably infinite set \{ x_n \} and consider also the sequence (x_n), what's the relationship between \sup \{ x_n \} and \limsup x_n?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
limsup will equal sup if and only there is a subsequence converging to sup. In general sup is always larger or equal to limsup. Both are only well-defined if the sequence is bounded above.

limsup is the largest value for which there is a subsequence converging to it. In other words it's the largest limit point of the sequence. I may be mistaken, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:
disregardthat said:
limsup will equal sup if and only there is a subsequence converging to sup. In general sup is always larger or equal to limsup. Both are only well-defined if the sequence is bounded above.

limsup is the largest value for which there is a subsequence converging to it. In other words it's the largest limit point of the sequence. I may be mistaken, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

No, this definitely makes sense. I suppose in the case of the sequence 1, 1/2, 1/3, \ldots, we have \sup\limits_n x_n = 1 (since 1 is certainly the least upper bound), but \limsup\limits_{n\to \infty} x_n = 0 (since 0 is the only limit point of this set). Thanks!
 
AxiomOfChoice said:
No, this definitely makes sense. I suppose in the case of the sequence 1, 1/2, 1/3, \ldots, we have \sup\limits_n x_n = 1 (since 1 is certainly the least upper bound), but \limsup\limits_{n\to \infty} x_n = 0 (since 0 is the only limit point of this set). Thanks!


That seems about right, and no problem.
 
I found it very clarifying to introduce the idea of a superior number & an inferior number,
as is done in this book. Just have a look at the page above the one that comes up in the link.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K