Since ε is arbitrarily small, do the inequalities hold?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the inequalities related to the limit inferior and limit superior of a sequence, specifically under the conditions that the sequence is bounded between two values for all but a finite number of terms. Participants explore definitions and implications of these limits, as well as the conditions under which the inequalities hold.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a proof structure involving subsequences and the definition of limit points, questioning whether the inequalities hold as ε approaches zero.
  • Another participant challenges the clarity of the original post, asking for specification on the indices and the meaning of ε, and notes that limit points α and β can differ.
  • A later reply emphasizes the need for clarity regarding the assertion being proved and the definition of the supremum in the context of limit superior.
  • Multiple participants express a preference for a specific definition of limit superior, suggesting that it clarifies the assertion being discussed.
  • There is a request for clarification on the assertion that if a sequence is bounded, then the limit superior and limit inferior must also satisfy certain inequalities.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the clarity of the original post or the definitions being used. There are competing views on the interpretation of limit points and the implications of the inequalities.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the need for clearer definitions and specifications regarding the indices involved in the limits and the conditions under which the inequalities are asserted.

yucheng
Messages
232
Reaction score
57
####
If ##b \leq x_n \leq c## for all but a finite number of n, show that ##b \leq \operatorname{lim inf}_{n \to \infty} x_n## and ##\operatorname{lim sup}_{n \to \infty} x_n \leq c_n##
(Buck, Advanced Calculus, Section 1.6, Exercise 24)

Let ##\beta =\operatorname{lim inf}_{n \to \infty} x_n## and ##\alpha = \operatorname{lim sup}_{n \to \infty} x_n##. Let ##\varepsilon## be any number greater than 0. Since ##\beta## and ##\alpha## are limit points, there exists subsequences of integers ##\{n_k\}## and ##\{n_i\}##, both infinite, such that ##|x_{n_k}-\beta| \leq \varepsilon## and ##|x_{n_i}-\alpha| \leq \varepsilon## Then, ##-\varepsilon \geq x_{n_k}-\beta \leq \varepsilon## and ##-\varepsilon \geq x_{n_i}-\alpha \leq \varepsilon##. From this, we get $$b \leq x_{n_k} \leq \beta + \varepsilon$$ and $$\alpha - \varepsilon \leq x_{n_i} \leq c$$ Since ##\varepsilon## is arbitrarily small, is it true that the inequalities above become ##b \leq \beta## and ##\alpha \leq c##
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
yucheng said:
Since ##\beta## and ##\alpha## and limit points, ##|x_n-\beta| \leq \varepsilon## and ##|x_n-\alpha| \leq \varepsilon##
Did you mean "are"? For which n is that supposed to hold? You didn't specify. What is ##\varepsilon##?
In general alpha and beta can be different, so they cannot both be the limit of the sequence.

Focus on one side, the other one is completely analogous.
 
mfb said:
Did you mean "are"? For which n is that supposed to hold? You didn't specify. What is ##\varepsilon##?
In general alpha and beta can be different, so they cannot both be the limit of the sequence.

Focus on one side, the other one is completely analogous.

I apologize for my inaccurate language. Let me fix my post.
 
I prefer the following definition
$$\limsup x_n=\lim_{n\to\infty}\sup_{k\ge n}\{x_k\}.$$
With this the assertion is clear
 
wrobel said:
I prefer the following definition
$$\limsup x_n=\lim_{n\to\infty}\sup_{k\ge n}\{x_k\}.$$
With this the assertion is clear

Would you clarify which assertion? And what do you mean by ##\operatorname{sup_{k \geq n}}## (specifically ##k \geq n##)? Thanks!
 
Last edited:
yucheng said:
Would you clarify which assertion?
the assertion you are supposed to prove:
if ##a\le x_n\le b\quad \forall n\in\mathbb{N}## then ##\limsup x_n\le b,\quad \liminf x_n\ge a##
yucheng said:
And what do you mean by (specifically )?
$$\sup_{k\ge n}\{x_k\}=\sup\{x_n,x_{n+1},\ldots\}$$
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
12K
  • · Replies 100 ·
4
Replies
100
Views
12K
  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
12K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
9K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
13K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
7K